Morning Brew: May 2nd, 2007

The first two stories made me smile. Motorists paying out the ear is just what this planet needs.

"Motorists paying out the ear is just what this planet needs."

Sure, because for the planet's sake we must punish anyone who has different transportation needs than us.

That was sarcasm, Ben. If you're ranting about the look-at-me fat businessman in the Hummer, or the grandstanding punk in the tricked-out Honda, I'm with you. But if you want more blood from the family of five that needs to get to daycare/school/work in areas not adequately served by public transit, you're just mean-spirited.

Oh, and one more thing: leave the planet out of your personal grudges.

I don't think that there's anything wrong with your last story, the sponsors signed a contract. The government is justified in going after people for breach of contract. I guarantee that no where in the contract it states that they are bound to the terms as long as the sponsor and sponsee (if that's a word) stay on good terms with each other.

Diane, we tend to like it when our personal grudges and the planet's needs can be seen to coincide. :)

I agree with you Marc. You shouldn't have sponsored Guido if you didn't think you could properly honour the Contract that you signed. But at least the government is considering appeals, though, if I understand correctly, a sponsee (?) can go on welfare without the sponsors signature? That shouldn't be, that's for sure, unless given the mentioned special circumstances.

When you sponsor someone the forms are very clear as to what you're signing up to. Go to cic.gc.ca and have a look. My sponsorship term ends this month and we took it very seriously when we signed up.

That said, I don't think it would be unfair for Canada to change the system to one where instead of a permanent visa that a temporary one is granted for the first few months until the sponsored person has "ties to Canada" after which it would be unfair for a sponsor to pull the plug and thus a permanent visa (and the ongoing support obligation) could continue in the current fashion for the remaining term. In my view this would cope with the situations where sponsors stiff their mailorder brides but also unscrupulous sponsoreds stiff their sponsors.

Mailorder bride/groom shoppers beware. I do not disagree with the government over this. At minimum these costs should be covered 50/50 between bride/groom. I mean come on the government shouldnt be responsible for cleaning up every mess.

In the case where the immigrant runs off (it happens, folks), how is the sponsor supposed to even be aware that the immigrant is applying for or collecting social assistance?

My point: the provincial government should have a way of notifying the sponsor right away, not after 5 years of payments go to the immigrant. Or they shouldn't grant social assistance to the immigrant at all (because they have a contract-obligated sponsor).

Granting the runoff immigrant assistance and waiting 5 years to tell the sponsor what's going on is balogna (totally unfair).

"The first two stories made me smile. Motorists paying out the ear is just what this planet needs."

Idiotic and small-minded comment.

Join us in the 21st century Dave... idiotic and small minded indeed.

i still think 1.08 is a rediculously low price for a litre of gasolene.are there any more things(food,etc) that are around the same price for a litre.or is it so cheap because its so abundant?.the time is coming for us all to think about alternative methods of fuel,transportation and general stewardship of our own environments.

"Diane, we tend to like it when our personal grudges and the planet's needs can be seen to coincide. :)"

I have a personal grudge against idiots with cellphones perpetually stuck in their ears. So you must all give up your cellphones because, um, er ...they're killing honeybees!

Thanks, Matt, I think I'm getting the hang of it! ;-)