I don't want to complicate this, because there are many shades here. Let's say I'm a sponsor with a track record of sponsoring spouses and then divorcing, with shades of marriage of convenience. That we should not tolerate, and that's why the word “first” sponsorship was added by the committee. As I recall, we didn't want to have to tolerate people who abused our system. It's a small percentage, but that is why this reads the way it does.
A lot of committee members provided their wisdom in fine-tuning the original motion. That's why it reads “first” in-Canada sponsorship, and so on.