Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Tuesday, 7 Apr 1992 09:50:30 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Having Babies in the Great White North (Re: The Voices of Women)
 <1992Apr3.111600.12898@hemlock.cray.com> <1992Apr4.145454.25907@cs.dal.ca>
 <1992Apr4.185510.21498@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>

Oh no, Keith Cochran asks about Canada and I can't help myself
in article <1992Apr4.185510.21498@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> says:

>In article <1992Apr4.145454.25907@cs.dal.ca> Steve Franklin writes:

>>   Here in Canada we have improved the benefits of mothers staying
>>at home with children. We now give benefits for each child that is
>>raised in a household. Support is there for the mother, and counselling
>>is available from many Christian-based support-offices. Maybe you're
>>living in the wrong country?

I didn't see the original post, but as someone who does live here
and is a single mother, maybe you'd like to tell me where all this
support is located?  I would have loved to stay at home with my
child.  In  some respects it may be easier in Canada to go it alone
because of the social programmes, but don't for a minute think its
some kind of rose covered gravy train either.

>Which has NOTHING to do with your original statement that a woman could work
>for the first 7 or 8 months of her pregnancy.  Does Canada give benefits for
>women who are PREGNANT with their first child, and have to stay home, or just
>for women who are RAISING children?

Yes and no.  Canadian labour laws ensure that women receive 21 weeks
of maternity leave from the government - its an offshoot of the
Unemployment Insurance programme and is only available to women who
have worked long enough to be eligible for UIC payments (21/28 weeks
total in the previous year depending on the area).  However, any
woman who is pregnant and unable to work would be eligible for
welfare and family assistance.

Under labour laws no woman can lose their job because of
maternity leave.  However job loss, particularly during
recessionary times and in certain industries, is difficult to
prove and the onus is on the woman to lay and pursue the
complaint.

Some large scale employers offer paid leave which can be added
to UIC payments, extending the paid time.  Some large employers
will allow employees to extend their maternity leave *without*
pay.  Most large employers have disability and sick leave plans
that include *some* maternity related illnesses.  However, again
in the service or small industries this is not the case.

In my case (this was before the 21 weeks), I had to quit
work a month and a half before the birth of my child due
to toxemia.  If I had not had an understanding and
sympathetic employer I would have had to quit even earlier.
I had to laugh at Kevin Welch talking about pregnant
women excercising - I was ordered to stop all excercise
and strenuous activities at 6 months.  Further if I had
not had an understanding and sympathetic employer, plus
been in a financial position to stay home without needing
my income at that time, my son would have been 11 weeks
old when I would have been required to return to work.  It
is virtually impossible to find a licensed day care that
will take a child that age, not to mention not being in
the best interests of the child.

My aunt's son was born 3 months premature, in a town 300 miles
from her home. The child was hospitalized for 4 months.  Under
UIC rules the 17 weeks have to be taken either immediately
preceeding or following the birth of the child.  As a result,
not only did she have to leave the child in the hospital and
return to work, she was unable to stay home with the baby when
he was released.  I should also mention that as a result of
being born 3 months premature this child is permanently disabled.

I have no idea what Mr. Franklin is talking about when he says
"we have improved the benefits of mothers staying home with
their child".  UIC payments are 2/3rds of the previous salary,
with a maximum ceiling.  I have no idea what the maximum
is now, when I was on leave it was about $700 per month.  I
do know that for any woman who has obtained the minimum
number of hours or earnings the maximum rate is currently
$250.00 per month.

Currently the Federal government pays $33.00 per month
in a baby bonus for each child - hardly a benefit,
except to keep said child in one shoe.  Welfare payments while
higher than in the US, are still below poverty levels and
are seen as a detriment to a child's development socially,
intellectually and emotionally.  There is a child tax credit
which is again small.  Working parents can write off a
maximum of $4,000 for child care expenses - last year I paid
over $6,500 in day care fees alone.  The province of Quebec in
an attempt to boost its population base does provide a one time
payment of $3,000 for the first, $5,000 for the second and $7,000
for the third child.

Wrt the $33.00 baby bonus this is apparently being dismantled
and replaced with something that will aid those below the
poverty line - so they say.  I haven't recieved the information
on this yet.  Although I fail to see how it will help since
the current government has also abandoned national day
care programming.

Regarding working mothers the situation is bleak.  While
there are day care sites available, few can afford the
fees.  In Toronto alone there is a 2 year waiting list for
subsidies.

Nevertheless, possibly as a result of an environment that is
a little friendlier to women having children, the Canadian
abortion rate is about half the US.  Fewer women are giving
their children up for adoption, 60%(1) of single women in general
and 50% of teenagers who chose to bear their children now keep
them (2).

Ontario for example has a programme that allows teenagers to
receive welfare, subsidized housing and day care while
attending school.  Further the number of abortions performed
on Canadian teens has declined by 8% in the last 10 years.

Also of course, the cost of having children is not as
applicable as it is in the US. In Ontario every legal
resident is eligible for health care at no cost to the
individual.  This includes pre and postnatal care.  However,
except for those on welfare and women working for companies that
have drug plans, prescription drugs are not covered and
expensive.  Plus as anyone who has been pregnant knows, even the
uncovered extras such as vitamin and mineral supplements can add
up over 9 months.  Not to mention the extra food one is required
to eat.

1) Royal Commissionon New Reproductive Technologies
2) Vanier Institute of the Family In Ottawa

>=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker and Susan, and Damm Proud Of It!

Oh, Keith I'm hurt, is it the Canadian tendency to babble?
I'll try and stop, if it means I can be an "ex" too.


Linda - who knows Keith is now muttering, why, why did I ask
--
T.S.A.K.C.
"All that has been written about women by men should be suspect
 for men are at once judge and party to the lawsuit"
 Francois Poulain de la Barre, 1673