On [log in to unmask], Susan Smethurst[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
wrote:

> >I have not heard any mention about the fact that harris yesterday
> >summarily cancelled the $37 monthly supplement to pregnant women on
> >welfare because he doesn't want the money wasted on beer.
>
> What's to comment on? Every time this man opens his mouth he makes some
> other outrageous statement that shows a complete lack of understanding of
> real people and their needs and concerns. The list is endless.

I found this move going way beyond outrageous statements.  In light of the
governments supposed commitment to "Healthy Babies" this move is totally
indefensible.  To quote Ian Morrision, co-chair of the Ontario Social
Safety Net  "this is like pulling wings off flies".

Just a few comments.

How much money does the government spend on beer?  Is there some way to
find out?  I have seen receptions where wine has been served.  I would
guess that it would be under 10% of what is currently spend a year on this
benefit  to pregnant women on welfare.

The benefit was never targeted to food, so the line that women can ask
their doctors for a note just does not fly.

We know that access to prenatal care  is one of the most important factors
that affect outcomes, with the cost of travel it is easy to see this
benefit eaten up on that alone.  In addition prenatal vitamins cost over
$15. a month.

Over 40% of violence in a domestic relationship start while a women is
pregnant and 21% of  all assaults occurred during pregnancy, over half a
million women in Canada over the age of 16 have experienced violence by a
partner during pregnancy.  I wonder why we would have pregnant women on
welfare???

I understand that since the U.I. changes that the numbers of women
qualifying for U.I. maternity benefits dropped by half, at the same time
the number of women in the workforce or having babies did not change.
 Again, I wonder why a pregnant women would be on welfare?

The benefit rate for a women with one child on welfare in Ontario is $957.
(if she is paying over $511 on shelter)  and for a single person it is
$520.

I am not sure of the government's intent in announcing this change, I think
they were hoping to turn people attention and hatred towards women who
access welfare during pregnancy to have the public believe that recipients
were having unlimited children, although recently the National Council on
Welfare announced that less then 1% of the caseload in Canada is mothers
under 20 and that families on welfare have fewer children then the national
average.  In addition we know that 93% of the children who's parents are
forced to turn to welfare were born before their parents went onto the
system.

For the women who are pregnant and on welfare and really for all the women
on welfare in the province this statement from the Premier was one of pure
hatred and an indication of continued economic violence planned for women.

Sorry for the rant, I am hoping that there is continued outrage not only
about this move but the effects of the rates cuts and the relation of the
benefits to the actual level of expenses.

S
--
Sherrie Tingley
[log in to unmask]