Frankly, Hamish, I don’t think “assuming the worst” is a strong enough phrase. I would call it “hearing what they want to hear”.
One of the things that frustrated me the most about the article was the way that these women are just not being listened to. Honestly, you’d think that if they really were in a spousal relationship, they would have given it up by now - look at how they’re being hassled! I have been in a situation where someone in authority believed things of me that were out and out lies, and nothing I could say would convince them differently, no matter how logical I was. It was the most frustrating thing I have ever experienced, and in the end I just gave up. I’m glad these women are fighting.
And an assault charge for slamming reading glasses on a table? Puh-lease.
I don’t know the penalties involved in having her deceit discovered other than being required to redo years and years of taxes and pay all the accrued interest on any taxes owed through the re-calculations, but has she thought this through with regard to things like pensions and old age security, widows benefits, that kind of thing? Cause she might be doing herself a serious disservice as she gets older.
featherlou, there is no deceit. My mother is not legally married to Vic. She never has been. They just live together. She reports 100% of her income on her forms. Vic reports 100% of his income on his forms. They do not list each other as spouses or report each other’s incomes on their forms. I don’t see how there would be a penalty for this. They report all of their incomes, they just don’t do it together.
As for the benefits, my mother has said that she doesn’t want the responsabilities or the benefits. She has her own RRSP and CPP. Vic doesn’t work for a company like GE or anything, so they won’t get anything from his employer when he retires or dies. Financially, my mother is a single person. She’s got her own savings for retirement.
If it turned out that the women were involved in a romantic relationship, and were living as a couple - pooling money, buying things jointly, etc… would you then agree that the welfare benefits paid to Ms. Houde?
Hell yes. But the fact is, they have a landlord-tenant relationship when it comes to their personal property, a friendship on the side, and zero romantic attachment to one another. Therefore, they should be subject to the landlord-tenant sections of the law regarding welfare payments. Not the spousal sections.
IIRC (Law and Justice was lo these many years ago), there are only a few states in the union which recognize common-law marriages, and there are very specific rules about what does and does not constitute a common-law marriage. The details vary from state to state, but there are a few things that are universal. You have to have shared a household for a certain amount of time (I think 7 years is the most common), you have to have combined finances, and you have to represent yourselves as being married. If kfl’s mom was wearing a wedding band or calling herself Mrs. Vic, then she’d most likely be in an actual common-law marriage. She’s not, though. She’s not representing herself as being married to this man in any way, and AFAIK the government wouldn’t consider her married to him. The state sees her as single, and she represents herself as being single, so there’s no deceit here.
:smack: D’oh! Of course… Canada has two legal systems as well as two languages. Common Law is the system used in all provinces except Quebec, which uses a Civil Law/Civil Code legal system. Hence the Harmonization Bill – they are trying to iron things out so that federal laws are accessible by both traditional systems.
“Common-law status” and Quebec “civil union” provide couples with marriage-like legal status with certain variations (like division of property, and whether or not you can testify against your spouse). It does vary somewhat depending on Family Law of different provinces.
In vague general: (from Wikipedia)
Under normal** circumstances, if you never intended your living arrangement to be marriage-like, you’re not considered in a civil-union. So if you have the same roommate throughout grad school, no worries that you may be “married.”
**Normal meaning you don’t have weirdo gossipy dumbfuck neighbours trying to make you look like welfare scammers.
CrazyCatLady, both the case in question and kungfulola’s mom are in Canada. Canada has much less stringent laws about common-law and de facto relationships. Definitely less than 7 years is necessary.
I’m myself very concerned about this. I’m planning on moving in with my boyfriend in September, and I do not want to be considered by the government as in a marriage until I consider myself in a marriage darnit!
I figure “De Facto Union” and “Common-Law” marriage pretty much comes down to the same thing, you’re pretty much married without having a religious or civil ceremony. Right down to having a legal “contract for living together” (much like a prenuptual agreement).
(follow my train of thought here…)
I’m in Montreal, Quebec. They’ve been talking about this story all day on CJAD800 (a talkshow AM station). I’ve been thinking all day: If they’re so ready to assume that two women are lesbians, living together in a romantic way, and fining them for not declaring this relationship…
(keep following…) Why are gay marriages not recognized in Quebec???
It’s just FUCKED up that you can be FINED for not declaring that you’re in a gay relationship, yet you can’t legally declare that you’re in a gay relationship.
That could have come out much better, but I hope you got the point.
I certainly agree with you that if their finances are separate, if they are not supporting one another, then - regardless of any romance - then Ms. Houde should not be required to pay back welfare benefits to which she was legally entitled.
My question now, though, is: how is it you’re so certain that the government is wrong and Ms. Houde and Ms. Bussey unfairly accused?
From what I read, they deny any relationship other than the one you attribute to them. This could well be true, of course, but it’s also true that their denial is self-serving. There seems to be additional evidence that the government is considering against them. It’s unclear to me exactly what that evidence is. If I had to make a decision right now, on the facts adduced so far, I’d clearly decided in favor of Ms. Houde. But the government seems to be relying on additional facts that are not public. My question to you is: why are you so sure the government’s complete case is worthless, when you don’t know what else they’re relying on?
But we do know some of what they are relying on, which include the facts that the women share a mailbox, and that Ms. Bussey charged meals for two to her credit card a couple of times (and they’re not even 100% they were meals for two). Really, if anything actually existed between the women, don’t you think the investigators would have something better than that? The investigators didn’t even know that Houde was in a 29-year long relationship that ended in 2002! How thorough could their investigation possibly have been?
It’s not the fact that Houde and Bussey are being investigated that ticks me off, I’m all for fair and legal means being used to investigate people suspected of fraud. However, the agency obtained information from another ministry, which is illegal. They refused to hand over their unabridged report to the women’s lawyer, which may not be technically illegal (it should be, IMHO), but is certainly unfair. They are also abusing the criminal justice system to intimidate Houde, which is underhanded, slimy and mean.
Not to mention that someone would have to have a lot of balls to sue over being called a lesbian if they were, actually, a lesbian. The fact that Bussey’s lawyer didn’t laugh in her face when her slander suit was proposed tells me that the evidence is in favour of Bussey not being a rugmunching discodyke.
I’ll tell you why I believe their story above that of my government’s. My government has crippled itself almost to a halt, with bureaucracy. I swear, the average high school graduate could do a better job than these people. You hear about their brainiac ideas every day and you just can’t believe the shit.
I have a friend who had severe back problems (underwent a discectomy / laminectomy and a few years later a bone graft from her hip to “sauder” her vertibrae together). At the time, she was working in a place that demanded moderate pressure on her back, all day. She was paid long-term insurance for 18 months, at which point it’s protocol for the insurance company to stop payments unless you have an extreme medical condition. She had two choices: Go back to work or go on welfare while you fight the insurance company. Forget her own job, she couldn’t work at ANY job. So she decided to fight the insurance company while collecting welfare.
Welfare paid her $518/month. Her rent was $490. She exhausted her credit cards and wasn’t making it anymore. She had an ex-boyfriend with whom she went out with for 10 years. They had broken up about 2 years earlier. They’d been through thick and thin, together. She’d been there at his darkest moments. It was a friendly break-up. She called him out of desperation, for financial help. He told her to add all her bills up and give him the total amount, which she did. He wrote her a cheque for her bills, plus the next month’s bills and rent.
Two months later, she gets a call from Welfare. They basically asked her how she could live on the amount they were paying. (Funny in a sick sick way, but that’s another topic). They set up an apointment with her and instructed her to bring all of her bills and a statement from her landlord for what she owed on her rent. With all of that paperwork in hand, she showed up at the Welfare office.
She showed that for a while, she was paying her bills off her credit cards. Then they spotted the CREDIT $1700 on her bank statement. They asked her what that was. She said a friend of hers had lent her the money. They let it go at that, and a week later, she got registered mail from them saying that they’ve declared her to have committed WELFARE FRAUD and they wanted all the money they’ve paid her plus a few thousand as a fine. I think the total came to $7000. Cherry on the Sundae was that her welfare payments were stopped immediately.
She fought it. She won. But it took several court appearances, an affidavit signed by her ex, as well as some extra cash from him. Complete crap.
I have often tried to work out why any woman seen in my company is assumed to be my lover, after all, I really am not terribly attractive but it doesn’t seem to matter, if I happen to walk to the supermarket with my 18 year old neighbour who is terribly straight we are pointed at and tut-tutted and I can see strangers trying to work out how to save her. Leechbabe has sufferred some homophobia for being my friend.
I think the thing is that we dykes are so evil only other lesbians could bear to be near us, no straight woman would lower herself to our level. The neighbours clearly suffer from this disorder (as do my neighbours, I am sure they think I am bonking every female visitor to my home when in fact it has been so long since I last bonked that I ache) and it also affects those bureaucrats.
I really wish I had an answer, I hate having to warn women friends that there may be repurcussions from shopping with me, it is just so incredibly ridiculous. At least here at the moment the only advantage to not being recognised by the government is that when I lived with a lover and became ill I could write on all my forms same sex relationship and they could do nothing to benefits at all. I did so as a protest at every opportunity. I will gladly give up that loophole for full recognition.
It’s unclear to me how fairly the report is being summarized by the paper. I say this because the story is clearly written to be sympathetic to the problem. On the other hand, welfare officials apparently refused to comment, so it’s hard to fault the paper for reporting only one side of the story.
If they are relying on a report that they’re refusing to hand over, it is absolutely unfair. At the very least, Ms. Houde should have the oppotunity to hear and respond to specific allegations.
You make a pretty good case against the government. I buy it.
Woo hoo! This is the smartest day of my life! sniff
I guess I should have given some context, as well; in the past few years there has been a kind of undeclared war on the poor in Canada. Governments are pressed to shorten the welfare rosters and lower unemployment rates. It’s become tougher to get Employment Insurance. There are affordable housing crises all over the place, especially in Montreal, where I live. Montreal has also recently created new codes for crimes, like being part of a gathering of youths (I am not making that up). Don’t even get me started on the Harris government. That man just burned Ontario right to the ground. He unravelled the social safety net so completely that when McGuinty came to power, all that was left of it was a ball of string.
This is typical of the tactics that desperate governments are resorting to. It’s almost as though they want to create more homelessness, because if you don’t have an address, you can’t collect a welfare cheque. Voila! Instant welfare roster shrinkage.
That is why I believe these women; because they fit the pattern.
The homeless are officially invisible. Governments therefore consider themselves as having no social responsibilities toward them. The more poor that are homeless, the fewer poor showing up on the reports which can make the government look bad. When all people living under the poverty level are homeless, they can sweep the whole poverty problem under the rug and suddenly…UTOPIA!
It’s not so much a tinfoil hat as a tasteful lamè cap, set at a suitably rakish angle…
The difference is, the de facto union carries no automatic rights. You have go down to a lawyer and sign that contract. Common-law marriage is automatic, after a certain number of years, if you’re living with someone and have a sexual relationship with them.
Hence, the need for a civil union.
Gay marriage isn’t recognized in Quebec because provincial governments have no power to define “marriage.” The definition of marriage is a federal power, as defined in our constitution.
The reason that gay marriages are only recognized in Ontario and BC is because the Ontario Court of Appeals, then the BC Court of Appeals, ordered the federal government to change the law, and in the meantime ordered their own provinces to start offering gay marriage. Neither Court of Appeal could order the other provinces to do that, so either the federal government would have to change the law, or the Quebec Court of Appeal would have to hear a case on gay marriage, then order the federal government to change the law, then order Quebec to offer gay marriage immediately.
The gist of it is, the province can’t change it. Only the federal government – or the province’s court – could. And the court could only change it if a gay-marriage case was brought before it.
Well, since I’m not the only one here with a shiny fedora, I can’t help but imagine there’s some asshole somewhere in the Welfare department who’s using the de facto union law to target heterosexual roommates in effort to discredit actual same-sex de facto unions. Can you imagine what the straight suprmacists are going to do with this story? “The government is going to force straight people into gay marriages! We’ve got to outlaw all same-sex legal protections before it’s too late!” The situation is such perfect homophobic propaganda it simply has to have been manufactured for that purpose.
The nice thing about my hat is, when I’m done wearing it, I can use it to bake a potato.
