[FEAT BC Admin]

In this topic area, discussion is about the fight to secure Government funding for your A.B.A. treatment program. It is also the place to talk about your thoughts and ideas about how to establish new Government programs specifically designed for autism treatment.

This is the place to hear input from parents who have fought for funding and won, as well as those who have fought for funding and would like to share their horror stories. There is a tendency to not share success stories once funding is secured. Please fight that tendency. By sharing our experience, we all become stronger.

 

---

—-By FEAT BC (Freeman) on Saturday, January 3, 1998 – 03:16 pm:

-Hi everyone!

These are some things to think about in your dealings with government to help you to obtain support for your child’s Autism Treatment Program. These are my personal opinions and do not represent those of FEAT of BC or any other organization.

Many of these observations are based on my personal experiences (and I believe it poetic justice to help every parent avoid being systematically abused by their social worker the way I was).

Good luck to everyone! (Let’s all pull back the curtain on the Wizard of OZ).

Sabrina

 

---

How To Fight for Funding for Autism Treatment and Appropriate School Placement

1. Establish a Paper Trail

Always take notes, documenting major points of all conversations with government and school officials.

This includes casual, in person conversations with social workers as well as ALL telephone conversations. All key points of discussion must be written down in your notes including the date and time of the discussion. This includes what was agreed upon, as well as what was not agreed upon.

Then the notes should be used to write a letter recapping the substance and content of the conversation. This letter must then be mailed or faxed to the person with whom you had the conversation. In addition, a copy must be kept in your file (see section on the icci game).

Why?

It is important to formalize the interaction between you and Government officials. In addition, everyone is put on notice that they must closely adhere to their responsibilities, regulations and laws., Furthermore, they must then consider the paper trail you have created. This lets everyone know that the interaction can become public and that any abuses of power and authority can be formally appealed and/or publicized.

In other words, they canit use discretion unfairly under the cloak of secrecy.

2. Submit all Requests in Writing

All your requests for your child must be submitted formally in writing with a copy included in your file and a copy, if necessary, sent to their immediate superiors.

3. Set Deadlines for Action

All formal requests for action must have a reasonable deadline set for that action. If no action or response is received by the deadline you have set (two weeks for example), then you will interpret the lack of response as a formal declination (a formal NO) of your requests.

Why Set Deadlines?

When bureaucrats do not want to do something, they will stall by ignoring you and your request. (As an aside, in the study of the bureaucracy, this is known as ithe power to do nothingi). They can string you along for years. When you have determined that the person you are interacting with is not inclined to help you or is not dealing in good faith, then you must take the initiative and formally label his/her behavior as obstructionist and de facto as a declination (a NO to your requests). This allows you to move to the next level of authority on your timetable to present your case. This takes the power to do nothing away from the bureaucrat with whom you are dealing. Simple stated, a bureaucrat who stalls and does nothing becomes irrelevant (use your invisible spray) and you move on to the next level of authority.

How to icci?

A cc. is a copy of your letter sent to someone other than the person you are writing. You put the cc. at the bottom left-hand corner of your letter followed by 2 spaces and the name of the person or people to whom you want to send a copy of the letter.

Who to icci to?

Sometimes it is best not to icci at all, especially in the early stages of the relationship (for example, your first letter to a social worker requesting assistance). This gives them the opportunity to do the right thing and does not present you as an overly combative person. When you start to run into problems, it is a good idea to send the icci to the 2 immediate superiors of the person you are having problems with. We do not recommend icciing all the way up the chain of command, since you want to give them a chance to solve the problem at the local level.

Why send a icci copy?

The reason for playing the icci game is that you want your interactions with the official to be known to his superior and possibly to other organizations so that 1) their action or inaction becomes a matter of record and 2) the individual knows he is being monitored. This helps minimize abuses of power and authority and helps encourage the official to meet their obligations and do the right thing.

What is the sequence of letters?

Find out the chain of command of the particular bureaucracy you are battling.

TOP

Minister
Deputy Minister
Children’s Ministry’s local region chain of command, all the way down to the District Supervisor
and Social Worker
Contacts can be found at the government directory: http://www.dir.gov.bc.ca/

BOTTOM

Start at the bottom and climb. At the Regional Operating Officer (ROO) level (once you have been declined) you have to decide whether to jump up to the top, threaten and then go to the media, or both. A word of wisdom: DO NOT BLUFF. If you are not willing to go all the way, they will ‘smell’ this. You must be prepared to take it right up to the Minister and beyond.

Documentation from Experts:

In your arsenal to fight for your child, it is wise to get his/her pediatrician and/or psychiatrist to write a letter on your childis behalf. In addition, any other experts who know your child and are sympathetic to what you are trying to do should become involved.

When to hire a lawyer?

If money is not an issue, you can hire a lawyer when you get to the area manager level. Make sure that you have a paper trail so the lawyer has something to work with. Also, have the lawyer give F.E.A.T. of B.C. a call, and we will send him/her information that will help.

If money is an issue (as it is for most of us running autism treatment programs), you might want to hire a lawyer once you have been turned down by the Minister.

How to hire a lawyer?

The type of lawyer needed is a litigator, or trial lawyer. S/he does not need to be an expert in autism, or special needs; s/he needs to be experienced in suing governments, and enjoys being in court. Word of mouth is a good way to find a lawyer.

Topic

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

In another very clear example of why the autism community did not need a “Canadian Autism Partnership” bureaucracy project for “issue identification”, the already existing national “Autism Canada” society recently issued a report on autism and aging.

The National Post just posted an article about it…

Individuals with autism need support, resources as they age: report

Those who read the article will recognize many historic themes.

I remember about 12 years ago the Autism Society of Ontario also issued a report about autism and adults, which, among other things, suggested that a disproportionate amount of attention was being taken by parents of youngsters (fighting for access to treatment) and that government resources were diverted to dealing with kids (and if I remember correctly, it insinuated that this was done at the expense of adults).  I remember at the time being disappointed that the organization that claimed to be the “voice” of the autism community would issue such a report, and on a local chat board I wondered if we would ever see the Canadian Diabetes Society pit those with “juvenile diabetes” against the rest of their community.  We all know that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but it never occurred to me that the provincial Autism Society would issue a report suggesting that one sector of the community was not being appropriately served because another sector was squeaking too much.  I don’t recall the report having any significant impact on any public policy in Ontario (maybe I missed it), but I remember that a few years later the head of the Autism Society of Ontario was awarded an “Order of Canada” by the Governor-General.

So… how helpful will this report be?  How will the community use the report in its lobbying?  How will governments react? What will the effect be?  As with the case with the recent PHAC report on prevalence rates, I’m interested in what time will tell.

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

Today is “World Autism Awareness Day”.

In the House of Commons, there were a few more statements about autism recently.

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018, there was this:

Autism

<b>Hon. Mike Lake (Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC): </b>

Mr. Speaker, April 2, World Autism Awareness Day, will mark 20 years since my son Jaden’s diagnosis.

    Helen Keller once said, “Life is a succession of lessons which must be lived to be understood.” These words are very powerful for me. For example, two years ago, Jaden and I had a great day speaking to 15,000 kids at WE Day in Saskatoon. Our flight home was delayed, and suddenly Jaden got really sad. Tears streamed down his cheeks. We found a quiet place at an empty gate, and I just held him, my 20-year-old son, for half an hour, until he felt better.

    I reflect a lot on what I have learned from Jaden. Though he struggles to articulate why he feels what he feels, he expresses how he feels very openly and clearly without words. For Jaden, much more important than the words I speak is the simple fact that I am there.

    The life we live is never exactly the life we expected, but the unexpected life is where the real learning takes place.

<b>The Speaker: </b>

It is always good to have Jaden here.

    <b>Some hon. members:</b> Hear, hear!

On Thursday, March 29, 2018, there was this:

World Autism Day

<b>Ms. Pam Goldsmith-Jones (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, Lib.): </b>

Mr. Speaker, on World Autism Day, I would like to pay tribute to the leadership of Wendy and Sergio Cocchia.

     When seeking a diagnosis for their son over 20 years ago, Wendy and Sergio came to believe that every individual and family in B.C. affected by autism should have access to state-of-the-art resources for assessment, treatment, education, support, and research for full lifespan needs, from diagnosis to being a senior citizen. Now the Pacific Autism Family Network, and generous partners, have raised over $32 million.

     Over 60 organizations bring essential resources together in one very special building, and through satellite locations across B.C. This year, an additional $11 million in budget 2018 added the Autism-Intellectual Disability National Resource and Exchange Network.

West Vancouverites, like Wendy and Sergio Cocchia, Jean and the late Michael Lewis, and many more, are tireless and give so much.

It is with gratitude that we celebrate all the families on World Autism Day.

Health

<b>Mr. Darren Fisher (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.): </b>

Mr. Speaker, on April 2, we will celebrate the 11th annual World Autism Awareness Day.

    On this day, Canada will join the international community, hundreds of thousands of families and caregivers, and communities around the world that will wear blue in recognition of people living with autism.

    Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health please update the House on the government actions to help those affected by the various forms of autism spectrum disorder?

<b>Mr. Bill Blair (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Health, Lib.): </b>

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for his leadership on this file.

    Our government is committed to supporting Canadians living with autism spectrum disorder.

    I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge the compelling advocacy of the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin on this important issue as well. That is why, quite frankly, I was disheartened that the Conservatives’ recent motion went against our 2018 investment of $20 million in new funding to support people with autism spectrum disorder and their families.

    On World Autism Awareness Day 2018, I would encourage all members of this House and all Canadians to learn more about autism and how each of us can work together to make a difference.

OK, so what’s the “take-away” from these series of statements and exchanges?  Here are just some of observations…

First, even though these are Parliamentarians and one of them has a child with autism, not one of them spoke about the needs of the community, public policy gaps, and government efforts to fill the gaps and actually help (apart of course from recognizing the efforts of some parents and the recent budget contribution of $11 million).

Second, Mike Lake, as usual, seems to always avoid these public policy issues when he makes is annual “autism awareness” statement and instead mentions his son and his love for his son, which we all get of course.  Mike Lake also appears to have brought his son to the House of Commons again, as he often does to such events (e.g., the annual “Autism on the Hill” rallies), which I assume he believes helps to establish or maintain his credibility in the autism community or something.  If you watch the video of him delivering his statement, he seems to get the usual standing ovation afterwards, and I still cannot figure out for what.

Third, the exchange between Fisher and Blair is your typical political fluff.  One asks the government for an update on what the government is doing.  As far as I can tell, in the past two weeks the government has not only issued a budget with some autism implications, but also issued a first-ever report on prevalence rates.  I have not been able to find one single comment in the Hansard from the opposition parties about these developments.  So far, these developments seems to be unworthy of commentary by the Conservatives, etc.  And then the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health replies by first making a reference to the “compelling advocacy” of Mike Lake.  What “compelling advocacy”?  What is he talking about? Does he mean Lake’s advocacy against Shawn Murphy’s Bill which would have required the Minister of Health to create a National Autism Strategy? Is that the kind of advocacy that he’s cheering on? Or is it the “compelling advocacy” for the creation of the Canadian Autism Partnership (CAP) project? If it was so compelling, why did the Liberals totally ignore and reject it?  It is noteworthy that the Liberals did so without ever once actually explaining what they thought was wrong with the CAP project and why it was unworthy of their support (so much for Trudeau’s promise for more “transparency” in government). Honestly, if there is any “compelling advocacy” that actually resulted in any meaningful improvement for Canadians with autism, I would like to know about it.

After taking the moment to make the politically correct payment of a strange compliment to a political foe, Blair does not provide the requested update, but instead criticizes the opposition for some sort of motion that “went against” the budget’s announcement of $20 million for autism.  I’m not sure what motion he was referring to as I could not find any that mention “autism”, but maybe my search skills are inadequate. Finally, after this meaningless exchange, there is the wonderful closing remark about hoping that everyone can “work together” to make a difference.  Ah….we wish.

Fourth, I could not find a word about autism in the Senate debates from last week.  Parliament is on another break and won’t be getting back to business until April 16.  On April 18 there will be another of the annual “Autism on the Hill” rallies, among the guess speakers that are currently listed are two “self-advocates”, including one who is attending college.  I don’t know about you, I never heard any of those “self-advocates” say anything at these speaking events that in any way can be said to represent my son or his interests, or, to my knowledge and in my opinion,  those of any other low-functioning non-verbal community members on the spectrum.  When I hear these “self-advocates” elaborate verbally in the most eloquent manner on their challenges, I often wish that my son could trade his for theirs.  I don’t know if I will bother to go to this year’s rally as the previous ones always depressed me.  Perhaps it will depend on the weather.

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

Well, this is a historic day in the world of autism in Canada.  Back in 2006 (If I remember correctly), it was Health Minister Tony Clement who, after months of saying that “autism is provincial”, suddenly turned around and on the day before our rally on the Hill, he held a press conference and announced a five-point plan (you know, the “we’re going to build a website” type stuff, etc.) which included something along the lines of “exploring the feasibility” of surveillance.  Well, here we are, many years later, and the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) just released its first such report.  It is available here:

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/diseases-conditions/autism-spectrum-disorder-children-youth-canada-2018.html

The report will take a while to digest and evaluate.  At first glance, it seems to confirm that the prevalence rates in Canada are similar to those in the U.S.  The conclusion also states that the surveillance data can inform the development of appropriate government policies and program.  However, I don’t see any hint or suggestion that south of the border, where they seem to have considerable more experience with surveillance and more robust programs (at least in multiple states), that we should look south for an indication of what should be the next steps.  I guess it will be up to the autism community now to pick up the data and to use it effectively with respect lobbying provincial and federal governments.  Perhaps one province spends more on autism “per capita” than other provinces and this data could be used to lobby for a boost to the autism budgets in the provinces at the bottom of the list, etc. Of course, with time, trends will become available too…however, I gather that they have a retrospective section which suggests that there is a clear trend of growing numbers.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how the community reacts and uses the report, and whether PHAC will promote the report in any way and whether government health, education and social services departments will even notice and say or do anything.

 

 

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

And here is the latest update on the situation in Saskatchewan (with a provincial budget to be tabled)… sad.

Individualized funding for children with autism expected to cost $2.8 million

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

Over the past little while the media has carried some disturbing stories (familiar to all of us in the autism community) about lack of services and costs beyond the reach of most people. The media carried stories (and I posted some of them on this board) from Quebec (Montreal), Ontario (Ottawa), B.C., Saskatchewan, etc.  Now there is another story from PEI about the lack of autism services for adults who are no longer allowed to stay in the school system because of their age.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-autism-legislature-committee-stars-for-life-1.4574334

The media carries these stories and it is not hard to connect the dots…all the stories relate to the challenges of meeting the needs of people with autism at different stages of the life cycle from toddlerhood, childhood, youth, adulthood, etc. and the challenges exist in every province.  Is it time for a “National Autism Strategy” for the feds to negotiate a funding arrangement with the provinces for improved services pursuant to some national standards to try to actually make the situation and the lives of Canadians affected by autism better?  Or is it time for the federal government to spend millions on a new website and divert the resources of the Public Health Agency of Canada to promote a new anti-stigma autism awareness campaign?

 

 

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

Well, the Ontario “Progressive Conservative” Party (the current opposition party in the Ontario legislature) just elected a new leader last night to lead the party into the June provincial election.  Out of four candidates, the party members who voted picked Doug Ford, brother of former Toronto Mayor Rob Ford.  You may remember that a couple of years ago Rob Ford was the subject of many news stories that were…embarrassing (such as the pictures that surfaced of him smoking crack-cocaine or something – which he denied of course….).  Well, his brother Doug is one of these “populist” types who rails against “the party elites” (even though his father was a provincial MPP and with him being a Toronto City Councilor, the family is hardly “outsiders”, especially when they use their name to brand the “Ford Nation” of supporters across Ontario.  The PC Party has a good chance to win the next election, even if it was headed up by a donkey (polls using a fictitious leader name showed the party in the lead) because Ontario is simply fed up with the provincial Liberals.  However, I read something in the papers the other day that depressed me.  It turns out that Doug Ford once voted on Toronto City Council in favour of the creation of a group home for people with autism….sounds good, right?….but then he retracted his support when he heard that the people with autism will be allowed out of the group home and allowed to walk around the neighbourhood.  Apparently he expected them to stay indoors and out of sight.  Now he claims that he will “cut waste” (not the waist he carries but government waste), but he has not yet said how he will do that.  I’m getting nervous here….

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

Well, I just had to share this story that I just came across.

https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/ottawa-parents-paying-7000-month-in-private-therapy-waiting-for-public-funding-for-autism-1.3834966

The story apparently aired on the local CTV station in the nation’s capital, Ottawa.  I always find Ottawa autism stories interesting, not only because I live here, but because I often think it should set an example… unfortunately, too often it is of the wrong kind.  The provincial government announced about two years ago a major overhaul of the autism programs.  The initial proposed changes were dreadful….reintroducing a formal age cut off and reducing it to age five!  Well, fortunately a lot of parents and the “Ontario Autism Coalition” protested and got enough media play that the government revised their proposed changes.  Now everyone under 18 is supposed to be eligible for services.  I did not believe it when I heard it, and this news story just confirms it.  Back in 2004 the Auditor General of Ontario indicated there was a waitlist of over 1,000 kids on the Preschool Autism Program wait lists.  And this story makes reference to one family being told they were number 900 something on the current list.  So….the government announces hundreds of millions of “new” spending, but nothing seems to shorten the wait list. What is really strange is that there is a wait list for “direct funding”.  While one can understand that when the government establishes or expands a program there is a period of time where they don’t have the infrastructure and employees in place to deal with the demand, but when it comes to direct funding, what is this “wait list” all about if the money was identified in the budget?  So often it just seems like it is “smoke and mirrors” in one province after another. And “la question du jour”…..how is the new federally-funded website going to help those people on the wait list. The families in the story are spending up to $7,000 a month on therapy for siblings….how is a website going to help them?  I recently read that the organization in Montreal that is getting some of that website funding responded to an inquiry from one mother by saying that parents in the autism community wanted the website and asked for it.  I wonder….which of the families on that Ontario wait list asked for a website?

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

Well, it just keeps coming.  If it is not the media articles about lack of services for children with autism in Quebec or B.C., here is a new one from Saskatchewan with a lovely title “Survival or Autism Therapy?”:

Opinion: Survival or autism therapy? Sask. forces families to choose

I know, I know…a lot of people out there (particularly government bureaucrats) may be saying “Just hold on!  We’ve got a website coming that will reduce regional disparities and help with access to resources!”, but I suspect the person behind the article may not be won over with the “website to the rescue” argument.

On a separate note, the CASDA folks who were so excited about the CAPP project last year (the one that requested $19 million for a new bureaucracy to engage in “issue identification”, etc.) is among the first autism organization that I could find that actually posted something publicly about last week’s budget. On their Facebook page they recently wrote:

“$20M for autism in 2018 Canadian Budget. Looking forward to engaging with the Public Health Agency of Canada and CASDA CASDA members on “community-based projects that will support innovative program models, help reduce stigma, and support the integration of health, social and educational programs to better serve the complex needs of families”. We need leadership and commitment to work towards a #Nationalautismstrategy”

My understanding is that it is $9.1 million that is being allocated to the projects that are quoted above, not $20 million (the difference is going to the website project). But how are “community-based projects” going to translate into a national autism strategy? It seems to me that the reference to “help reduce stigma” is more “autism awareness” campaigns.  Those have been going on for years (I remember getting “Autism Awareness” bracelets to distribute at rallies over a decade ago from one autism organization or another, followed by pins with the puzzle symbol, car and fridge magnets, etc.)  It seems to me that it is time for those who claim to support the creation of a national autism strategy to elaborate and define what that should include.  To me, one that simply funds small community projects and autism awareness campaigns is not a real strategy to achieve much.  Where is the reference to working with the provinces to provide funding and establish national standards for timely access for diagnoses for toddlers, treatment under Medicare for youths and appropriate housing for adults, etc?

I have tried to scan Mike (the MP) Lake’s Twitter and Facebook pages to see if he has posted any comment on the budget autism provisions.  Given that they appear to not infringe on any provincial jurisdiction issue and give the impression of doing something although not really helping anybody on any waiting lists, I was wondering whether he would come out with a comparison to his pet CAPP project and make the usual partisan denunciations. But so far, as far as I can tell, nothing.  The person whom so many in our community have thanked for all his “tireless work”, etc. appears to have nothing to say so far on the budget autism provisions.  I wonder if that means he likes them but does not want to go on the public record as endorsing a Liberal Party initiative?

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

So last week a few stories came out in the media about the miserable autism program situation in Quebec and about a father spending his time protesting in Montreal in front of a provincial government office building because his seven year old girl “aged out” of a wait list for speech therapy without actually having received any therapy treatment (“La Belle Province”?).  And now, just a few days after the federal government budget and the announcement of $20 million to be spent on autism things, an article appeared at the other end of the country in the “Times Colonist” about a family with a problem…the usual… child and family wait and wait to get a diagnosis and to get help.

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/family-faces-long-waits-to-get-help-for-son-with-autism-1.23191119

I tried to find a reference in the article to how the new federal spending on an autism website to “reduce regional disparities” and “improve access to resources”, etc. would help in this case (or any other case).  I did not find it.   I guess the journalist/reporter and all the people she interviewed completely missed the connection and grounds for optimism and hope stemming from the latest federal budget.  Maybe what she could have done as part of her research and “fact-checking” for the article is ask the federal finance minister (and other federal officials) something like: “Here is a typical family in an autism crisis situation where early diagnosis and prompt access to treatment are crucial…how will your autism spending announcements in the budget relating to a website and anti-autism stigma campaigns help this family?” or “Is the federal government’s idea for shortening the wait times for diagnosis and accessing treatment to create a new website with a ‘self-diagnosis’ toolkit and ‘do-it-yourself’ treatment program? If so, could you please list the other illnesses for which the government’s solution is a similar website and DIY program?”

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

Here’s a thought… one of my personal beefs if that whenever I wish to communicate something about autism and related public policy issues to someone at the federal government, there is really no one who is the main contact person on the matter.  The Ministers for Health, “families”, “disabilities”, etc. have staff that receive correspondence and very, very little actually gets through to the Minister.  You are lucky if you get a form letter reply, if anything, many, many months later.  It is sufficiently discouraging so as to make you forget about it next time you have bright idea.  And what about the opposition members?  Well, there are a few who from time to time expose themselves as having an interest in autism and will do or say something, but realistically speaking, it is always “political” (i.e., can we score points for our side and make the government look bad?) and rarely has traction that lasts.  And of course, the self-proclaimed champions then disappear (my favourite was Glenn Thibault who was an NDP MP from Ontario who wanted to beat the autism drum after getting elected a couple of elections ago – I think Peter Stoffer actually gave him some of his own Private Members Bills on autism – and then suddenly vanished, only to reappear as the new provincial Liberal MPP energy minister in the provincial government and from whom I’ve never heard the word “autism” again, etc. – did career opportunism take precedence over actually helping Canadian with autism again? Easy come easy go!).   And what about the “unelected” politicians in the other chamber on the Hill?  Well, sometimes they reply to emails, and sometimes they don’t.  The criteria for determining whether a message is worth acknowledging and replying to (in contrast to completely ignoring) has always been a mystery to me.  Some “for your info” messages get immediate replies, while others containing discussion on public policy issues are apparently unworthy of even the courtesy of an automatic reply acknowledgment of receipt.

So it was with surprise and interest that I saw this headline in relation to the U.S. federal government:

“Feds Name New National Autism Coordinator”

Feds Name New National Autism Coordinator

Would it not be interesting (and potentially worthwhile) to create such a position (with a meaningful mandate of course) at the federal level within the existing bureaucracy at either Health Canada or the Public Health Agency of Canada?  I have written to senior bureaucrats on several occasions in the past and in some cases I got no reply and in some cases I got the form response that was the same “talking points” that the politicians used in the House to respond to questions (you know, the usual stuff about how the feds are already spending on research, etc.).  But suppose there was a specific position created with a title similar to the one above and with a meaningful mandate, who was not outside the health bureaucracy, but on the inside.  Would that give our community a contact point within the government who could serve a useful contact and communication (lobbying) purpose?

While people in such positions (particularly the oversight and regulatory functions) often begin their terms with a perception of the issues that reflects the government’s view, very often sociologists and other observers have noticed what is sometimes referred to as the “capture phenomenon” where the regulator bureaucrat has so much interaction with the parties they are supposed to regulate, that eventually their perceptions and positions evolve to reflect more and more the stances of those they are supposed to regulate.  Some such bureaucrats (e.g., diplomats) even go on to write books about the topics and become activists for the causes they believe in.  One never knows, but it is conceivable that if such a position was created in Canada, the occupant(s) may eventually become authoritative and effective advocates for our cause either while inside the job, or after.  But then again, maybe not.  Interesting to contemplate though…

 

[Author]

Replies