Can we talk about condition 51? (Discussion)

[dominokitty]

I'm curious how everyone here feels about condition 51 on spousal permanent residents (the 2 year cohabitation requirement to keep PR after landing).

Personally I think it's a great idea and I'd be sad to see it go - it's one of the only things that exists to protect the Canadian sponsor from being taken advantage of and takes away some of the incentive for fake marriages of convenience. However I have seen others on the forum who call it "sick" and "wrong" to place conditions on permanent residency.

I'm open to changing my view but honestly I feel suspicious of people who oppose the condition - mainly because it's a non-issue for my husband and I.. I married my husband expecting that we will be together for life, after all, so it does not affect me at all. And if we broke up, he would want to go back to his home country regardless, since that's where his family is. So I don't really see what the big deal is unless you're using spousal sponsorship as an easy ticket into Canada for other reasons, in which case I would argue that CIC should probably be looking much closer at the validity of your relationship.. I don't know. I hope I haven't offended anyone!

So, what's your opinion? Why do you feel that way?

 

[CDNPR2014]

I was the applicant and received condition 51. I agree with it on the merits of limiting immigration fraud. it's sad to hear the stories of sponsors waiting for their spouse to land, only for them to run off and disappear. it's shameful!

My condition will be over this August, and while i'm excited to have it removed, I don't foresee there being any difference in our marriage or lives because of it being over. my husband probably doesn't even know what it means (even though i'm sure i've explained it).

 

[Ponga]

Personally, I think this problem is two-fold:

1. Condition 51 in place for good reasons and anyone in a genuine relationship shouldn't be concerned with having it, right?

2. The bigger issue, IMHO, is that the Liberals are boasting about `granting immediate PR to spouses', but unless they implement a new procedure...removing Condition 51 will NOT do anything to grant immediate PR.

All applicants go through the same process and are given PR as soon as they land. If the Liberals want to keep their promise, they will have to give an applicant PR as soon as CIC has received their application...before anything has been verified with sponsor, applicant and their relationship. How does that make sense?!

Give them an immediate WP, so that they can start to contribute to their new life in Canada, but defer PR until they've earned it.

 

[keesio]

Condition 51 makes sense. My wife had it and it made no impact at all in our lives. When it expired, we didn't even know.

 

[keesio]

2. The bigger issue, IMHO, is that the Liberals are boasting about `granting immediate PR to spouses', but unless they implement a new procedure...removing Condition 51 will NOT do anything to grant immediate PR.

I think we all know they played with the wording for political gain.

 

[Pari123]

Yup I agree too, it does protect the Canadian sponsor and does not affect any couple in a genuine relationship. They should keep condition 51

 

[keesio]

Some useful background on when CIC started thinking about Condition 51:
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2010/07/16/fastest_way_to_get_to_canada_marriage.html

What triggered it was a class action lawsuit against the government for not doing enough to protect Canadian sponsors.

 

[dominokitty]

Some useful background on when CIC started thinking about Condition 51:
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2010/07/16/fastest_way_to_get_to_canada_marriage.html

What triggered it was a class action lawsuit against the government for not doing enough to protect Canadian sponsors.

That's very interesting - thank you for linking it!

 

[keesio]

That's very interesting - thank you for linking it!

I remember when it all went down. There was an artist (I think in Montreal) who sponsored her ex-husband and he abandoned her after landing and went on welfare and she got stuck paying it back. She felt her plight was ignored so she dressed up in her wedding dress, tied a big cross to her back (to symbolize her burden of financial responsibility) and walked around. It worked because she was on the news. That triggered the whole discussion (at least as far as I can remember)

 

[keesio]

I remember when it all went down. There was an artist (I think in Montreal) who sponsored her ex-husband and he abandoned her after landing and went on welfare and she got stuck paying it back. She felt her plight was ignored so she dressed up in her wedding dress, tied a big cross to her back (to symbolize her burden of financial responsibility) and walked around. It worked because she was on the news. That triggered the whole discussion (at least as far as I can remember)

Oops, she was from Ottawa and she was carrying around a door not a cross:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/many-canadians-who-sponsor-a-foreign-spouse-find-themselves-jilted/article570171/

 

[dominokitty]

Wow - leave it to an artist to come up with such a powerful symbol

The important thing is that she managed to get people talking about this problem. It would be a shame to lose the progress that was made. I've been very happy so far with the decisions Trudeau is making, and I did vote for him, but I don't think getting rid of Condition 51 is the right thing to do.

 

[CofRed]

I think condition 51 is a good measure in place. But I also think that if the conditions are removed, they should also reduce the sponsor's contract by a year or two. This would then at least give the sponsor some security.

In an unfortunate event, if sponsor becomes victim of fraud and the sponsored person claims benefits, sponsor shouldn't be held responsible for it. Just my opinion

 

[mikeymyke]

What Condition 51? My wife and I have been living together for a year and a half now and we dont even see how this affects us at all, its like it doesnt even exist. She can do pretty much everything a non Condition 51 PR holder can

 

[scylla]

I think condition 51 is a good measure in place. But I also think that if the conditions are removed, they should also reduce the sponsor's contract by a year or two. This would then at least give the sponsor some security.

In an unfortunate event, if sponsor becomes victim of fraud and the sponsored person claims benefits, sponsor shouldn't be held responsible for it. Just my opinion

I'm of a different opinion. I think the three year sponsorship obligation is completely fair. If someone isn't willing to sign up for this as a sponsor, it makes me question if the relationship is solid enough to merit sponsorship. Reducing the obligation would also increase marriage fraud since now someone would be able to go on welfare after a year with no consequences. We know there are people who create fake relationships to facilitate visas - and even examples where the sponsor is paid and involved in the fraud. This isn't so attractive when there is a risk you might be on the hook for three years of welfare payments - much more attractive if it's just a year (also a cheaper pay off to engage in the fraud). I don't want to be on the hook for that mess as a taxpayer. Sponsors are adults who need to be held responsible for their decisions - good and bad. Sponsoring someone for PR is not to be undertaken lightly - the three year obligation reinforces this.

 

[Ponga]

The three year obligation pertains to all sponsors, including those under the Condition 51 umbrella.

Abolishing conditional PR couldn't possibly remove that obligation as well.