[Andrew Kavchak]

House of Commons
Hansard
Monday, April 23, 2007.

Oral Questions

Ms. Penny Priddy (Surrey North, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Health lost his cool in an interview with the Vancouver Sun saying that members of the group Families for Early Autism Treatment are trying to intimidate him.

This is an organization of parents with autistic children. They are trying to get the federal government to provide the support they need to raise their children, but the Minister of Health has labelled them as extremists.

Is this really what Conservatives think of people who try to get their government to do the right thing? Does the minister really believe that advocating for one's child's health and well-being makes one an extremist? Will the minister tell us what other advocacy groups are on his list?

Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, this government, I was pleased to announce on behalf of the Prime Minister and the government, has done more when it comes to autism and ASD in terms of the federal capacity to deal with this issue than any other previous government.

When it comes to research, when it comes to ASD surveillance, when it comes to a research chair, when it comes to reorganizing Health Canada to make sure that it can deal with ASD, this government has put kids with autism and parents who are suffering as a result of their kids having autism on the front burner. We are proud of this government for doing so.

[Andrew Kavchak]

Please visit Senator Munson's website at:
http://www.sen.parl.gc.ca/jmunson/

Our Champion for the cause has made a speech, written an op-ed and appeared on the Ottawa local all news CFRA radio "lunch bunch" program all within the last day talking about autism.

[Andrew Kavchak]

A New Study and a Commentary piece from Senator Munson:

_________________

Eikeseth,S., Smith,T. Jahr,E., and Eldevik, S.
Outcome for Children with Autism who Began Intensive Behavioral Treatment Between Ages 4 and 7: A Comparison Controlled Study
Behavior Modification, Vol. 31, No. 3, 264-278 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0145445506291396

This study extends findings on the effects of intensive applied behavior analytic treatment for children with autism who began treatment at a mean age of 5.5 years. The behavioral treatment group (n = 13, 8 boys) was compared to an eclectic treatment group (n = 12, 11 boys). Assignment to groups was made independently based on the availability of qualified supervisors. Both behavioral and eclectic treatment took place in public kindergartens and elementary schools for typically developing children. At a mean age of 8 years, 2 months, the behavioral treatment group showed larger increases in IQ and adaptive functioning than did the eclectic group. The behavioral treatment group also displayed fewer aberrant behaviors and social problems at follow-up. Results suggest that behavioral treatment was effective for children with autism in the study.

Key Words: autism • early intervention • behavior modification • behavior analysis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0145445506291396

_________________________________________________
Web-exclusive comment

We can't ignore the facts about autism funding
JIM MUNSON

Special to Globe and Mail Update

It's not as if parents of children with autism spectrum disorders have a lot of spare time. In addition to caring for and arranging education for children with very high needs, Canadian parents have to lobby and sue governments for the care their children require.

In Ontario, a group of parents took the provincial government to court arguing that, among other things, their children's Charter rights were violated by lack of access to intensive behavioural intervention therapy in the classroom. The parents won the first round in 2005, but the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the decision last year. And just last week, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the parents' appeal.

Canada's courts have made it clear that responsibility rests with politicians to deliver the necessary funding for IBI, a therapy that has proven successful for so many children. In the meantime, the provinces offer a mixed bag when it comes to autism treatment — and because it takes place outside of hospitals and doctors' offices and is delivered by a multidisciplinary team of professionals, including teachers, therapists, and social workers, it's not covered by the Canada Health Act. The result is that across the country, parents of children with autism are scrambling for treatment and support.

There are facts we can't ignore when it comes to autism in Canada:

— Autism affects 50,000 children and 150,000 adults in Canada and those numbers are growing.
— Divorce rates for parents of children with special needs are far above the national average.

— The cost of intensive behavourial intervention or applied behavioural intervention is approximately $60,000 a year for each child.

Yes, treatment is expensive, but it has been shown to help.

Without it, children with autism who are dependent on their parents for care and support grow up to be adults with autism who are dependent on society for care and support once their parents are gone. And as the baby boomer population ages, this is very real concern.

No one pretends that parenting children who develop normally is a walk in the park, but for parents who have a child with autism, it is a lonely walk to places unknown. We owe it to them, and to ourselves, to take action and commit federal dollars to a national strategy for autism that includes targeted funding for treatment.

Jim Munson is a member of the standing Senate committee on social affairs, science and technology, which recently issued the report "Pay Now or Pay Later: Autism Families in Crisis."

[Andrew Kavchak]

A message from Ontario…

April 18, 2007

Dear friends and fellow members of the autism community;

In 2003, a number of us began a process to file a class action lawsuit against the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Children and Youth Services, and seven school boards in Ontario for failing to provide or fund Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA)/Intensive Behavioural Intervention (IBI) in the education system or without excessive and detrimental delays. Our case, known as the “Sagharian Class Action”, involves five Plaintiffs representing on behalf of children with autism and their families in seven school boards. A number of anonymous Founding Class Members have also generously contributed both financially to the case and by providing advice and moral support to the Plaintiffs. We recently announced our intent to appeal the March 12, 2007 Superior Court of Justice decision on the motion to strike out portions of our statement of claim and are therefore at the stage of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the motion to strike.

The autism cause took a big step backwards on April 12, 2007 with a judgment from the Supreme Court of Canada denying leave to appeal in the case of Wynberg and Deskin and thousands across our country joined in the grief. Aside from the general recognition these families have brought to the autism cause, the Wynbergs were responsible for initially bringing ABA into Ontario, and the Deskins helped to initiate the implementation of the AIP (Autism Intervention Program). These families will always be heroes to us and we will forever be grateful to them for all that they have done and continue to do.

One generation of autism has suffered two blows from the Supreme Court, first Auton, and now Wynberg. What has changed since the court decision? I’m afraid the answer is not much.

The autism problems in Ontario are not going to go away until such time that a solution is developed, one that meets the needs of our children. So long as the problems continue, our case, the Sagharian Class Action, is going to continue. Also the rallies are going to continue, our message to the public is going to continue, and lobbying directly to the government, both at the provincial and federal level, as well as the school boards, is going to continue. The autism community is not going to give up.

Sincerely yours,

The Plaintiffs and Founding Class Members of the Sagharian Class Action

[Andrew Kavchak]

Yesterday the French station of TV Ontario offered me a chance to be on their "Panorama" program in the evening to discuss the SCC decision to refuse to hear the Deskin/Wynberg appeal. French is not my first language, but I could not pass this opportunity up.

A video of the interview is now on their website, (see the link below). I have no idea how long the video will remain on their website.

http://www.panorama.tfo.org/cfmx/tfoorg/panorama/index.cfm?s=videotheque&v=11195

When you click on it you have to wait a while for the program to load up and play.

The video from the TFO website – home page at: http://www.panorama.tfo.org

Merci!
Andrew Kavchak
Ottawa
______________________________________
Autisme : décision de la cour suprême
16 avril 2007
La Cour suprême refuse d'entendre la cause de 28 parents d'enfants autistes qui demandent des compensations à la province de l'Ontario pour les traitements de leurs enfants. Ces mêmes familles pourraient avoir à défrayer des montants pouvant atteindre jusqu'à 60 000 $ par année pour des thérapies spécialisées. PANORAMA reçoit Andrew Kavchak, membre de l'association Alliance for Families with Autism, dont l'enfant est autiste.16 avril 2007

http://www.panorama.tfo.org/cfmx/tfoorg/panorama/index.cfm?s=videotheque&v=11195

TFO, la télévision éducative et culturelle de l'Ontario français (Canada), est un chef de file mondial en matière d'éducation.

[Andrew Kavchak]

A national strategy is urgently needed for autism victims

The Vancouver Province

Apr 15, 2007

Page: A24
Section: Editorial
Edition: Final

Advocates for the estimated 200,000 Canadians suffering from the neurological disorder known as autism suffered another setback last week in their campaign for greater government support.

A court battle launched by 28 Ontario families to try to get their provincial government to fund treatment for their autistic children ground to a halt when the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear arguments in the case.

Across the country, the decision was greeted with dismay.

Michael Lewis, president of the Autism Society of B.C., says the court abdicated its responsibility to uphold Canada's Charter of Rights.

But it has become abundantly clear that a cure for the "nightmare" of families struggling with back-breaking bills for autism therapy will not come from the courts.

That was indicated in 2004, when the Supreme Court refused to order the B.C. government to fund autism treatments, saying the province had the constitutional right to decide priorities in health-care funding.

It's up to our politicians, therefore, to take the initiative. And there's a huge incentive to do so.

Lewis, himself the father of an autistic child, says that early intervention is successful in 47 per cent of cases.

One problem has been that autism is little understood. There are disagreements over how to define it and how to treat it.

Another difficulty is the cost. Families can pay as much as $60,000 a year for the necessary doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists and other professionals.

The help they get depends on where they live. Alberta, for example, pays up to $60,000 a year to age 18 for treatment. But B.C. pays $20,000 a year to age six and only $6,000 a year thereafter.

B.C. Liberal MP Blair Wilson, who campaigns for autism victims, says such inequity is unacceptable. We agree, and endorse a Senate committee's call last month for a federal-provincial conference to develop a national strategy for autism, which now affects one in 200 children.

The plan should include an awareness campaign, plus more money for research and tax breaks for victims' families. One sweeping solution would be to amend the Canada Health Act to include autism as an insured health service.

We are well aware that the additional burden on health costs would be considerable and would have to be weighed against competing priorities.

But, as a caring nation, we have a moral obligation to do what is right.

Colour Photo: Blair Wilson

[Andrew Kavchak]

Warning to low-hanging politicians: Parents of autistic kids targetTories

Maclean's

Apr 23, 2007
Page: 20
By: JOHN GEDDES

Imagine a Tory who won a seat in the last election by only a few votes. Who would such an MP least want to have to fight, alongside the usualopposition rivals, to survive in the coming campaign? How about enraged,well-organized parents who accuse Ottawa of failing to assure their childrenof essential medical care?

They might not know it yet, but this unsettling scenario faces certaincarefully targeted Conservatives. Parents of autistic children plan to takeaim at selected government MPs who squeaked in last time by two per cent ofthe vote or less. And the most vulnerable MP of all could be the architect ofthe federal autism policy that has the parents so upset — Health MinisterTony Clement, who won his Ontario riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka last time bya mere 29 votes.

Autism groups are cagey about revealing details of their plan of attackbefore an election is on. But one Ontario activist told Maclean's, "Clementis like a pear ready to drop from the tree." B.C.'s Families for Early AutismTreatment was active in a few closely fought B.C. ridings in 2006. Some ofthe group's core members, including director Jean Lewis, are scheduled toattend a meeting in Halifax on May 26 to pass along tactical lessons to EastCoast parents of autistic children.

But if Stephen Harper's minority falls before then, the B.C. firebrands planto cancel their Halifax event and make a campaign detour to Ontario of up totwo weeks. "We will certainly be in Parry Sound-Muskoka," Lewis said. TheB.C. group and their allies demand federal action to extend medicare coverageto full early autism treatment, which can cost $35,000 a year for youngchildren.

Successive federal Liberal and Tory governments have held that deciding whatconditions are insured is up to the provinces. Lewis says autism activistswill back individual candidates who support their position, but not parties."When the Liberals were in power," she said, "they were as pathetic as theConservatives are now."

[Andrew Kavchak]

Go to
CTV.ca

Right side of screen, “Today’s Question”

“Should Provinces pay for the specialized treatment of Autistic children in schools?”

Let them hear your voices!

[Andrew Kavchak]

Supreme Court will not hear appeal over funding for autism treatment
Apr 12, 2007

OTTAWA (CP) _ The Supreme Court of Canada will not hear an appeal from a group of Ontario families seeking money for specialized treatment for autistic children.

The 28 families initially won a court ruling over government financing for costly intensive behavioural therapy, but that was overturned by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

As is usual in leave-to-appeal rulings, the Supreme Court, gave no reasons for its decision.

A Senate committee last month recommended that Canada develop a national plan to deal with autism, including new measures to help families saddled with huge bills for therapy.

[Andrew Kavchak]

Let me get this straight…the SCC deciding to deny children with autism access to treatment that constitutes their core healthcare need is…"pro-freedom"? As Steve Martin would say: "EXCUUUUUSE MEEEE!" There are lots of comments I could make here but I will refrain because I fear that if I start I won't stop.
_____________________________

Some judges more 'pro-freedom': study; Analysis of top court rulings show disparity of views
National Post

Apr 11, 2007
Page: A1

By: Melissa Leong

Some Supreme Court judges are stronger supporters of individual and economic freedoms and equality than their colleagues, claims a new report yesterday.

The report, Judging the Judges, categorizes the justices' decisions as "pro-freedom" and "anti-freedom." Strong supporters of freedom include retired Justice John Major and Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, according to the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF), which put out the paper.

Retired Just ice Claire L'Heureux-Dube, Justice Louise Arbour and Justice Louis Lebel were described by the report as among the weaker defenders of "freedom."

But critics of the report argued that too few cases were analyzed to reach a meaningful conclusion and added that the definitions of "freedom" and "equality" were subject to interpretation.

Chris Schafer, a lawyer and the study's author, said his work explains the reality of judicial decisions.

"Canadians deserve to know and see how our judges are interpreting the Charter," said John Carpay, executive director of the Calgary-based foundation that aims to protect constitutional freedoms.

"When you choose a specific topic such as individual freedom, it becomes very clear that some judges consistently take a broad interpretation of individual freedom and others take a more narrow view.

"When you look at the rulings of retired Justice Major and Justice L'Heureux-Dube, they were consistently on opposite sides of the fence.

"It shows that judges do have philosophies and those philosophies do impact the court ruling."

Mr. Schafer based his findings on 23 cases, selected from hundreds of Supreme Court rulings between 2000 and 2006. He said he chose rulings that could be classified as cases of individual freedom such as freedom of speech, economic freedom or equality before the law.

From the sampling, the court issued "pro-freedom" decisions 83% of the time, the report found.

The report defined a "pro-freedom" ruling as one in which a majority of the court is supportive of: individual freedom, economic freedom or equality of opportunity for individuals (as opposed to equality of result or condition for groups).

According to the study, Justice Major "supported freedom" in all of his decisions while retired Justice L'Heureux-Dube supported it in only five out of 10 instances.

A spokesman for Justice Major, who is head of the Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182, said the former Supreme Court judge was aware of the report but did not "particularly feel inclined to comment on someone else's opinion on his judgment."

The study also suggested that future appointments could shift the composition of the court as two stronger supporters of freedom were approaching the mandatory retirement age of 75: Justice William Ian Corneil Binnie and Justice Morris Fish.

The issue would be exacerbated or remedied by the performances of three judges who were not included in the study because they had participated in too few decisions, Mr. Schafer wrote.

Patrick Monahan, dean of Osgoode Hall Law School at York University, said trends do emerge in the way justices rule, however, he said researchers should be careful when trying to identify and categorize their decisions.

In the 2005 Chaoulli case, in which the Supreme Court struck down Quebec prohibitions on private health insurance, the judges who made up the majority were labelled "pro-freedom" while the dissenters were called "anti-freedom," according to the study.

"Is that pro-freedom? Or anti-freedom?" Prof. Monahan asked. "I happen to agree with the result but many people would say, 'What about the freedom of those who do not have the money to finance health care?'"

In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that the British Columbia government does not have to pay for an early childhood treatment for autism.

"This study defines that as pro-freedom," Prof. Monahan said. "But the autistic children who are not receiving the therapy would certainly not say it was advancing their freedom. They are being denied the opportunity to realize their potential that would arise from the autism therapy.

"The process of classifying the case as pro-freedom is not self-evident. It depends upon the perspective."

Jeff Beedell, a veteran Supreme court watcher in Ottawa, said it was unrealistic to draw a conclusion on the philosophies of judges based on a small sampling of cases.

However, the experts said the discussion that arises from the study is valuable–especially approaching Charter of Rights and Freedoms's 25th anniversary.

"In light of the considerable influence that judges have on public policy in Canada, a more transparent appointment process would bolster public confidence in the judiciary," Mr. Schafer said, reflecting on the implications of the report.

The recent appointment process for Justice Marshall Rothstein was a "step in the right direction," he added.

Mr. Justice Rothstein was Canada's first judicial nominee to take part in the new process introduced in 2006. In February, 2006, he appeared before a parliamentary committee and faced three hours of televised questioning broadcast live across the country. On March 1, he was appointed to the Supreme Court.

[Author]

Posts