[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

One of the great things about out democracy is that a few parties take turns running the show, and (apart from a few exceptions), one of the great checks and balances against the inevitable corrupting effect of power is that those in power tend not to stay there forever.  Being relegated to the opposition benches after a time in power is a good thing for many politicians (although they won’t admit it) because it gives them some more time to reflect and get humble.  Personally, I always find it interesting to note the creative and imaginative things that opposition members think up once they are in opposition, and not while they were in power and could actually do something.

One example, many years ago, was that of Andy Scott, the MP from New Brunswick. As you may recall, he was a Cabinet Minister during the Chretien years.  During that time, I am not aware of his actually have done anything on the autism front.  I did read an article once in the newspaper that said he mentioned the word “autism” once or something, and I tried to contact his office to follow up, but his office did not bother to reply to me.  At that time, if he actually did anything, it was behind closed doors and somewhat secret.  However, once he was in opposition…oh, boy,….suddenly he was a crusader who tabled a Motion for a National Autism Strategy or something, provoked debates in the House, and temporarily assumed the role of champion in the House for our community.  The Motion was passed, but was non-binding (motions are not law), and proved to be symbolic and was quickly forgotten.

Any other examples?  Yes!  Today, it is Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative MP. When he was first elected, he was in opposition and he came to our autism rallies and denounced the Liberals for ignoring the plight of Canadians with autism with all his might.  After a little education for him about the community’s challenges, he had an Op-Ed published in the influential Ottawa weekly “The Hill Times” in which he stated that the government needs to amend the Canada Health Act to ensure that autism treatment is provided by the provinces under Medicare. It was clear, unambiguous and in black and white. He accused the Liberals of hypocrisy, but then he showed that hypocrisy ran in his veins too. A few years later Poilievre was a Cabinet Minister on the government side.  Liberal opposition member Shawn Murphy tabled a Bill that would do precisely what Poilievre previously wrote was needed (note: Murphy did not table the Bill while his party was in power, but only after the election when he was in the opposition benches). And guess how Poilievre voted?  Unfortunately, he voted against it.

And now that Poilievre is in opposition again, suddenly the plight of the disabled is a cause of concern for him again.  So on Thursday, February 15, 2018, he rose in the House and made this statement:

Persons with Disabilities

<b>Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC): </b>

Mr. Speaker, imagine if someone told us that the harder we work, the poorer we will become. That is exactly what governments tell people with disabilities. When they get jobs, they suddenly lose benefits and immediately start paying taxes, sometimes losing more than they gain. All parties and levels of governments are to blame.

The opportunity for workers with disabilities act seeks to solve the problem by requiring that Finance Canada calculate how much workers lose for every $1,000 they earn. If they lose more than they gain, the finance minister would be required to propose changes to federal taxes and benefits to fix it. Provinces would be required to meet the same standard as a condition of receiving $13 billion of social transfers.

While the bill would not micromanage provincial programs, it would instill one simple principle: that people with disabilities must always be allowed to earn more in wages than they lose in taxes and clawbacks.

_______________

So what is this Bill he is referring to?  It is Bill C-395, a Bill he has now sponsored which has the long title: “An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act” and the short title: “Opportunity for Workers with Disabilities Act“.  It was tabled and given first reading on February 5, 2018.  The text of the Bill can be read here:

http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-395/first-reading

So…on the assumption that this Bill will die on the Order Paper when the next election writ is dropped (as most opposition Private Members Bills do), imagine that after the next election Poilievre is back in Cabinet with his government in power, and some MP in the opposition tabled a Bill that was word-for-word a replica of this Bill C-395… would Poilievre vote for, or against?  Of course, it depends on what his leader and party whip would tell him (and his party caucus) to do at the time, but if history is any indication, I suspect he would vote against it. In fact, if I were a betting man, I would bet the house on it!

In the meantime, it will be interesting to observe how much he invests in the promotion of the Bill and where, when, and how, he chooses to promote his association with the Bill’s contents.   While the Bill appears to have some genuine merit which could potentially benefit many members of the autism community, after years of observing Poilievre and other opportunistic politicians, it is hard to get excited,especially when history demonstrates that the chances of disappointment are probable.

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

Well, here we go again. Another awful story in the media about a family in Canada with a non-verbal child with autism, waiting for years for speech therapy, only to be told that they “aged out”.  This kind of stuff should really be illegal.  And where did the media find the story this time?  La Belle Province – Quebec.

I remember years ago when a motion for a National Autism Strategy was debated in the House of Commons that the “health critic” from the Bloc Quebecois got up and gave a speech about how wonderful were the services for the autism community in Quebec (a real paradise if you believe in leprechauns and unicorns!) and that Quebec did not need any federal intervention (help), bla, bla…  The politician making the speech was formerly a nurse. As I sat in the public gallery and listened to her unmitigated B.S. I remember wondering what defective gene or psychiatric malfunction would allow such politicians to lie, lie, lie and sacrifice the health of others for the sake of preventing any cooperation between the feds and the provinces that could help improve the lives of all Canadians with autism. The shameful thing is that Quebec’s current Premier is a doctor.  However, as the article points out, the provincial government wants a budget surplus, lower taxes, etc….goals which they are trying to achieve on the backs of… disabled kids.  I was born in Montreal and lived there for many years. Regrettably, Quebec is not as distinct as the Bloc Quebecois MP insisted and pretended (other provinces also have a history of believing in Cinderella and denying services because kids reached a certain age or did not their slippers back by midnight and turned into pumpkins or something), and sometimes not as “belle” as it should be. In fact, as the father suggests, it can be home to a “nightmare”.

From:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-father-speech-therapy-autistic-1.4533203

<h1 class=”story-title”>Quebec father calls wait for speech therapy for child with autism a ‘nightmare'</h1>

<h3 class=”story-deck”>Sam Kuhn’s daughter Charlotte, 7, is no longer eligible for individual speech therapy, after years of waiting</h3>

[Andrew Kavchak]

Has anyone heard of Bill C-211 An Act respecting a federal framework on post-traumatic stress disorder?

This is a Bill that was tabled by a Conservative MP from B.C. on January 28, 2016 when it received first reading.  The Second reading took place on March 8, 2017 and 284 MPs voted in favour of the Bill and sending it to the committee stage where it was reviewed by the Standing Committee on Health. Note: at second reading not one MP voted against it. Mike Lake voted….in favour.  This is in contrast to the way he voted on February 21, 2007 at second reading of Bill C-304, the autism treatment and national strategy Bill.  You may remember that at that time Mike Lake issued a statement explaining that it was “bad law” and that the federal government had no business telling the provinces what to provide treatment for, etc.  (For more on Mike Lake’s specious arguments, see: https://featbc.org/downloads/FEATBC_release_02_26_07.pdf)

So the Standing Committee on Health reports on May 30, 2017.  Note: I’ve written many times to the Chair and members of that committee in the past to get them to put autism on their agenda, and the answer was always….”no”.  Always.

And then the House voted to support the Bill and pass it at third reading on June 16, 2017 (the Journals does not say what the vote count was, but that it was “agreed to” and “passed”.  So the elected members of Parliament passed it.  Done.  And it went to the Senate for the next stage in the legislation approval process.  The first reading in the Senate was on June 19, 2017.  It is now at the second reading stage.  Once it gets past third reading, it goes to the Governor General for Royal Assent and becomes law.  And everyone knows that historically, the Senate (being unelected and not having any legitimacy in a democracy) generally speaking always passes what the House sends it, and that the Governor General (another unelected Head of State with a legitimacy problem in a democracy) always approves Bills submitted by Parliament.

So…what does the Bill say?  I’ve copied it below, but consider the following:

1. this is not a motion (which is not binding), it is legislation (which is!);
2. the Bill refers to a federal framework and national strategy;
3. the Bill requires several federal Ministers to meet with their provincial counterparts;
4. the Bill requires the development of a “comprehensive” framework to deal with diagnosis and treatment;
5. the Minister of Health is required to make the framework public in a report within 18 months of the Bill becoming law;
6. the Public Health Agency of Canada is then required to review the effectiveness of the “framework” and report on that within five years.

And how is it that autism can’t get past second reading, but this Bill for PTSD, tabled by a member of the Conservative caucus, is just coasting along through the process with support from people like…Mike Lake?  Oh, I know, I know….PTSD is different from autism.  Sure, it is….but in his 2007 statement he suggested that no illness, disorder, syndrome, condition, sickness, etc. should be enacted upon by the feds because “it’s provincial”.  This is just another example, along with the former Conservative Bill to create a national securities regulator, where the government demonstrates hypocrisy and inconsistency.  When they want something, they will forge ahead and find some sort of means to get to their end.  When they lack the political will, the division of powers in the constitution becomes the convenient excuse for non-action (“Our hands are tied!”).  While some politicians and leaders are outstanding and very much needed by society, particularly in times of crisis, etc.  so many of these house of “commons” members strike me as amoral and lacking integrity.  Of course PTSD is important and deserves appropriate attention.  And autism? And where do the Liberals stand?  This Bill would not have passed second or third reading in the House without their support.  So….and autism?  I guess our day has not arrived…yet.  One day, Oh Lord, one day.

BILL C-211

An Act respecting a federal framework on post-traumatic stress disorder

SUMMARY

This enactment requires the Minister of Health to convene a conference with the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, provincial and territorial government representatives responsible for health and representatives of the medical community and patients’ groups for the purpose of developing a comprehensive federal framework to address the challenges of recognizing the symptoms and providing timely diagnosis and treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder.

Preamble

Whereas post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a condition that is characterized by persistent emotional distress occurring as a result of physical injury or severe psychological shock and typically involves disturbance of sleep and constant vivid recall of the traumatic experience, with dulled responses to others and to the outside world;

Whereas there is a clear need for persons who have served as first responders, firefighters, military personnel, corrections officers and members of the RCMP to receive direct and timely access to PTSD support;

Whereas, while not-for-profit organizations and governmental resources to address mental health issues, including PTSD, exist at the federal and provincial levels, there is no coordinated national strategy that would expand the scope of support to ensure long-term solutions;

And whereas many Canadians, in particular persons who have served as first responders, firefighters, military personnel, corrections officers and members of the RCMP, suffer from PTSD and would greatly benefit from the development and implementation of a federal framework on PTSD that provides for best practices, research, education, awareness and treatment;

Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

Short title

1 This Act may be cited as the Federal Framework on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Act.

Interpretation

Definitions

2 The following definitions apply in this Act.

Agency means the Public Health Agency of Canada. (Agence)

federal framework means a framework to address the challenges of recognizing the symptoms and providing timely diagnosis and treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder. (cadre fédéral)

Minister means the Minister of Health. (ministre)

Federal Framework on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

Conference

3 The Minister must, no later than 12 months after the day on which this Act comes into force, convene a conference with the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, provincial and territorial government representatives responsible for health and stakeholders, including representatives of the medical community and patients’ groups, for the purpose of developing a comprehensive federal framework in relation to

(a) improved tracking of the incidence rate and associated economic and social costs of post-traumatic stress disorder;

(b) the establishment of guidelines regarding

(i) the diagnosis, treatment and management of post-traumatic stress disorder, and

(ii) the sharing throughout Canada of best practices related to the treatment and management of post-traumatic stress disorder; and

(c) the creation and distribution of standardized educational materials related to post-traumatic stress disorder, for use by Canadian public health care providers, that are designed to increase national awareness about the disorder and enhance its diagnosis, treatment and management.

Preparation and tabling of report

4 (1) The Minister must prepare a report setting out the federal framework and cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of Parliament within 18 months after the day on which this Act comes into force.

Publication of report

(2) The Minister must publish the report on the Agency’s website within 30 days after the day on which it is laid before a House of Parliament.

Review and Report

Review

5 The Agency must

(a) complete a review of the effectiveness of the federal framework no later than five years after the day on which the report referred to in section 4 is published; and

(b) cause a report on its findings to be laid before each House of Parliament within the next 10 sitting days after the review is completed.

 

 

 

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

So Parliament resumed sitting on Monday and although the word “autism” has not come up yet in the recorded transcripts, something else of interest came up yesterday (Tuesday, January 30, 2018).  One of the MPs made a statement about Alzheimer’s.  It appears that he tabled a motion to develop a “national seniors strategy” that was passed last May.  Motions, unlike Bills (that become Statutes) are not binding.  However, it seems that the Government majority in the House agreed with it and supported the idea.  Now it appears they are developing a “national strategy for dementia” and will be creating an “advisory committee”.

Where are all the opponents to the concept of a “National Autism Strategy” on these ones?  Where is Trudeau saying that the Government already does lots for Alzheimer’s and dementia by paying for some research? Or that the Government continues to support “advocacy groups” and that kind of thing? Did Mike Lake come out and say “It’s provincial” anywhere?  It strikes me as absolutely bizarre that the feds get involved in creating and announcing unprecedented “national housing strategies” and now appear to have no qualms supporting motions and creating “national strategies” for things like dementia, when our community has not even been able to get one single federal Cabinet Minister to say the words “National Autism Strategy”.  Why? Why? Why?

Alzheimer’s Awareness Month

<b>Mr. Marc Serré (Nickel Belt, Lib.): </b>

Mr. Speaker, January is Alzheimer’s Awareness Month.

More than 400,000 Canadians have been diagnosed with dementia. I have seen first-hand the devastation caused by this disease. After my motion to develop a national seniors strategy was passed in Parliament in May, I began travelling across the country to co-host seniors town halls with my colleagues. Countless Canadians have expressed the need to proactively get to the root cause of this disease, eliminate the stigma, and identify the most effective ways to prevent, diagnose, and treat it.

I am proud to say that we listened to the public and that the Government of Canada is developing a national strategy for dementia and subsequently creating an advisory committee.

I encourage everyone to learn more about Alzheimer’s and go to the Alzheimer Society of Canada website. Together we can improve the quality of life of people living with dementia, their families, and everyone involved.

<i>Meegwetch</i>. Thank you.

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

Well, sometimes the wait times for some critical services are so long that something has to give somewhere…..or…..someone comes up with an alternative solution!

http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/skirting-the-wait-list-edmonton-schools-aim-to-diagnose-autism-on-their-own

In Edmonton it appears that the school boards are now training their own psychologist teams to diagnose autism. I presume that they will only be providing this service for kids who are already of school age, which would presumably include kindergarten.  In Ontario I know kindergarten used to start at age five, and then a few years ago the government talked about something for four year olds. I’m not sure what the status is now.  However, for the many parents who might be concerned that their child needs to be assessed earlier than that (e.g., at age 1, 2 or 3), this school diagnosis option of seeking a diagnosis at age 5 or 6 (or 7?) may come a little late.  But for some who may be borderline or high functioning (or with parents in denial), this option may prove helpful.

I don’t know if any other public school boards across the country provide such diagnosis services, so I’m not sure if this is something new (although I have not heard of a school board in Ottawa getting into the diagnosis business). However, if the school boards are picking up on the need for psychological services for kids with autism, I hope they won’t just stop with the diagnosis, but consider the next step after a diagnosis…i.e., ABA treatment for those who need it…perhaps with programs supervised by some trained psychologists.

The monetary incentive angle is interesting. As the article states, for kids over 7 who get a diagnosis, the school will get more funding.  Thus, the school seems to have an interest in getting the diagnosis.  Why can’t hospitals and the practitioners in the Medicare system not have the same incentive? Imagine…if a hospital were to have an autism clinic that provided assessments, diagnoses, and treatment…. and got money to provide treatment to every newly-diagnosed child, such as the pre-school age ones.   

 

 

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

Sometimes I wish that those charged with responsibilities and vested with some power that could actually help our community would focus on doing their jobs and helping people.  Unfortunately, one frequent problem for politicians is the lack of time and the unlimited numbers of demands placed on them. As a result, they have to prioritize, and often I get the feeling that the autism file gets stuck at the bottom of the pile.

Well, today’s news suggests that the federal Minister for Persons with Disabilities, Mr. Kent Hehr, may be somewhat distracted for the next little while as he too has now been accused of misconduct allegations towards women.  I’m not exactly clear what the allegations are as the news stories read like headlines.   Trudeau’s previous track record with members of his caucus in similar hot water is a zero tolerance policy (e.g., the Massimo Pacetti story), so Mr. Hehr’s seat at the Cabinet table may be on thin ice right now.  However, this is the same Minister who previously made headlines for telling thalidomide survivors that they don’t have it so bad and that “everyone has a sob story”, so he seems to have placed himself on thin ice with a few people already.  If there is going to be some musical chairs at the Cabinet table when the PM gets back from his trip to Davos, hopefully the new Minister will be a helpful one.  Unfortunately, after two years in office, I still can’t identify a single one of the government MPs that strikes me as a champion for our cause.    

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

I remember in the early 90s seeing one of those newspaper editorial cartoons that really made me laugh. It was a picture of a news stand with the headlines of numerous papers on display.  The headlines were all about the big global things that were happening at the time, like: “Berlin Wall Falls Down!”, “Soviet Empire Disintegrates!”, “Apartheid on its last legs!”, “IRA seeking a Peace Deal!”, “Israeli-Palestinian Peace Negotiations Going Places!”, and then the last one said “Mulroney senses change!”.

Newspaper headlines used to have a big impact.  Nowadays, I’m not so sure. But if article titles can identify a trend, how about these two:

1. Edmonton schools cope with explosion in number of students on autism spectrum

Edmonton schools cope with explosion in number of students on autism spectrum

2.  Jump in emergency calls involving autism spawns new training for RCMP

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/lunenburg-county-training-autism-community-help-1.4496260

Now that some school boards and police services are noticing that autism is an issue, any guesses on which sector of our country will be the next one to wake up and notice?

While these articles relate to Canada, the Jerusalem Post is reporting in an article that the number of people on the spectrum has tripled in Israel over the past decade.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/ALUT-Number-of-children-on-autistic-spectrum-has-tripled-over-past-decade-539475

It would appear that there are calls in Israel for autism to become a national priority and for a “national plan” to be formulated.  I wish I could tell the folks in Israel, and all other countries that are experiencing similar issues, that Canada provides a great “model”.  Unfortunately, Canada does not.  At least, not yet.  Hopefully one day….

 

 

 

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

Every once in a while there are some public policy developments in other countries that can make you want to stop and reflect for a while. Is this something we could, or should, do here?  If it is a good idea, why did we not think of it earlier? Sometimes it really requires “thinking outside the box”.  The ideas themselves may be good or bad, and may or not be attractive to Canadians, depending on a number of factors, etc.

The Government in the UK launched a “campaign to end loneliness” in 2011.  And more recently they established a “Ministry of Loneliness”.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/seniors-expert-applauds-u-k-move-to-appoint-ministry-of-loneliness-1.4494466

Home

Now, I know what some of you may be thinking.  The Brits have come a long way since the “Ministry of Silly Walks” (as described and demonstrated by John Cleese himself):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOqHNNmTz68

Loneliness is not a new social phenomenon that is a by-product of “smart phone” technology use.  In the 19th century Karl Marx observed that one of the consequences of the industrial revolution was a sense of “alienation” among the working population (who no longer worked with other humans but with machines, etc.)

Kudos to the British government for recognizing that for many people (there are always exceptions – introverts may feel more comfortable being alone, etc.) loneliness sucks and that the consequences of chronic loneliness may affect mental health and productivity, mortality rates, overall well-being, etc.  Obviously, some folks in the depths of the British government bureaucracy did some “cost-benefit analysis” and figured out that an investment in a “Ministry of Loneliness” could result in a overall improvement in society and the bottom line of a government in a liberal democratic welfare state (i.e., spend some money here, and save a lot more elsewhere).

OK, so what about autism?  Any possibility of doing some “cost-benefit analysis” on the autism file?  When the Auton case was going through the court system the plaintiffs had an accounting firm do a study on the “cost-benefit analysis” to society by comparing the costs of investing in early intervention ABA which could help the child develop and improve their overall functioning, versus a situation of no early intervention and a lifetime of institutional care. Which costs more?  The latter.  I believe this “cost-benefit analysis” relating to the provision of autism treatment was also studied and reported on in some authoritative journal by at least one other academic group in recent years (I don’t have the link handy at the moment).  Perhaps this is an area of study whose profile needs to be raised with the appropriate politicians and bureaucrats (the ones that pay attention and think beyond the next election, I mean).

So…if “cost-benefit analysis” can lead to the creation of the “Ministry of Get Out of the House and Join a Club or Two that Meet Frequently”, why can’t we have a “Ministry of Autism Diagnosis, Intervention, Education, Work, and Living Supports when your Parents are Dead” or something like that?  Or is that too far outside the box for those who run the country?

 

 

 

it never occurred to me that the government should spend scarce resources and taxpayer dollars on helL

 

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

The drum beat in Halifax continued today with an interesting piece in the paper.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1537183-plea-to-the-pm-get-serious-about-national-autism-crisis

<h1>PLEA TO THE PM: Get serious about national autism crisis</h1>

JAN KEDDY
Published January 16, 2018 – 3:18pm

Dear Prime Minister Justin Trudeau,

I am writing to you as one dedicated teacher to another.

I know from personal experience the power of teachers to mentor, to change and to influence our future generations. I have seen your passion in action while giving our younger, neurotypical generation of students a voice. I would like to explain my passion to help Nova Scotia’s autistic adults, as well as children and youth with autism and their families.

Over my career spanning 30 years, I have had the privilege of working in three different provinces in the field of education. Please try to imagine the influences on my teaching career: first working with children and youth at risk; then working with children and youth with special needs promoting inclusion; finally for 14 years working as an autism specialist for the largest school board in Nova Scotia as we transitioned a generation of children with autism into the public school system.

Now, in retirement, I am trying to give a generation of children, youth and adults with autism/autism spectrum disorder and their families that same voice.

After completing needs assessments with over 600 families of children with ASD in the Halifax regional school board, I realized that there were gaps in the current service-delivery model across Nova Scotia. Working with AutismNS, we learned that there were also gaps in other provinces.

Please ask yourself, Mr. Trudeau, “Why would a retired teacher and autism specialist spend her own retirement savings to begin programming for individuals with autism/ASD and others who need additional support to be successful?”

The answer becomes clear if you conduct a scan of community-based programs that support meaningful community inclusion. To say they are very limited would be an understatement.

With the numbers of children and adults being diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder increasing and chronic funding cutbacks, the public services for children, youth and adults with ASD in the provinces are basically non-existent — resulting in a community in crisis.

My disappointment with our current model of public service delivery in Nova Scotia deepened when the only children’s hospital in the Maritimes, the IWK, was not able to provide support to a nine-year-old boy with severe autism while this young boy was an in-patient for six weeks.

The family hired my team to provide developmentally appropriate programming for their son, first in the hospital and now at home. They are paying for this service out of their own pockets.

When the boy’s mother, Carly Sutherland, stood and spoke at the “town hall” meeting you held last week in Lower Sackville — and once again exposed her soul and asked for help for her son, Callum, stating that this is a human rights issue — you gave her your political answer: “We are investing in research.”

I would like you to look at this issue as a teacher because that answer is not good enough for our families in crisis. We need to move beyond research immediately, moving to a lifespan approach if we do not want to fail another generation. From my perspective, working with our unique population of individuals, we have to move from research to a co-ordinated National Autism Strategy.

Our team has started to implement change at the community level; we are turning research into practice, using evidence-based practices, a collaborative, community partnership model and working with families as partners. We would like to suggest and show the way to “transformational change” and how to start to implement a true “continuum of supports and services” suggested in all the research literature.

If you would like to hear how with partnerships, innovation and research we could have a positive impact, please contact us at playingandlearningtogether01@gmail.com

Jan Keddy of Dartmouth, a retired teacher and autism specialist, is CEO of Playing and Learning Together.

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

This is going to sound like “deja vu” for those of you who have read many of my posts in the past, so if you see some repetition and don’t have time or are not interested, please ignore this.  But if you find the latest samples of hypocrisy from some politicians to be occasionally of interest for their sheer brazenness (defined as “bold and without shame”), then consider this latest one…

At the beginning of this month Senator Jim Munson tweeted “I have only one wish for 2018. The full engagement of the federal government in the autism community.  Let’s make this a breakthrough year!”

And on January 3, Mike Lake retweeted it and added: “100% with you on this, Jim. Thanks for all of your great work!”

On the 10th anniversary of the Senate’s 2007 report “Pay Now or Pay Later: Autism Families in Crisis”, Senator Munson and his Senate colleagues organized an “autism awareness” campaign throughout October (2017) in the Senate with at least one speech and call for government action on each sitting day throughout the whole month, as well as a live streamed autism “roundtable” at the end of the month. Yet, I did not see Mike Lake at the roundtable or see him make one reference to the Senate autism initiative in any of his speeches in the House of Commons (Hansard). If he did make some reference to the Senate campaign in the House last October, I’m sorry but I missed it.  In fact, I don’t think I saw a reference to the Senate report or its campaign in any of his social media “tweets” that month either. So much for adding his voice to the those currently calling for federal engagement on the autism file and the creation of a National Autism Strategy.

In some respects Mike Lake is consistent. Back in February 2007 there was a Bill C-304 that was voted on at second reading in the House of Commons.  Mike Lake was on the government side, and the Bill was tabled by a Liberal. It called for the creation of a National Autism Strategy and a legislative enactment that would see autism treatment covered by Medicare.  If the Bill had passed second reading, it would have gone to “committee stage” for a committee’s clause by clause review, which would have resulted in a report to the House (with possible recommendations for amendments to be considered at a third reading vote – before going to the Senate, etc.). Thus, the vote at second reading is not a vote to make a Bill become a law the next day.  Mike Lake voted against the Bill and contributed to its being defeated and no longer subject to any review, discussion, amendment, debate, etc. He also issued a “Media Statement” at the time to denounce the Bill and the politics of its sponsor (accusing him of exploiting a “wedge issue” for political gain, etc.).  In his Statement, he denounced the proposed legislative portion to include autism treatment in Medicare, suggesting that the issue of what to cover under our public health insurance system is entirely provincial, and he did not say a word about the part of the Bill calling for a National Autism Strategy. In fact, he stated: “If voters feel as strongly as I do about this, they must let their provincial governments know and then hold them accountable at election time.”  There you have it.  It’s entirely a provincial matter, and who are we supposed to vote for at election time? The “Autism Party”?

Mike Lake’s tweet seems to imply that he thinks his behaviour (both historic and recent) can be characterized as 100% support for “full engagement of the federal government”.  It seems to me that he exaggerates somewhat.

Oh, I know, I know…he supported the CAP project….but how could that possibly be characterized as “full engagement of the federal government” when the project proposed marginalizing the whole autism file by assigning it to a new bureaucracy with absolutely no power or resources to do anything apart from engage in consultations, “issue identification”, etc. ?

Ironically, I cannot find Mike Lake’s 2007 Media Statement on his website anymore….and the links to the 2007 newsletters on his website generate “Error 404” messages.  This is not surprising.  Another Conservative (I think it was Randy Kamp) once posted a press release on his website (when he was in opposition) which called for the creation of a National Autism Strategy. However, after an election when he suddenly found himself at the Cabinet table (I think he was the Minister of Slippery Fishes or something) the press release disappeared (I have a hard copy somewhere).  Similarly, when Pierre Poilievre was in opposition, he had an article published in The Hill Times calling for legislation to ensure autism treatment was available under Medicare. However, once he was on the government side, he too voted against the Bill that would have accomplished precisely that.  Fortunately, you can find the FEATBC annotation of the Mike Lake Media Statement at:

https://featbc.org/downloads/FEATBC_release_02_26_07.pdf

[Author]

Posts