[Andrew Kavchak]

Hello Dione,

Thanks for your message and informative post. I congratulate and commend you for your ongoing efforts to lobby politicians (through social media, letters, phone calls, meetings, etc.).  Forty-five minutes with Mike Lake? I envy your patience!  Last year I went to the “Autism on the Hill” rally and afterwards I stood around speaking to some people.  Out of the corner of my eye I could see that Mike Lake was hanging around and it seemed that he was waiting for an opportune moment to approach me. I quickly walked away and tried to avoid him, but he followed me!  I was being stalked by an MP!  Where is the RCMP when you need them? Eventually near the Centennial Flame when I stopped to take my sandwich board sign off and put it in my bag he ambushed me and wanted to talk. I did not even look at him and tried to put an end to the discussion and took off as quickly as I could.  When I first met him following his 2006 election it sadly became clear to me that he did not know much about autism and was going to be one of our biggest obstacles.  The day will come when he too, like Chief Justice McLachlin, will either retire, or be defeated.  In the meantime, I stopped my regular protesting on the Hill as I feel like a new “dark age” has crept up on the Hill and no one is really paying any serious attention to key autism issues.

BTW, I met with Colin Carrie many years ago in his office. He has a son with Asperger’s Syndrome. He also gave me the impression that he was not really all that familiar with the needs, gaps and public policy issues relating to autism.  He also asked me to send him more information and suggestions.  I did so. And, like you, did not hear back from him. I believe he was a junior cabinet minister at one time in Harper’s government.  Although he came to our rallies before the 2006 election, I’m not aware of his actually doing (or saying) anything for autism since his party assumed power in that election.

 

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

Two more thoughts about autism policies and the federal government…

First, yesterday in the House of Commons, former Tory cabinet minister and leadership contestant, Erin O’Toole, made the usual partisan speech criticizing the Liberals…but what he said about autism cought my eye.

From Hansard, June 12, 2017:

“<b>Hon. Erin O’Toole: </b>

Mr. Speaker, the resignation of Mr. Smith from Statistics Canada highlights something that the Liberal government does very well. It talks the sunny ways game, but secretly it is the most partisan. Its House leader has been setting records in the use of closure. Had there been a resignation of this level from Statistics Canada under the Conservative government, the howls of outrage would be across this nation.

Nothing highlights it better than votes on a nationalized organ donor registry or a national program for autism, paltry amounts of money in the grand scheme of this reckless spending, yet the Liberals whipped votes on these issues because it did not come from that side of the House. That is not leadership. It is not sunny ways. When more and more families have less work for mom or dad, soon Canada will not be very sunny. It will be a cloudy future.”

See his reference to a “national program for autism”?  What “national program for autism”?  I suspect he was thinking of the vote on Mike Lake’s motion for $19 million to support a “Canadian Autism Partnership” bureaucracy with a mandate to engage in “issue identification”, etc.  Is that now a “national program for autism”?  I don’t think he knows what he is talking about and this situation highlights the typical baloney that happens in politics where some small initiative, no matter how small (and unhelpful), can be perceived as “doing something” and then exaggerated and inflated to the point of being the solution to the most complicated of problems, and can be further characterized as a “national program”  I kind of get the impression that he could not be bothered to spend more than a few seconds on the file (perhaps challenging the attention span of a fruit fly) and I am somewhat relieved that he did not win his party’s leadership contest a few weeks ago.

Second, as many of you may remember, in 2016 the federal Liberal Party (the Grits) had a policy convention and adoped one policy regarding autism.  The policy is copied below.  Given that this is something that Liberal Party delegates adopted themselves, would it not be interesting if Mike Lake, or one of his Conservative Party (Tory) caucus colleagues, would challenge the government to actually implement the policy they adopted at their own policy convention (after all the debate among delegates, etc.)? Would any of the opposition MPs actually consider tabling a motion for the government to implement one of its own policy resolutions?

Of course, this is unlikely to ever occur, but it is interesting to contemplate.  The Tories would be challenging the Grits to actually do what they preach. If the Grits then do it, the Tories could claim some credit for goading them on. But if the Grits continue to ignore their own resolution, then the Tories could point to another example of Grits hypocrisy.  From that perspective, the Tories are in a win-win situation. But then again, if they do challenge the Grits to implement this resolution, the Tories may actually be perceived as supporting the concept of giving autistic kids the right to access treatment under Medicare with federal funding contributions, and that would likely be problematic for them (as they demonstrated throughout their period in government).

It is just such a shame that with all the motions and debates and voting in the House of Commons, no one has managed to get this policy on the House of Commons agenda (not yet, as far as I know).

MEDICARE COVERAGE FOR THE TREATMENT OF AUTISM

<header class=”session-type-“>Moved by Liberal Party of Canada (British Columbia)</header>

<article class=”session-summary” data-day=”all,thursday”>WHEREAS the rate of autism spectrum disorder (“ASD”) among Canadian children is 1 in 68 and rising;

WHEREAS Canada’s health care system currently excludes from coverage the recognized, science-based treatment for ASD called Applied Behavioural Analysis (ABA), despite the incidence of this neurological condition and advocacy from numerous citizen groups;

WHEREAS the BC Supreme Court, in 2000, found ABA was “medically necessary treatment” and “there were no effective competing therapies” and their decision was upheld in the BC Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada;

WHEREAS funding for ABA for ASD is insufficient and varies between provinces;

WHEREAS the lifetime cost of an individual receiving inadequate treatment (or none) for ASD is reliably estimated between $2.4 and $3.2 million, excluding indirect costs to society;

WHEREAS the US Government requires all states to provide treatment for ASD as part of state-wide Medicaid programs and 43 out of 50 states require private health insurers to provide coverage for the ASD treatment;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Canada Health Act be amended to include Medicare coverage for Applied Behavioural Analysis (ABA) for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) or, alternatively, the Government of Canada work with all provincial and territorial governments to ensure inclusion of ABA for ASD within their respective Medical Services Plans

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Government of Canada provide funding to each province and territory to fully cover the costs associated with the provision of ABA treatment of ASD.

</article>

 

 

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks!

Well, two interesting announcements in Ottawa today.  First, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Beverley McLachlin, has finally announced that she will be retiring in December.  Halleluja!

As you may recall, she wrote the unanimous decision in the “Auton” case (November 2004) which overturned the B.C. Court of Appeal and B.C. Supreme Court decisions which determined that the non-provision of autism treatment under Medicare was discrimination and a violation of the section 15 equality provision in the Charter.  I remember reading the decision when it came out and noticing some strange errors of fact at the very beginning. For example, (I’m going from memory here…) I remember reading her references to Dr. Ivar Lovaas doing his ground-breaking work with autistic kids ….and she referred to Texas.  Since when is UCLA in Texas? I wondered.  It kind of gave me the impression that neither she, nor her Justice colleagues, nor the cleks (assistants to the judges who do background research and writing, etc.), actually studied the factums (briefs – written arguments), but made their minds up about the conclusion when they decided to hear the appeal.

A little after the case came out I remember getting an email from a veteran professor of law at the University of Ottawa who referred to the case and said that there was “hope” because the decision made reference to all kinds of research and the court found that there were promising emerging treatments, or something like that.  I wrote back to this “professor” and pointed out to him that in the Canadian legal system appeals are based on errors in law, and the only courts that make “findings of facts” are the courts of first instance (as far as I know there are very few exceptions to this rule and it certainly did not apply in Auton).  In other words, McLachlin had no business making any “findings of fact” or meddling with the findings of the court in B.C.. The SCC’s job was to determine whether the law was correctly applied in the lower courts.

But you know what the deal was….the province appealed, and then the federal government and other provinces intervened because any SCC decision would have consequences across the country.  Of course, none of the provinces, or the federal government, were in favour of that happening because, as we all know, giving kids with autism access to treatment under Medicare would signal the doom of Medicare, the bankruptcy of the governments, and the end of the world as we know it, right?  At the time, the federal Minister of Justice was Irwin Cotler, who had a reputation of being a “human rights lawyer and champion”.  After he had his department lawyers intervene in the case against the interests of autistic children, I wrote to him a letter and asked “how could you?”.  He actually wrote back to me and said that under the Constitution, his job as Attorney General required him to advise the Government.  Funny, isn’t it?  You can work in the private sector and academia and acquire a reputation of being a “human rights champion”, but when you use the government resources to argue against disabled children getting treatment, you still maintain the reputation of being a “human rights champion”!  I guess letting disabled kids access treatment has nothing to do with “human rights”.  I never really understood that.

But getting back to McLachlin, her decision in the Auton case boiled down to this: if it involves the expenditure of public funds, then it is entirely up to the legislatures.  In other words, the Constitution and the court system are irrelevant if public funds are involved.  Thus, she caved in to the fear-mongering of the governments, and overturned the decisions from the courts in B.C..

Ironically, I remember reading in a local newspaper about a year after the Auton case that McLachlin went to Australia and gave a lecture to students in the law faculty at Monash University. And what did she tell our Australian friends?  About the need for judges to have some spine and stick up to (against) governments and not be afraid to issue unpopular decisions! I was thinking of the Auton decision while reading the article. I seemed to me that she ignored her own advice and was a bit of hypocrite.

I remember a number of years ago being on a live local CBC radio afternoon show in Ottawa and the program host made a reference to the Auton case decision of the SCC and then to another subsequent Ontario court decision that seemed somewhat incompatible as it came to a different conclusion with respect to autism treatment (I think it was in the school system). The host asked me what was my reaction to these two decisions, and how I interpreted them. I replied that to me, the two decisions boiled down to this:  every judge on the Supreme Court of Canada should be the immediate recipient of some sort of “early departure” or “early retirement” incentive, and that there were a number of judges in Canada at the Court of Appeal level that should be entitled to immediate promotions.

I suspect the legal and political community will be hosting many “Goodbye Beverley” parties towards the end of the year, and I sincerely hope I get an invitation.  It seems to me to be an entirely appropriate occasion to celebrate and have a drink.

Second, did you hear the news today about the federal government signing a $7 billion national child care deal with nine provinces? It makes me wonder if Mike Lake will issue a statement suggesting some concern over “jurisdiction” and whether he would have preferred the federal government instead create some sort of “Canadian Day Care Partnership” bureaucracy to lobby the provinces to provide more day care spaces or something.  Just wondering…

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

Well, here’s some more “Qs & As” to help keep the merry-go-round spinning and going nowhere fast.  Yesterday in the Senate, our historic champion, Senator Jim Munson, got on the CAP project bandwagon and asked the government rep, Peter Harder (a former senior bureaucrat who “advised” the new Trudeau government during the “transition period” and was rewarded with a Senate seat….much like Trudeau’s father appointing Michael Pitfield to the Senate back in the 80s).

Regarding this exchange, once again, there is no reference to what is the actual problem(s) or challenges that families with autism face. No mention of lack of access to treatment under Medicare, etc. Instead, Senator Munson actually says that the feds should take the “…national lead in working on research, surveillance, indigenous groups — you name it…”  Yes, that’s it.  Forget access to treatment. After years of all that lobbying and court cases and petitions and stuff…we’re down to “research, surveillance, indigenous groups”.  And what is the “solution”?  According to Mike Lake, Senator Munson, etc., it is to fund the CAP project.  I disagree.  To me, this CAP project is a huge diversion and distraction which has completely changed the nature of the discourse about autism and autism policies.  Instead of talking about the real issues that need to be addressed, they go back and forth about funding for a new bureaucracy.  If the government does commit the funding, it will be a convenient way for the government to say “we’ve done something, we’re paying for it,…the autism problem is now solved”, when in fact anybody with just half a brain will know that the real issues have not be addressed and have not been solved.

Thursday, June 8, 2017

Senate

Health

Autism Support and Funding

<b>Hon. Jim Munson:</b> My question is for the Government Leader in the Senate.

Senator, I never thought I would have to ask this question — and actually, I really don’t want to ask this question — because I felt that, in March, when we had the budget, those of us who work in the autism community held out a strong hope, a really strong hope, that the government would approve — in the scheme of things, with the billions of dollars that are being spent — a modest amount of money, less than $20 million over a four- or five-year period, for a Canadian Autism Partnership — a partnership that was put in place by the Conservative government and through my work with Conservative MP Mike Lake. That was a modest amount of money, $2 million over two years. That partnership, which was established by CASDA, Canadian Autism Spectrum Disorders Alliance, brings together the overwhelming majority of autism groups across this country. Through that partnership, we wanted the federal government to take the national lead in working on research, surveillance, indigenous groups — you name it — across this country so that we can build upon the foundation we have now.

Alas, the money was not in this budget. However, I don’t give up hope. None of us give up hope; we sincerely hope.

How do you see the federal role in the future in terms of leading a partnership with the autism community?

<b>Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate):</b> Senator Munson, let me first thank you for your question and for your ongoing advocacy for the disabled generally, and the autism community in particular.

As I have said in response to several other questions on this matter, autism spectrum disorder is an area of significant concern for the ministers responsible. There is specific funding in Canadian Institutes of Health Research on the research side, about $8 million.

With respect to the funding that the honourable senator is speaking of, I will certainly raise that with the minister responsible. The government is taking other initiatives, including those of general application to families with disabled, in terms of the Canada child benefit and other measures, but I understand exactly the question being asked and I will endeavour not only to seek an answer but to ensure that the question is asked with the advocacy of your question.

<b>Senator Munson:</b> I thank you for that answer, because I don’t think one can ever give up hope. You have to remember as well, Senator Harder — and I think you do understand — that it was the Senate of Canada, all of us in this room, who approved a Senate report called <i>Pay</i> <i>Now or Pay Later: Autism Families in Crisis</i>. That was almost 10 years ago now. Yes, incrementally there have been a few things there, but it was the Senate that urged the government — all governments — to get involved. When we made that push at that particular time, the Conservative government took it upon themselves, with the Public Health Agency of Canada, to work on these things.

I can’t help but express real disappointment. When we began this quest, 1 in 150 had some form of autism; now it is 1 in 68. There is a crisis in this country. Everybody has a neighbour down the street, somebody in their family, somebody they know. People are moving across the country to get better services, from Atlantic Canada to Alberta. People are remortgaging their homes and, sadly, a lot of parents have divorced because of the stress that’s involved.

This is a request to implore you to talk to the ministers involved. I have spoken with both of them, and I’m hoping there is some sort of concrete announcement where, again, the federal government leads and works with the provinces, because we cannot continue to work in silos in this country.

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

Well, something strange is really going on in Ottawa.  It is so weird.  To get an idea of just how weird it is, you have to be aware of the background and the context.  First, in 2004 there was an Auton case that went to the SCC. The issue of access to autism treatment under Medicare has been an outstanding issue that is the number one priority issue for any parent of a newly-diagnosed child with autism, and for many parents of older children with autism.  It has been the primary issues for decades. Now, in 2017, we have an opposition MP with a child who is non-verbal hammering away at the Prime Minister (and getting lots of standing ovations in the House of Commons), but what is he asking about?  Treatment? Access to treatment under Medicare?  No.  He’s asking about the support for a new proposed bureaucracy.  And the PM’s anwers….if you look hard, the word “autism” is mentioned somewhere in there, but apart from that, nothing is said that would give any parent any reason for hope or relief.  So what does one call such absurd situations where two politicians are going through the motions of pretending to represent our community interests, but in fact neither have a clue of just how misguided they are?

After a meaningless exchange with the Prime Minister, Mike Lake went on later in the day to make several long speeches about his “Canadian Autism Partnership” project and his frustration over the lack of government support. However, when I read through it, I could not see anywhere where he identified what are the specific public policy gaps that Canadians with autism have to deal with, and how this “CAP” thing will possibly help. In other words, the whole debate is a complete diversion from the real issues (i.e., when will the feds arrange to meet with the provinces and negotiate a funding formula for the inclusion of autism treatment under Medicare, etc.).  So we have this absolutely ludicrous situation where one MP portrays himself as the “champion” for the autism community, the opposition parties give him standing ovations, the autism community (e.g., the CASDA folks) repeatedly thank him for his “tireless work on our community’s behalf”, and the Prime Minister actually has to respond to a question and a supplementary on the topic of “autism”, and yet both the questions and the responses have absolutely nothing to do with the key challenges the autism community faces.   It makes you wonder if either Mike Lake or the PM every considered asking a parent of a child with autism “what question about autism should I ask?” or “how would you suggest I respond to such a question about autism?” (I know, I know…Mike Lake has a child with autism….but another parent I mean).

From the Hansard for June 7, 2017

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

Mr. Speaker, in his rambling justification of his vote against the Canadian autism partnership, the Liberal House leader’s parliamentary secretary said:

<small>I disagree with members who say that it is 10¢ a day for this, or it is only $19 million. I can assure you that every one of the constituents I represent would argue that a million dollars is a lot of money.</small>

He will get no argument from this side on that last point. However, as the Liberal Prime Ministerracks up a deficit over 25,000 times that $1 million, how is it possible that Canadians living with autism were left behind?

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

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the member’s strength and passion on this issue. I recognize that autism spectrum disorder has a significant and lifelong impact on individuals and their families.

Federal investments in research, data improvements, surveillance, and training skills are supporting those with autism and their families. There is an extraordinary network of stakeholders across the country raising awareness and providing services to families. Our government will continue to support those efforts through our programs.

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

Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister even know that in addition to the vast majority of Canada’s autism community, the Canadian autism partnership has received overwhelming support from every part of our country: the Canadian Association for Community Living, UNICEF Canada, Plan Canada, Save the Children Canada, World Vision Canada, Global Citizen, Hayley Wickenheiser, Elliotte Friedman, and many more.

Conservative, NDP, and Green members were unanimous in our support for Canadians living with autism, yet every single Liberal, but one, voted against the partnership. Could the Prime Minister please explain this decision?

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

Mr. Speaker, through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Government of Canada has invested more than $39 million in autism research over the past five years. This investment contributes to providing the research evidence needed for the development of new tools and treatments for those suffering from autism.

We recognize the challenges families are going through and we stand ready to support them.

 

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

Some interesting fallout from the vote on the CAP motion in the House of Commons yesterday.

First, Mike Lake posted a picture on his Twitter thing of all the politicians who showed up on “Autism on the Hill” day this year.  He points out that 12 Liberals MPs showed up and were glad to have their picture taken, but all 12 voted against his motion to fund the CAP bureaucracy.

I’m under the impression that he does not like the taste of his own medicine.  This phenomenon of opposition MPs pretending to support something and then turning on you when they are in government was also very well played out by the Conservatives. I remember organizing numerous rallies in 2004, 2005, and 2006 when the Tories would attend and make all kinds of supportive speeches.  Many of them are referred to at page 5 of this document:

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

You may recognize some of the names: Colin Carrie, Steven Fletcher, Pierre Poilievre, Gary Goodyear, Peter Goldring, Guy Lauzon, Stockwell Day, Randy Kamp, Gord Brown, James Lunney, Mark Warawa, Scott Reid, Carol Skelton, etc… Yes, they all came to the rallies and press conferences and said “something had to be done”.

Then in 2007 these same MPs were asked to vote on Bill C-304, Shawn Murphy’s bill that would have required the federal Minister of Health to meet with provincial counterparts and develop a national autism strategy, as well as including autism treatment in Medicare, and guess what?  All of these Tories, who were previously supportive when they were in opposition, suddenly found that when they were on the government side, they had to vote against the Bill before it could even be sent to the “committee stage” for examination and clause-by-clause review.

In fact, Mike Lake even issued a typical political tract to explain his position, stating that the Bill was “bad legislation”.  Did he, or any of his caucus colleagues who were previously so anxious to help our community (when they were in opposition) ever propose or table an alternative that he considered “good legislation”?  Nope. So far, the only legislation of any relevance that has become law was Senator Munson’s “Autism Awareness Day” Bill.  But let’s face it, that piece of legislation has not helped one kid get access to treatment under Medicare.

To me, this episode shows that people like Mike Lake have poor memories and are somewhat hypocritical. It would be nice if while he tries to shame the Liberals who showed up at the “Autism on the Hill” that he would have the honesty, candour, and integrity to point out that this situation is really a “deja vu” for the autism community, and we’re a little fed up with the false bravado and finger-pointing in the usual blame-game.  This drama would be a nice comedy if it wasn’t so tragic.

Second, there was an interesting news story on Global about the vote….

http://globalnews.ca/news/3486143/liberal-support-for-national-project-linked-to-autism-remains-uncertain/

The report starts off by saying: “The House of Commons is scheduled to vote Tuesday on whether to fund a national partnership that says it will try to get all provinces and territories on the same page when it comes to autism.”

It later concludes by saying: “It’s unclear if the unifying work being proposed by the Canadian Autism Partnership could be done more efficiently in-house by the government itself.”

This is one of the points that I previously raised.  We already have a federal Department of Health and a Public Health Agency of Canada, along with 10 provincial Health Departments.  Do we really need another bureaucracy?  Will we eventually try to create new bureaucratic institutions for every disorder/disease/syndrome/illness, etc.? What we really need is political will, and corresponding directions to the existing “civil service”.

 

[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?

[Author]

Posts