I should note that before 2012 there was an ongoing problem of what's called, in Canada, sponsorship breakdown. I think this term is a little too neutral for me. It's when someone is in an abusive situation with their sponsor and they are awaiting the regularization of their status—for example, an inland application for permanent residence; that's an ongoing problem. The conditional two-year permanent residence extends that period of time in which someone has to remain in a conjugal relationship.
We are currently conducting research on this in Alberta and Ontario. Although it is at this point preliminary, I've known of several cases of people coming forward where women who are in shelter or who are seeking advice about the abuse in their relationship are fearful. The evidentiary requirements are very vague. The information that CIC officers have is very uneven. Some people call CIC and do not get accurate information. Sometimes investigations are happening where the spouse of the potential victim of abuse is investigated as well as other family members, and sometimes those cases are deemed not abusive enough to warrant the exception. I think this is a very dangerous practice.
So if we look at the implementation of how the exception is being carried out, I think there are a lot of areas to pay attention to. I do think that, overall, conditional permanent residence creates an unfair and dangerous legal tie where a spouse has control over their spouse. I did similar research in the United States when they passed the immigration marriage fraud amendment in 1986. I believe concerns in the United States have also created and pushed for legal remedies for what they call, in U.S. law, the “battered immigrant”. If Canada is going to keep with this conditional permanent residence, which I think is a wrong idea, I would like to see Canada consider better options for victims of abuse to seek safety without the cooperation of their abuser.