[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,

Well, the vote on the Opposition Motion regarding the funding of this “Canadian Autism Partnership” Project bureaucracy took place yesterday. Apparently, the day before the Liberal Cabinet indicated it would vote against it.

167 voted against.

130 voted in favour.

Accordingly, the motion was defeated.

Thus, after 11 years in the House of Commons as an MP, this may appear to be the culmination of all his efforts on the autism file. If he could not do something while his party was in power, I would be surprised if he achieved something meaningful from the opposition.  I remember shortly after Mike Lake was elected that he was interviewed by John Ivison of the National Post, and a huge spread appeared in the paper about Mike Lake, along with pictures. I bumped into Mr. Ivison shortly afterwards on a downtown Ottawa street and spoke with him about the article. He said “He did not run on autism”.

However, the real question is “now what?”

Our community already knows what the issues are and we don’t need a new bureaucracy to “identify issues”.  What we need is for our politicians at the federal and provincial levels to show some resolve and negotiate a funding formula that would settle the Auton case issue which has been waiting for a resolution since the Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision in November 2004.

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

Today is apparently the day in the House of Commons that a vote will take place on Mike Lake’s motion for the government to fund his “Canadian Autism Partnership” pet project.  We’ll see when the Hansard comes out tomorrow whether it contains a list of the MPs who voted for and against.

It is interesting that at a federal Liberal Party policy convention about two years ago one of the policies that was voted on and adopted involved negotiating a funding formula with the provinces to ensure access to autism treatment under Medicare. It seems that the Liberals have completely forgotten that policy and have left it to gather dust on the shelf.

Meanwhile, today in Quebec the media is reporting that the family of one six year old girl with autism have decided to go to court and sue the provincial government over their (lack of) autism services.  It seems that this young lady got to the top of the speech therapy wait list, but if she takes it, she will be removed from the occupational therapy wait list.  I remember that the Quebec government took a long time to develop and autism program and that they unveiled it a little while ago.  And that’s what those nincompoops can come up with. So rather than calling on all the provinces to meet with the feds on a priority basis and negotiate a funding accord (as was done with other health issues), the House of Commons is going to vote on a motion that is non-binding (i.e., even if a majority of MPs vote yes, the government is not obligated to do anything) regarding the creation of another bureaucracy that will be dedicated to the task of “issue identification” (as if none of us know what the issues are).

http://globalnews.ca/news/3487162/montreal-family-takes-legal-action-against-quebec-over-autism-services/

Cheers,

Andrew Kavchak

Ottawa

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

FYI, for those who may be interested, it appears that the vote on Mike Lake’s CAP motion will take place in the House of Commons on Tuesday, May 30.  The motion wording is below.  Motions in the House of Commons are “non-binding”. Thus, a politician may vote “yes” on a motion, but if it came later came forward in the form of a Bill (draft legislation), one should not be surprised if they flip-flop and vote “no”.

“May 5, 2017 — Mr. Lake (Edmonton—Wetaskiwin) — That, given that: (a) Autism Spectrum Disorder (“autism”) is widely considered the fastest growing neurological disorder in Canada, impacting an estimated 1 in 68 children; (b) it is a lifelong diagnosis that manifests itself in a wide-range of symptoms, including difficulty communicating, social impairments, and restricted and repetitive behaviour; (c) individuals with autism and their families face unique challenges over their lifespan, often leading to families in crisis situations; and (d) Autism Spectrum Disorder is not just a health issue—it has overarching implications for Canadian society as a whole; accordingly, the House call on the Government to grant the $19 million over 5 years requested by the Canadian Autism Partnership working group, Self-Advocates advisory group, and the Canadian Autism Spectrum Disorders Alliance, in order to establish a Canadian Autism Partnership that would support families and address key issues such as information sharing and research, early detection, diagnosis and treatment.”

On a related note, I noticed that Green Party chief Elizabeth May participated in the “debate” on the motion last Thursday. One of the things she raised was the absence of any mention of a National Autism Strategy in the recent federal budget. She subsequently posted a video of herself asking the question (and the non-answer by the government MP) on YouTube. I can’t wait for her video to go viral.

Cheers!

Andrew Kavchak

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

Here are some thoughts from that “what goes around, comes around” school of evolution and progress.  I was reflecting some more on the nature of the “debate” on Mike Lake’s motion in the House of Commons this past Thursday regarding his seeking government financial support for his “Canadian Autism Partnership” pet project.  I remember once reading an article in a newspaper back in the 1990s that summarized the findings of an English study on the nature and character of politicians. The article concluded that politicians generally have the ability to lie to people and then have no problem to look at themselves in the mirror. That lack of conscience is frequently associated with the description of a “sociopath”.  Well, in democracies where parties frequently take turns in government and opposition, it gives politicians the ability to be on both ends of the giving and receiving of … shall we say… “untruths”.

So what am I getting at?  Well, Mike Lake again.  When his party was on the government side, he used numerous arguments to try to obstruct our seeking federal government action to try to get Medicare coverage for autism treatment.  I have already described many of these in previous posts over the years. On occasion he would not “believe” the CDC prevalence rate (that minimizes the problem), or he would say it is not a federal jurisdiction issue, or he would suggest that the federal government is already doing lots by spending lots of money on research, or he would suggest, as he did during his recent speech at the “Autism on the Hill” annual rally, that we should heed the advice of the “self-advocates” because they are the most important spokespeople for the autism community (although those who can speak are clearly high-functioning [more likely to have Aspergers than classical autism], rarely need or promote ABA, and rarely acknowledge the challenges and needs of those more severely affected by the disorder, etc. – how convenient!), etc.

So what happened during the debate on Thursday?  Much of the debate involved MPs making speeches about what they know about autism and whether or not they support the motion, etc.   However, several times during the debate questions were put to the Liberal Party. Kevin Lamoureux (a misnomer if there ever was one!) who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, provided several replies. However, if you go through his frequent interjections and replies, they are truly disappointing. First, even though he was apparently the “health critic” in the Manitoba legislature for a while, he either never really understood autism and the related public policy challenges, or he seems to have conveniently forgotten about it all.  You really have to read some of his comments to get a grasp of this “ostrich” style of debate.

One of the things Lamoureux did was remind everyone that not everyone with autism is in trouble from a functionality point of view. Again, he refered to some bright lights (e.g., Albert Einstein [spelled Eienstein in Hansard] and Dan Akroyd) and stated the most helpful and obvious: “Because someone has autism, it does not mean he or she is completely dysfunctional. In fact, those people are just as lovable as individuals without Asperger’s syndrome and can function fully in society in many different ways. We should also talk about that.” The reference to autistic people being “lovable” is such a reflection of Mike Lake’s annual statement in the House during “Autism Awareness Day” where he never says anything about public policy issues, but gives charming statements about what a lovable person his autistic son is.

He further refered to the millions ($39 apparently over five years) being spend on research through the CIHR. Then he tried to minimize the size of the problem by saying it is not the “most important issue” because “Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder” is destroying the lives of many children in Manitoba (you see, here is that need to pit the disabled against the disabled pursuant to the “divide and conquer strategy” of the shameless).

He further went on to say that the Minister of Health gets thousands of requests on a variety of issues and is doing the best it can on the autism file.

My absolute favourite quote of Lamoureux is: “We take this issue just as seriously as the former government did.”  Indeed, by doing nothing, you can do just as much as the former government!

It seems to me that what Lamoureux did was give Mike Lake a taste of his own medicine, which is the diversionary and deflective arguments of a politician who wants to give the appearance of doing something, when actually doing nothing.  So how did Mike Lake respond to this (keeping in mind that he is not even asking for autism treatment to be covered by Medicare but $19 million to create a new “autism bureaucracy”)?

So here is what Mike Lake said during the debate in response to one of Lamoureux’s speeches:

“Mr. Speaker, I cannot speculate on how much the member cares, but I can comment on what I have heard today. What I have heard today is one of the most mind-numbing and condescending speeches I have ever heard in the House. The member talks about the government being “progressive in pushing this issue forward”. That is demonstrably false, demonstrably untrue.”

Later, on his Twitter account, Mike Lake received a message from someone named Justin N. McAuley (whom I believe is in “public affairs” at the CIHR), who wrote “just tuned into the debate on Mike Lake MP’s motion on ASD. After hearing some of Lamoureux’s speech, I feel so frustrated for Mike Lake.”  And Mike Lake replied: “Thank you for feeling my pain. It’s absolutely mind-numbing.”

What?  A politician responded to Mike Lake’s request for some money to set up a bureaucracy by giving him the same kind of arguments that he has given (and continues) to us for years, and he considers it “mind-numbing”, “condescending” and a source of “pain”.  Imagine that!  Well, indeed…what goes around, comes around.  The question is: will Mike Lake change his ways and stop his own “mind-numbing”, “condescending” and “pain” provoking speeches, or will he get on the bandwagon for “Medicare for Autism Now!” and promote some real access to treatment for our kids?

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

Well, there was a “debate” in the House of Commons yesterday about Mike Lake’s motion for the government to suppor the “Canadian Autism Partnership” (CAP) project.  From my reading and scanning the transcript of the debate, it seems to have started at 10:30 a.m. and finished around 2:00 p.m or so. Then it picked up again around 3:00 p.m. and finished around   The “Hansard” transcript of the debates on Thursday, May 18, 2017, are available at:

http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/house/latest/hansard

I did a search for a few terms.

“autism” was mentioned 578 times.

“medicare” was mentioned once (yes, “1”), when one MP made a reference to the “Medicare for Autism Now” organization.

“therapy” was mentioned a whopping 4 times (twice when the name of a specific location, the “Chris Rose Therapy Centre” in some MPs riding was mentioned).

“Auton” (as in the 2004 case that went to the Supreme Court of Canada) was not mentioned at all.

“access to treatment” was not mentioned (not even once).

“low functioning” or “low functioning autism” was not mentioned.

“high functioning” was mentioned twice.

“Senate report” (i.e., the 2007 “Pay Now or Pay Later” report) was mentioned once.

“Applied Behaviour Analysis” was mentioned twice, and the acronym “ABA” was mentioned twice.

“Intensive Behaviour Intervention” was mentioned 6 times, and the acronym “IBI” was mentioned 4 times.

“National Autism Strategy” is mentioned 4 times.

“Munson” (a reference to our historic champion in the Senate) was mentioned twice (by one MP).

“FEAT” was not mentioned.

“funding agreement” or “funding accord” were not mentioned. “health accord” was mentioned once.

As I read and scan (it is painful to read) through the text, it seems like a good thing that autism is on the radar screen, but there seems to be a lot of confusion about what the issues are and what needs to be done.  Some talk and discussion may be better than none, but there can be a lot of smoke and mirrors too. I hope something positive eventually evolves from this, but I’m not holding my breath.  As the word stats above demonstrate, key issues were not addressed in any depth and the discussion included a lot of time spent on MPs thanking and congratulating each other, and numerous things other than what I would consider priorities.

 

 

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

Three developments I would like to bring to the attention of those who may be interested.

First, here’s something interesting from the House of Commons Hansard of May 16, 2017.  The Parliamentary website has now allowed for “e-petitions” for a while, and it may be worthwhile to put it to use (as demonstrated immediately below).

“Petitions

Autism

<b>Ms. Julie Dzerowicz (Davenport, Lib.): </b>

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise in the House today to present an e-petition that was initiated by Ken Robertson, an urban aboriginal autism activist and a constituent of mine in my riding of Davenport.

 

This e-petition calls on the federal government to gather data on urban aboriginal children with autism and the length of the wait list for support for off-reserve children. In addition, it calls for the federal government to work with the provinces, territories, and stakeholders to develop a pan-Canadian strategy for autism spectrum disorder, including awareness and education campaigns; child, adolescent, and adult intervention; and innovative funding arrangements for financing therapy, surveillance, respite care, community initiatives, and basic research.

I look forward to our government’s response.

I would like to thank the almost 700 Canadians for supporting this important initiative.”

Second, it appears from some of the flurry of postings that today in the House of Commons there will be an “opposition day”  (presumably where the opposition party gets to set the agenda), and what has the Conservative Party caucus decided to do?  It has decided to debate a motion about autism.  But not the development of a National Autism Strategy that would see the development of a funding formula to finally see autism treatment covered by Medicare (our national public health insurance program). Nope. Instead, it is about the pet project of Mike Lake and CASDA, etc. namely, the “Canadian Autism Partnership (CAP)” project, about which I have previously written.  I believe the debate is to take place today and the vote next week or so.  The text of the motion is below.  I believe the motion’s sponsor is Mike Lake.

The reference to the 1 in 68 prevalence rate is interesting.

When I first met with Mike Lake (with Laurel Gibbons) immediately following his election in 2006, we referred to the prevalence rate, which at that time was considered by the CDC to be higher than what is is now (I think it was “1 in 150” or so) .  His immediate and unequivocal response was “I don’t believe that!”.  In the period immediately aftwards there was a motion sponsored by Liberal Andy Scott and a private members bill from Liberal Shawn Murphy….both of which contained “whereas” type clauses at the beginning that described the situation and context.  During the initial discussions over the first draft of the Bill and the effort to generate broad support, |I was told by a person involved (representing an autism organization) that when they met with Mike Lake he insisted on “watering down” bill, including the “whereas clauses” and the one which contained the prevalence rate (which was more than 1 in 68 at the time).  Imagine that….when the Conservatives are in power, the CDC prevalence rate are not to be believed or mentioned. But when the Liberals are in power, the (ever-worsening) prevalence rate are to be mentioned up front.  It is nice that he seems to finally be coming around to recognizing the CDC’s prevalence rates as being somewhat credible and authoritative (given that we don’t seem to have any corresponding monitoring system in our public policy bureaucracy).  Nonetheless, I would not be surprised if his Conservative Party ever returns to power, that he might suffer from amnesia or something.

Full text of the motion:
“May 5, 2017 — Mr. Lake (Edmonton—Wetaskiwin) — That, given that: (a) Autism Spectrum Disorder (“autism”) is widely considered the fastest growing neurological disorder in Canada, impacting an estimated 1 in 68 children; (b) it is a lifelong diagnosis that manifests itself in a wide-range of symptoms, including difficulty communicating, social impairments, and restricted and repetitive behaviour; (c) individuals with autism and their families face unique challenges over their lifespan, often leading to families in crisis situations; and (d) Autism Spectrum Disorder is not just a health issue—it has overarching implications for Canadian society as a whole; accordingly, the House call on the Government to grant the $19 million over 5 years requested by the Canadian Autism Partnership working group, Self-Advocates advisory group, and the Canadian Autism Spectrum Disorders Alliance, in order to establish a Canadian Autism Partnership that would support families and address key issues such as information sharing and research, early detection, diagnosis and treatment.”

Third, and finally, in constrast to Canadians submitting petitions and getting non-binding motions debated about the creation of a new autism bureaucracy, the “U.S. News and World Report” is reporting that Alabama lawmakers unanimously approved a bill requiring insurers to provide autism treatment coverage. Yes, the vote was unanimous.  When have we ever seen anything like that in a Canadian legislature (provincial or federal) relating to Medicare coverage for autism treatment?  The only Canadian example of related autism unanimity that I can think of is the November 2004 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the entire bench of judges issued a unanimous decision (written by the Chief Justice), rejecting the B.C. Court of Appeal’s decision in the “Auton” case involving the attempt to get Medicare coverage for autism treatment.

Way to go Alabama!  I wonder if Mike Lake or any of his cohorts will refer to this Alabama legislative development in their “debate”.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/alabama/articles/2017-05-18/lawmakers-unanimously-approve-autism-coverage-mandate

Cheers,

Andrew Kavchak

Ottawa

 

 

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

Well, some more interesting developments on the “jurisdiction” front today…

OK, we all know that Canada is a geographically large country that operates as a “federal” system, meaning that there are different levels of governments with different powers in various matters that governments are typically responsible for. Section 91 of the constitution outlines the federal government responsibilities, and section 92 outlines the provincial areas of responsibilities.  Since 1867 the feds and the provinces have often had disagreements about interpretation, particularly when new (previously unforeseen) technical developments arise…like broadcasting. Indeed, the history of Canadian politics can often be summarized in a survey of historica court cases on the division of powers.

Now, we also know that throughout our country’s history there have been times when the governments have worked out deals that were more convenient (e.g., “opting out” of new federal programs like Quebec’s QPP instead of the CPP in the rest of the country, or Quebec’s input on immigration, etc.). In Canada, the feds collect income tax for both the federal and provincial governments (except in Quebec). When it comes to healthcare, the feds set the legal framework with the Canada Health Act, and provide financial transfer payments to the provinces. However, it is the provinces that deliver healthcare.  This has not prevented the federal and provincial governments from negotiating “accords” where federal funds are transfered to the provinces with strings attached….i.e., the funds are to be spent on specific healthcare procedures, or “mental health”, or “home care”, etc.

So, when it comes to autism, the federal Conservative Party was in power from 2006 to 2015 and throughout that whole time, Mike Lake and his cohorts kept telling us that the problem of lack of provincial Medicare coverage for autism treatment is entirely a provincial jurisdiction matter and not one that the feds can act upoon.  I remember during one of the elections…2006 or 2008, Harper was on a call-in radio show in Vancouver when a mother called in and asked about autism treatment. Harper summarily dismissed her with a curt “that’s provincial”.  However, during the campaign one of the Conservative’s policy platforms was the development and implementation of a “National Cancer Strategy”.  So I wrote a letter to the National Post that was published in which I pointed out that kids don’t get to pick their illness.

My point here is this….the Tories, especially Mike Lake, conveniently used “jurisdication” to avoid getting involved and doing anything that would help our kids get access to treatment under Medicare. However, when the Tories really want something they pursue the matter, constitution be damned.  One case in point just came up in the media a few minutes ago…

http://www.brandonsun.com/national/breaking-news/quebecs-top-court-rules-national-securities-regulator-is-unconstitutional-421892693.html?thx=y

For those of you who did not follow this fiasco, when the Tories were in power, they felt that Canada should have a “national securities regulator” (i.e., that some federal body should be able to regulate the stock markets).  Unfortunately, the constitution and the historic record since confederation has been that it is a provincial jurisdiction matter (property and civil rights is in section 92). The Harper Tories decided to plough ahead and asked the Supreme Court of Canada for a decision (yes, another one….) and got the predictable answer: it’s provincial.  Instead of dropping the matter, they tabled a Bill to create a national securities regulator and in 2015 the provincial government of Quebec referred the matter to the courts (again).  And today the “top court” of Quebec said something that is truly earthshaking: what the Tories tried to do is unconstitutional because “it’s provincial”.

The point I’m trying to make is that the Tories are remarkable hypocrites when they use “jurisdiction” as an excuse to not even try to help kids with autism. All we are asking is that they convene a meeting with the provinces, put some money on the table, and negotiate the inclusion of autism treatment in Medicare pursuant to some national standards of service delivery and quality.  No legislative amendment would even be necessary if there was politicial will and cooperation.  They have repeatedly done this kind of thing with healthcare and many other issues.  But when they want something like a national stock exchange regulator to be created, they will even go so far as to table unconstitutional Bills in Parliament and try to shove them down the throats of the provinces that have repeatedly expressed opposition. Why is it that in those cases Mike Lake does not issue press releases saying that we have to respect the constitution and the division of powers and jurisdiction, etc.? (similar to the one he did when he voted against Shawn Murphy’s Private Members’ Bill to create a National Autism Strategy back in 2007?)  You know why…autism is not as attractive or politically seductive as the power to regulate an imaginary federal stock exchange.

 

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

Just noticed something….something strange…..

The CASDA (autism alliance) organization lists all their members on their website (http://www.casda.ca/our-members/#ON).

When CASDA was initially formed, I was invited to join, which I did. I subsequently found it a little embarrassing when I looked at the list of members because all of the initial members were organizations, and it seemed like my name was that of the only individual. I subsequently became somewhat disillusioned with the organization and asked them to remove my name from their membership list.

Every once in a while I take a look at the membership list and over the years it has grown considerably, including names of individuals who are active in the autism community. For a long time the historically national autism charitable organization (the Autism Society of Canada, or subsequently “Autism Canada”) was a member of CASDA and appeared prominently on their membership list. The list is organized by province, and because Autism Canada’s headquarters are in Ottawa, the organization was listed on the membership list under the “Ontario” heading.

However, the last few times that I checked the list, I can’t find any reference to “Autism Canada” on the CASDA membership list.  I may be missing it, and if so, I would be happy if someone would confirm to me where Autism Canada is located on the lengthy list of members of CASDA.  Perhaps this omission is an oversight (either of mine – my eyes are getting worse with age, or of the webmaster – who may potentially also have failing eyes and accidentally hit the “delete” button).

If Autism Canada is no longer a member of CASDA, then it seems to me that there is a “news” item here for the community.  Why would the historic national autism organization (Autism Canada) no longer be a member of a national “alliance” type of organization of which it was a founding member? Was there a split? Was there a difference of opinion regarding substance? Or process? A different set of priorities?  Was there are conflict that was beyond repair?  What’s going on?  I checked their respective websites for a news release or statement on the issue and could not find anything.

Houston, do we have a transparency problem?

In any event, I remember the head of CASDA writing in her “rebuttal” to my op-ed (about that CAP project thing) that there was a need for “unity” in the autism community, and her implying that I was not much of a team player because I criticized a project that CASDA supported.  What is she (or whoever may speak for CASDA now) going to say now about Autism Canada’s apparent (I don’t know if this has been confirmed anywhere) withdrawal from CASDA (if it has in fact withdrawn from CASDA)?  I’m really curious.  All of these organizations claim to speak for the autism community and to represent us.  Can you believe this?

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

Well, this is interesting.  An article on the “iPolitics” website reported yesterday that apparently federal Health Minister Philpott has been “bombarded” with over 3,000 tweets in the past few months relating to autism.

And what are the tweets about?  More funding…..but not as part of a fed-prov “health accord” to ensure that Canadians can access autism treatment through Medicare. No, instead, it is part of a campaign spear-headed by Mike Lake on some sort of “Global Citizen” petition website in which people (from any country) are asked to tweet the Canadian Health Minister to support the “Canadian Autism Partnership (CAP) Project”.

The article can be accessed here:  http://ipolitics.ca/2017/04/21/twitter-activists-bombard-philpott-over-autism-funding/

Is it not strange that so many people would be supportive of creating another bureaucracy rather than actually doing something that would directly help with the autism discrimination in Medicare (which is a crisis situation for thousands of families across Canada)?  I looked at that webpage a while ago and it listed the country of origin of the tweets in question….most were not even from Canada.  If the autism community is going to solicit the global community to write to the federal Health Minister, is there not something(s) more meaningful and important to ask the Minister for than a CAP bureaucracy?

In the most recent budget the federal government did not allocate any funds to support the creation of this proposed CAP bureaucracy. I applaud the move (or “non-move”) as it is obvious to me what the autism public policy “issues” are (and have been for a long time) and it strikes me as a needless diversion to create a new bureaucracy to engage in such “issue-identification” exercises.

However, now that the federal budget was tabled and the CAP thing was ignored, it would be appropriate for the autism community and its leadership to move on (and back) to basics….lobbying for a National Autism Strategy that would involve the negotiation of a fed-prov funding arrangement to ensure Medicare coverage for autism treatment from coast-to-coast.

Instead, the Canadian Autism Alliance (“CASDA”) organization continues to promote this CAP project of theirs which their leadership (and Mike Lake) are so fond of.  Given that the CASDA organization claims to be an “alliance”, it is inconceivable to me that so many organizations that are listed as members on their website would be as preoccupied as the CASDA leadership appears to be with this CAP project at this time,  and would not prefer to move on to more urgent priorities.  Although the Chair of CASDA recently criticized my op-ed newspaper article that was critical of this CAP project, and suggested that “unity” across the community was needed (and anyone who did not support their CAP project was evidently not a “team player”), I suspect that some fissures are probably developing at CASDA itself among its members and between some members and the CASDA leadership.  Time will tell if any of these probable fissures will become public.

For the record, up to now I have resisted the global obsession with “social media” and don’t tweet or Facebook or Instagram (although I have posted two autism videos on YouTube). Instead, for years I have posted on this discussion board, and am greatly appreciative of the opportunity and privilege that the FEAT BC organization has made available to us to share relevant information and thoughts.

[Andrew Kavchak]

He said it!  The Prime Minister actually said the word “autism” (once)!

Rona Ambrose, the leader of the Opposition, started off question period yesterday (April 5, 2017), in the House of Commons with questions about foregin affairs, national defence, and taxation. Before the speaker gave the floor to the NDP, she managed to get a question in that mentions autism (although she muddled the facts a bit….I was at the rally but would prefer that money be spent on helping kids access treatment rather than creating a  CAP bureaucracy).

<b>Hon. Rona Ambrose (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): </b>

Mr. Speaker, today on the Hill there are hundreds of people helping to recognize World Autism Day. They are calling on the Prime Minister to provide less than $4 million a year to continue the good work of the Canadian Autism Partnership Project, money that was missing in the budget. That is almost equivalent to the bonus hike the CEO of Bombardier gave himself for one year.

What kind of message does the Prime Minister think this sends to parents of kids with autism when the Prime Minister can find money for bonuses for executives from Bombardier but he cannot find money for families with autism?

<b>Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): </b>

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the passion the member opposite has for this issue and recognize all members in the House who have stood up strongly in talking about autism and celebrating the advancements that have been made and indeed highlighting the work that we continue to do.

On Bombardier, I do need to point out that this was a loan that we were happy to make to invest in specific projects that are going to create good jobs for Canadians, that are going to secure the long-term future of the aerospace industry in this country, which leads to economic growth, innovation, and benefits for communities and the middle-class workers who live in them right across the country.

[Author]

Replies