[Andrew Kavchak]

And a second article in the Globe…
____________________________________

Autism a lifelong burden, study shows Because few adults with the disorder can work, the economic costs continue
Globe & Mail
Apr 3, 2007

Page: A13
Section: Health
By: ANDRE PICARD

Each child diagnosed with autism will accrue about $3.2-million (U.S.) in medical and non-medical costs over his or her lifetime, according to a new study.

The most expensive components are lost productivity and adult
care, not medical costs and behavioural therapies that so many
parents crave for their children, the research shows.
"Although autism is typically thought of as a disorder of childhood,
its costs can be felt well into adulthood," said Michael Ganz,
an adjunct professor in the department of society, human development
and health at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass., and the
lead author.
Earlier research estimated that autism costs the U.S. economy
about $35-billion annually, and the Canadian economy $3.5-
billion.
The new study, published in today's edition of the Archives
of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, takes the analysis further,
examining how these costs are incurred throughout the lifetime
of a person with autism.
The study showed that direct medical costs were high in the
first five years of life, at about $35,000 annually. That is
when most behavioural therapies are offered. The indirect costs
to parents, in large part due to lost income, are also quite
high in the childhood and adolescent years, averaging $43,000
annually.
But, as a person with autism ages, the costs of non-medical
care soars, and so do productivity losses.
Because there are programs for autistic adults, these are paid
out-of-pocket, with costs averaging $27,500 a year. Many people
with the disorder do not work and their parents still need to
provide care, factors that translate into economic losses averaging
$52,000 annually, according to the research.
Susan Bryson, who holds the Jack and Joan Craig Chair in Autism
Research at Dalhousie University in Halifax, said the research
is important because it draws attention to adults with
autism.
"The data we have tell us that only about 5 per cent of adults
with autism are self-supporting," she said. Yet there is a paucity
of adult programs, and this creates a life-long burden for
families."
Dr. Bryson said it is not clear if investing in behavioural
therapy like ABA/IBI in childhood will ultimately result in
adult autistics who are more able to be independent and to
work.
"But we need to ask the question: Does investment early on have
significant economic benefits later?" Dr. Bryson said.
Dr. Ganz said recognizing that a child diagnosed with autism
today may become an adult who is unable to work and who requires
specialized adult care should awaken parents to the need for
financial planning.
"Parents of children with autism should seek financial counselling
to help plan the transition into adulthood," he said.
To conduct the research, Dr. Ganz looked across the lifetime
of a hypothetical group of individuals born in 2000 and diagnosed
with autism in 2003.
Only costs directly related to autism were included, with no
medical or non-medical costs incurred by individuals with or
without autism included.
Autism and related conditions are development disabilities known
under the catch-all term autism spectrum disorders.
They have become increasingly common in recent years.
The soaring numbers are due to a combination of factors, including
greater awareness, changes in diagnostic criteria and, perhaps,
more children being born with the disorder.
The Autism Society of Canada estimates the incidence rate in
this country is one in every 286 births. The condition is about
four times more likely in boys than girls.
It is not clear what causes autism spectrum disorders, but there
are many theories, including exposure to environmental toxins,
diet, a malfunctioning immune system and paternal age.
(There are those who also believe that autism can be caused
by a mercury derivative that used to be found in childhood vaccines,
but that theory has repeatedly been debunked.)

[Andrew Kavchak]

National strategy is needed, Senate committee concludes

Globe & Mail
Apr 3, 2007

Page: A13
Section: Health

By: Andre Picard

The federal government needs to take a leadership role to develop
a national autism strategy that ensures that children and adults
suffering from the debilitating developmental disorder get the
care and support they need, and that parents have the tremendous
financial and emotional burden lifted from their shoulders,
according to a new Senate report.

"Families with autistic children in Canada are facing a crisis,"
the report says. "When a child is diagnosed with autism and
therapy is prescribed by a health professional, publicly funded
health-care insurance does not pay for the cost of the
therapy.

"As a result, families must often pay out of their own pockets
for a very large portion of expensive autism therapy — whose
cost may reach $60,000 a year — because provincial and territorial
jurisdictions offer limited . . . assistance."

Senator Art Eggleton, chairman of the standing senate committee
on social affairs, science and technology, which produced the
report, said: "There is some urgency on getting the ball rolling
on this. Parents of children with autism need help and adults
with autism need help." Mr. Eggleton said that while the report
— entitled Pay Now or Pay Later: Autism Families in Crisis
— does not make a specific recommendation on funding, a substantial
investment is required.

He pointed to the fact that, last year, the U.S. government
adopted the Combating Autism Act, which allocated $945-million
(U.S.) in additional funding over five years for better diagnosis,
treatment and research.

Sam Yassine, spokesman for the Alliance for Families with Autism
and father of a seven-year old with autism, said he was encouraged
by the fact that the Senate committee recognized that many parents
of autistic children find themselves in desperate straits.

But, at the same time, he said it was discouraging that the
report did not take a stand on an issue that is crucial to many
parents — the provision of a form of behavioural therapy know
as ABA/IBI.

The intense treatment can cost up to $60,000 a year, but "there
are huge discrepancies in funding between provinces," he said.
Alberta will pay for it up to age 18, while Ontario limits its
funding to children 6 and under, and New Brunswick provides
virtually no funding.

Mr. Yassine noted that his son, Amjad, is now 7, so that because
he lives in Ottawa, the boy is no longer eligible for
treatment.
"This is crazy. Time is of the essence to children with autism
and we need to help them," he said.

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,
Some rumblings in the House yesterday…
_____________________________

House of Commons
Hansard
Friday, March 30, 2007.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

* * *

Budget Implementation Act, 2007
…..

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are very good at telling us to read the budget. I did read the budget. I read it twice. There are so many things missing, but with the shortness of time I will concentrate on one issue.

When the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill was in opposition, she was a terrific critic for her party, going after the Liberals, and rightfully so, on many faults they had. When she and her party were in opposition she was very well known for saying that when a motion passes this House of Commons, this should reflect the government's ideology and what it should be doing because the will of Parliament has spoken.

Not only did the Conservatives ignore the veterans' first motion in the budget, helping VIPs, widows and injured soldiers, for example, but they completely omitted autism. Autism did not even get a mention in the budget, even though it was passed with Conservative support in a motion by the hon. member for Fredericton.

I have a simple question. With a $14.2 billion surplus, could the Conservatives not find it in their hearts, one, to have included autism in the budget to help those families and children across the country; and two, why did the government ignore a motion passed by this House of Commons?

Ms. Diane Ablonczy:
Mr. Speaker, the member knows that the government does have a very strong advocate for autism. One of our own members has a young child who has this difficulty and the government is moving on this front.

I find it very interesting that we have a budget that provides $39 billion in new funding for health care, education and infrastructure, $4.5 billion to clean up Canada's air and water, a $2,000 tax credit for every child under 18, a working income tax benefit, a tax fairness plan to reduce taxes for seniors and on and on, and the only thing the member can find to criticize is that somehow there was not a specific announcement about a specific condition that the government is already addressing.

I think that is a ringing endorsement for the budget which is so good for Canada and all Canadians.

….

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Ottawa Centre.

It is with great pleasure that I rise on the budget debate this afternoon. I know that all governments have to make choices. Choices are made easier when there is access to finances that can be used. If we did not have access to finances, then we would have to make tough decisions in that regard.

This particular budget is severely lacking in what were considered as promises and indications made by the Conservatives when they were in opposition and now when they are in government.

We have seen various reversals of positions. Some people call them broken promises. Some call them deceptions, deliberately or indirectly, but the reality is that there have been major reversal decisions without much consultation with the public.

We can take the reversal on the income trusts as an example. Although we believe in the end that it had to happen, these trusts should never have been set up in the way that they were in the first place. Governments knew full well that these major tax concerns would be affecting the government in some way.

I personally believe that the government should not have made that promise before the campaign. People would then have been very careful with their tax dollars.

What I find most offensive about this particular budget is that the Conservatives have a $14.2 billion surplus, more than they anticipated. When they were in opposition, they repeatedly criticized the Liberal Party for excessive surplus budgets by saying it is coming from employers and employees in the country.

With that kind of money, $14.2 billion, regardless of how it was achieved, we would think the government would be able to help some of the most vulnerable people in our society, some of the most bravest in our society.

We moved in this House a veterans first motion. Elements of that motion were the veterans independence program for widows and widowers; raising the pension allowance from 50% to 66%; getting rid of what is called the gold digger clause, so regardless of when a person remarries there would not be any discrimination after age 60; and that a person's second spouse at the time of his or her death would be entitled to that person's pension benefit.

There was to be an end to the clawback at age 65 for those who have become disabled, the clawing back of the CPP pension and then the disability pension. There was also the SISIP program. Two DND ombudsmen said it was unfair and it needed to be rectified. The House of Commons moved a motion stating that.

Many people across the country had repeatedly asked the previous Liberal government to deal with this issue. It failed. Now the current Conservative government is failing on the issue of protecting our veterans and those who have become injured within our military service and their families.

For less than 2% of the total surplus of the budget, the government could have dealt with the SISIP issue once and for all. The $290 million estimated price tag would have once and for all fixed the financial situation, so that these thousands of injured soldiers and their families would have financial relief and be able to move on with their lives.

One would think that with a $14.2 billion surplus the Conservatives would somehow find $290 million to fix the problem once and for all. What was the answer? No. It was not even in the budget. What a shame.

On the VIP, the now Prime Minister gave assurances to a woman in Cape Breton named Joyce Carter that if his party formed the government the VIP would indeed be extended immediately to all widows and widowers, regardless of the time of death of the veteran. Sixteen months later what do we see in the budget? Nothing.

This House also moved a motion on autism which the Conservative Party supported. We have asked that the government immediately reconvene a meeting with the provinces and the stakeholders to discuss the best way to move this issue forward. We know it is going to take financial and human resources to assist the provinces and territories in the delivery of care and treatment for families with children dealing with autism.

We thought that after the motion passed in the House, even with the support from the Conservatives, that it would be mentioned in the budget. Not a word.

There were also aspects on the fishery concerns. When the Conservatives were in opposition, they wrote letters to Danny Williams saying they would immediately invoke custodial management on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. There is nothing.

We also had promises on equalization, promises that the offshore accords for Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia would not be touched. Again, there is a complete reversal of position.

Here is the reality with a surplus of $14.2 billion. People in our income bracket, those making well over $100,000, are doing quite well now. The reality is that I do not need a tax cut. Those people who need help with taxes are the low income earners and the pensioners, those in the lower middle class. MPs and senators do not need a tax cut.

The reality is that at the same time we need to reinvest to help those people who are disabled or widowed or who are struggling to get through their day to day lives with the excessive costs of health care, et cetera. They are being ignored by this budget.

What is most offensive is that these assurances were given by the Conservatives when they were in opposition. They said that if they ever formed a government, they would clean up 13 years of Liberal inaction and move forward on these issues.

We hear them time and time again saying to stand up and support the troops. I congratulate them for doing it. I am glad to see that everybody in this House does, but I question the Conservatives when it comes to supporting the troops when they have to take their uniforms off, when they become disabled and have to leave the military, or when they become old and aged veterans, or when they pass on and their families are left behind and their spouses are looking for help.

I have over 20 world war and Korean veterans in the area of the Halifax Regional Municipality, HRM. Every single one of them has one thing in common with the others: they were denied hearing aids.

They were denied hearing aids because of the fact that a lot of them did not have a hearing test when they left the war in 1946 or 1947. They were young and they got on with their lives, but now their hearing is really suffering. They have been told by audiologists that there is a connection between what happened in their wartime service and their loss of hearing now, but DVA says they did not have a test in the beginning so they do not qualify.

With a $14.2 billion surplus, one would think that DVA and the government would honour the words that the Minister of Veterans Affairs said in opposition and has said in government, which were that we should always give the benefit of the doubt to the veteran. He said that repeatedly.

I ask this government, the cabinet and the DVA to honour the commitment in those words of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and give the benefit of the doubt to these aged veterans so they can have some comfort in the remainder of their lives. With a $14.2 billion surplus, if they cannot do it now, when are they going to do it? These are not young men and women any more.

Our injured soldiers deserve better.

Children with autism deserve better.

These are just some of the elements, in a short 10 minute speech, that I am able to talk about a bit. There are so many more deficiencies with this budget.

Again, when we have the finances at our fingertips to really help people in this country from coast to coast to coast, why did the Conservatives ignore them? Why was the government so callously arrogant in its approach to this budget, thinking that these people would not notice?

These are people who served our country. They deserve better. We have the opportunity to do it. We should have done it, but they missed out. It is not good enough to stand in the House and say, “We are working on it and we will get around to it”. That is what was said when they were in opposition. That is what they are saying in government.

The government needs to move much, much faster on this issue, because if we do not, an awful lot of these brave men and women will pass on because of their ages, and they will not have received the help they required.

That is not how they should end the rest of their lives. They should know that the government and this House of Commons, regardless of political party, cares about what they have done. The reality is that it should have been in the budget and it was not.

It is not too late. The Conservatives can turn around right now, stand up in the House and say very clearly that they made a mistake, that it was an omission and they will put it back in.

For children with autism to be told by the government that there is no help for them because it is not in the budget is unacceptable. That is why, along with many other reasons, we in the NDP cannot and will not support the budget.

…..

Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House to speak on a document that is as important as our budget. I want to start with some of what I think is actually positive about this budget and some of what we fought hard for in opposition, both with the previous government and with the present government.

Not to alarm anyone, I will have a critique on some of the things that I find puzzling and am concerned about in terms of this budget. Sadly, they outweigh the positive things I see in this budget.

Among the things I see as important and that we in the NDP fought for is that we are looking at money for reduced wait times. I think there is a consensus in this country that this needed to be done. There also was some budget money put toward e-health technologies.

We fought for the expansion of the transit pass credit to weekly passes. That is going to be addressed. As well, there is the incentive to buy green cars, which I will come back to in a minute.

Another positive thing is the move to conserve land like the Great Bear park and boreal forest.

That is about it. After that, we have negatives. Sadly, there is a long list.

There was no national housing strategy. There was no national transit strategy.

There was nothing on employment insurance reform. There was no establishment of the $10 minimum wage to deal with the prosperity gap. There was no poverty reduction strategy. There was no plan to end student debt. There was no cancellation in regard to the corporate taxes.

There was nothing for pharmacare, home care, long term care, or improved access to health care for aboriginal people. There was nothing for coordinated training for medical professionals. There was nothing about catastrophic drugs for the Atlantic region.

There was no significant new money for aboriginals.

There was only a quarter of the money we wanted and needed in child care and there was no real vision for child care. There was nothing on autism, as my colleague mentioned.

There was no ban on bulk water exports.

There was nothing new for the pine beetle.

There was nothing for seniors. There was no increase in OAS. There was no action on the veterans first motion.

There was nothing on forestry, nothing for ACOA, and nothing for western diversification.

That is quite a long list. I want to point to a couple of things in the budget. I did read it carefully. It is important to look at the budget from last year. I looked at page 33 of the budget, which talks about corporate profits. We see from the graph by Statistics Canada that corporate profits were at an historic high, with a 14.2% increase in corporate profits.

This year it is in a similar vein. We see an increase in corporate profits. Some would say that is a good thing because it shows a healthy economy. I do not disagree with that, but the problem we in the NDP have with it is where those corporate profits are going and where they are being spent.

They are not being spent in reinvestment. They are not being spent on retooling. Sadly, there is only a small smidgen of action in the budget about making sure there is some money for the manufacturing base so it can put money back into plants and into capital, but it is not directed enough.

In fact, what we have is more corporate tax cuts, because they were there before and they continue. Sadly, this budget does not address the prosperity gap. It does not address the kitchen table economics that we speak of. It does not address the need for more investment in people and the need to make sure that corporations invest in retooling, which is so desperately needed.

There is another thing I want to mention. On page 218 of this year's budget, the government talks about the initiatives around foreign credential recognition. It states:

This initiative, along with the improvements to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, will increase the number of individuals wanting to come to Canada. Budget 2007 provides $33.6 million over the next two years to ensure that those who come to Canada through these avenues have the valid documentation and meet Canada's health and security requirements.

I am not sure if the Conservatives have been talking to people who have come to this country recently, but this is not the problem.

If they are spending money on this initiative and not dealing with foreign credential recognition and real employment for people in the professions, then they have wasted time and taxpayers' money, because the issue is not about trying to get valid documentation to meet the health and security requirements. In fact, that is part of the problem.

I will give an example. I had three town halls before the Christmas holiday. They showed that for people from all walks of life who are foreign trained professionals, doctors, engineers, people in the medical profession, pharmacists, et cetera, the main problem for them is Canadian experience, foreign credential recognition and employment. Sadly, in this budget there is nothing to help them.

There is nothing in the budget that says there are opportunities right here in the public service or to coordinate job opportunities. The government promised to deal with the issue of foreign credential recognition in the budget but it did not. All there is now is a referral desk. That is not what anyone envisaged in terms of what needs to happen on foreign credential recognition and employment for those who so desperately need it.

I also wanted to touch on those who are falling behind, those who need child care, those who need housing and those who are disabled, who cannot take advantage of tax cuts. The budget is a little bit for everyone but in the end there is nothing for anyone in many respects. The budget contains little tax credit boutique programs, which the Conservatives readily critiqued when they were in opposition. The Conservatives are helping the people they think are their target voters, let us make no doubt about that.

In fact, before the budget was presented, the Prime Minister went on the road and made 21 announcements on new initiatives. He did it in campaign style. He is trying to win a majority but he is leaving people behind. The prosperity gap grows and the people who need the help are not being helped by the budget.

I will read some comments that I have received from constituents who have told me their stories and what is happening to them:

I am a disabled person; paying high rent. I can barely make ends meet. I have applied for subsidized housing in 2003, and was told I have to wait “8 yrs”.

It will eight years before the application is considered. Try living on $979 a month, with a rent of $600 and phone bills for emergency purposes. This person is not going to be helped by the budget. These are the people we need to help. Another person who wrote to me recently is a little better off, but is looking at taking out a $60,000 loan to afford child care in downtown Ottawa:

I am securing middle class but cannot afford child care! Help!

There is nothing in the budget that will help that person. They are real people, ordinary Canadians, everyday people we are here to represent. They have been forgotten, the disabled, aboriginal people and those who are in the middle class who are trying to secure a middle class way of life and cannot and who are having to take out a loan for child care. It is a disgrace. It is wrong. That is why I will not be able to support the budget, why my party will not be able to support the budget.

If we had some vision in the country we would not be putting all of our eggs into one tax cut basket, or corporate tax cuts, which has happened in previous years. We would invest in Canadians.

During the Quebec election campaign we saw the handover of money from the federal government, no strings attached, to let the province spend where it will. It made our federal government look like an ATM machine where the provinces can take out money at their will, but where does it go? It does not go to services. In the case of Quebec. It will go to a tax cut.

Exactly what Quebeckers wanted was better services. I think the story of the Quebec election was that there was a population that demanded services and got nothing in return but another broken promise. They will see that the federal government will not take a leadership role and provide real investment, show real leadership and make sure that the dollars that are sent to provinces are spent on child care, housing, dealing with clean water and other issues.

It is an opportunity missed. Last year the title of the budget was “Focusing on Priorities” and this year it is “Aspire”. Sadly, what we have is a missed opportunity, little aspiration and definitely no vision.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a correction to some of the mistruths the member is projecting.

Our new government recognizes autism spectrum disorder. It is an important concern and we are committed to working with our partners, provinces, territories and other stakeholders on this issue.

The federal government supports research on ASD through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. It has invested nearly $50 million since 2000. It is a sponsor of the ASD stakeholder symposium in 2007. These are just a few examples.

The institute is beginning to explore the establishment of a research chair focusing on effective treatment. It has launched a consultative process on the feasibility of developing an ASD surveillance program. It has a dedicated page on the Health Canada website. The Health Policy Branch of Health Canada has been designated as an ASD lead.

The member is quite concerned about what the provinces might do with the money and he specifically mentioned Quebec. He should look at the rest of Canada. His counterparts in Saskatchewan have no respect for any of these issues. We have lost children with autism to Alberta because Saskatchewan would not educate or help the parents and families.

I would suggest that the member maybe look a bit deeper. He will find out that it is Alberta specifically and Ontario that lead in helping parents with an autistic child. Saskatchewan has abandoned these children. Saskatchewan has an NDP government. That province will be one of the beneficiaries of the really good agreement that has just been promoted through budget 2007.

The provincial NDP government in Saskatchewan has just announced its budget and there is nothing in it for farmers and agriculture, which is the backbone of that province. Our health minister could not get Saskatchewan on board with respect to wait times. Our Indian affairs minister could not get the province on board with respect to education for aboriginals.

Why does the member think that I do not like to see some of this money going to Saskatchewan? I want what is fair and what is equitable. However, I want a premier too who will spend it where it is needed.

Mr. Paul Dewar:
Mr. Speaker, I think there was a question there somewhere.

I will address the autism issue. I heard the member mention websites, processes, and special projects being set up. I can take that member to communities where people are remortgaging their homes because they are trying to afford a way to deal with their children's future.

It is not good enough to talk about plans and websites. We know what we can do about autism. We can stand up and deliver. Sadly, this Conservative budget did not. It is plain and simple.

On the issue of provinces, let me be very clear. The government had a surplus of $14.2 billion. There was no debate in terms of what we should do with that surplus. Our party said we should have a debate so we know where the money is going and not just decide to fob it off on programs, or tax cuts in the case of Quebec, as I mentioned, without any strings attached.

We need to start talking about national standards. If I were raising an autistic child in Ontario and I go to Saskatchewan or Alberta, I should not have to worry about whether or not that province has the capability to deal with my autistic child. If I were to send my children to university in Quebec, I should not have to worry about whether or not they were born there so they can have an affordable education. That is the reality and that is the reality that the Conservative government does not understand.

[Andrew Kavchak]

Ottawa Citizen
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Page B7

We Need a National Autism Strategy

By Jim Munson

It's not unusual to see people on Parliament Hill with signs and posters advocating one issue or another. But something about Andrew Kavchak was different. He was stressed, he was anxious and he had a personal story to tell. His son is autistic.

It breaks your heart to listen to what is a personal crisis for the Kavchak family and to what has become a crisis from coast to coast to coast. For thousands of families across this country, the impact of this neurological condition has been devastating.

In the Senate we launched a study through the Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. We heard from 53 witnesses, including autistic individuals, parents of autistic children, advocacy groups, health professionals, autism researchers and federal department representatives, as well as one provincial minister.

Autism is a complex, lifelong, developmental disability on the rise in Canada where it affects one in 166 people. It is three to four times more likely to affect boys than girls.

Autism affects people in different ways. On one end of the spectrum, people are isolated by compulsive behaviours and speech disorders. Others are able to participate in society with varying degrees of support. People with autism are often closed off from their family, friends, teachers, neighbours and society as a whole. Research offers lots of possible reasons why the number of people affected is growing, but there is no cure.

Canada has a patchwork approach to autism treatment and support. Available services vary from province to province, and funding for such services depends on provincial policies and budgets. Treatment for autism can be expensive, up to $60,000 annually for IBI (intensive behavioural intervention).

Many families are facing financial crises to ensure their children obtain treatment. It requires a multidisciplinary tream: medical practitioners, psychologists, occupational therapists and special-education providers all have a vital role to play in the treatment of autism.

Families are on their own in Canada to obtain information, services, support and treatment for autism. It's clear that we must do more as a society. Without treatment and support, we lose the potential contributions that people with autism can make.

In many cases, without treatment, people with autism are institutionalized at a huge cost to society.

Parents shouldn't have to move from province to province to find the best treatment for service.

Parents shouldn't have to live on the edge of a breakup because of the stress in brining up an autistic child.

Parents shouldn't have to sell or remortgage their homes to pay for costly treatment.

In its final report on the Inquiry on Funding for the Treatment of Autism, "Pay Now or Pay Later: Autism Families in Crisis", released this week, senators make it clear that the federal government must implement a national autism strategy, in collaboration with the provinces and territories.

What is needed is a level playing field where everyone has equal access to equal services. The committee is encouraged by recent steps taken by the federal govenrment to address autism concerns and supports the stakeholder symposium on autism announced for 2007. However, plans need to be more specific.

Yes, treatment is expensive. But as one witness said, "If you pay for it now, look at the return you will get on your investment. The peope with autism will get our in the real world and get jobs, and that will stimulate the economy. Or you can pay later, which means they will go into group homes and it will cost the taxpayers a lot more int he long run to keep them there."

There is no need for families to face autism alone. We are a rich country with budget surpluses. And despite our resources, our response to autism has led to each province having a different prescription in dealing with the issue. We must get our acts together in this country.

We owe it to these families, to society and to ourselves to share not only the burden of autism, but also the collective responsibility to act.

Jim Munson is a member of the Senate of Canada.

[Andrew Kavchak]

The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technoly has just release its report on the Funding for the treatment of autism.

You will find the report entitled: "PAY NOW OR PAY LATER: AUTISM FAMILIES IN CRISES" on the Committee's website at the following link:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/soci-e/rep-e/repfinmar07-e.htm

[Andrew Kavchak]

URGENT UPDATE FROM OTTAWA!!!
____________________________
Release:

Senate Committee Holds Press Conference on Autism Report

Ottawa, March 29, 2007 — Members of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology will be holding a press conference on Thursday, March 29, 2007, to discuss its report Pay Now or Pay Later: Autism Families in Crisis.

Date: Thursday, March 29, 2007

Time: 3:45 p.m.

Place: National Press Theatre, 150 Wellington Street

Live Webcast, audio and video: http://senate-senat.ca/social-webcast.asp

Present: Senator Art Eggleton, Chair of the committee
Senator Wilbert Joseph Keon
Senator Jim Munson
Senator Lucie Pépin

[Andrew Kavchak]

Stoffer slams federal government for not providing autism funding in budget

Fri 23 Mar 2007

OTTAWA – NDP Leader Jack Layton and Peter Stoffer (Sackville-Eastern Shore) slammed the federal government today for not providing funding in the federal budget to help families with autistic children.

“Families with autistic children are in crying need of support,” said Layton. “They are very disappointed that the Conservative government has ignored their needs in the budget. Providing support for these families should be a bigger priority for the federal government than corporate tax cuts.”

“It is also hypocritical that the Harper government is ignoring the autism motion M-172 passed by the House of Commons last December,” said Stoffer. “When Harper was in Opposition, he constantly criticized the Liberal government because it did not respect the votes of the House of Commons. It is surprising how quickly the Conservatives have become just like the Liberals.”

M-172 requires the federal government to work in cooperation with the provinces and territories to establish national standards for treatment and delivery of services, study funding arrangements, create a national surveillance program, and provide more funding for health research on autism.

“The federal government must work with the provinces and territories to find a way to include autism therapy in the health care insurance plan of every region across this country,” said Stoffer. Stoffer introduced a private members bill (C-211) to this effect last fall.

Stoffer also expressed his profound disappointment with the federal government in failing to recognize the Veterans First Motion and ignoring the issue of Agent Orange and Agent Purple in the budget. The Veterans First motion was passed in November 2006 and suggested five key reforms that would deliver long overdue fairness and security for Canadian Forces veterans and their families.

“With a $14.2 billion dollar surplus, how can the federal government not provide more funding and services for families with autistic children and for veterans and their families? It is absolutely shameful. It is time for the federal government to be proactive in the lives of Canadian families living with autism.”

[Andrew Kavchak]

Dear Prime Minister and Members of the Standing Senate Committee looking into issue of Funding for the Treatment of Autism,

It is with great shock that many parents of disabled children in Canada who are getting nowhere near the kind of help they need from the provincial governments for their autistic children found out that the Canadian government is giving money away to support autism programs abroad. While this charitable move is certainly a noble gesture to be recognized, the fact is that there is no shortage of families in Canada with members who suffer from autism who are in great need of assistance. Even though the Conservative government supported and voted for Motion M-172 just a few months ago which was supposed to involve the creation of a National Autism Strategy, not one cent was assigned to any such strategy in the March 19, 2007 budget of two days ago. How is it possible? Similarly, when Bill C-304 was being voted on just a few weeks ago to require the Minister of Health to actually do something on the autism crisis, the Tories and the Bloc voted against it, with no alternative proposal.

Please give Canadians who suffer from autism and their families a fair deal. We need a National Autism Strategy in this country.

Otherwise, could you please advise which country should we be moving to in order to receive our taxpayer dollars in the form of autism assistance?

Thank you,
Andrew Kavchak
_________________________________________________

Autism Society celebrates grant from Canadian government

By Theodore May

Special to The Daily Star
Beirut, Lebanon

Thursday, March 22, 2007

BEIRUT: Members from the Lebanese Autism Society and the Canadian Embassy gathered at the Lycee Abdel Kader on Wednesday to celebrate continuing progress in the fight to provide full and proper education to autistic children. The group, which included Canadian Ambassador Louis de Lorimier, came together to commemorate the bestowal of a $21,000 grant given to the Lebanese Autism Society by the Canadian International Development Agency and implemented by the Canada Fund, the charitable branch of the Canadian Embassy.

This grant "was a great pleasure for us because we need the financial support because autistic children cost a lot of money to raise, especially since the [summer 2006] war," said Arwa al-Amine Halawi, president of the Lebanese Autism Society.

Founded by parents of children with autism in 1999, the society has grown dramatically both in numbers and in reach. Today, the society has 150 members and works to build on the integration program it began in 2000.

The partnership between the society and the Canada Fund began in late 2006, but the society previously had a similar relationship with Oxfam Quebec.

The latest grant from the Canada Fund accomplished a lot in the name of the 14 autistic children who attend special classes at the Lycee Abdel Kader. Part of the money went toward the installation of windows on what had previously been a dangerous open-air hallway. The rest of the funds went toward purchasing school material and helping to establish a new class to accommodate autistic students still on the waiting list.

The society hires professionals who are trained to work with autistic students and focuses on early diagnosis of autism, as well as the behavioral and cognitive development of those diagnosed with the condition. Through the society, students are also offered speech and psychomotor therapy as needed.

The Canadian Embassy plays a distinct and much-needed role in the country. Before the 2006 war, the budget of the Canada Fund shrunk dramatically in the face of what the Canadian government perceived were more pressing issues in Africa. After the war, however, the budget dramatically increased as embassy workers sought to help fund early recovery efforts.

Since then, however, managers of the Canada Fund decided that other at-risk groups not associated with the war should not be forgotten in the rush to help those hurt by the war. The fund therefore targeted "vulnerable categories of the population, including children, women, the disabled and refugees," said Nicole Machnouk, the Canada Fund coordinator.

"The idea is to support socio-economic and educational initiatives through small grants," said de Lorimier.

"We try to support these worthwhile causes.

[Andrew Kavchak]

"We see no money for autism."
____________________________
House of Commons
Hansard
Tuesday, March 20, 2007.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis:

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary brings a lot of commitment to this whole process.

Although we cannot support the budget, I do recognize that there are some aspects to it that are important and do make a difference, some of which we as New Democrats have fought for.

I want to mention that I raised in the House the fact that the credit for bus passes, which only applied to monthly users and unfairly discriminated against those who purchased weekly bus passes, had to be changed and the government did that.

I want to recognize that there is some money for education in this budget.

On the child care front, it is still dismally addressed in this budget with $1 billion cut before our eyes. The government did take the little bit of money it had set aside for business created day care, which was $250 million, and is giving it to the provinces so they can create spaces but that is a drop in the bucket.

What is important to say, which I said in my letter to the minister before his budget, is that we need more than tinkering. We need more than this usual small-minded tax cut for every ill. As I said in my letter:
After more than a decade of short-sighted tinkering around the edges, the time has come to again strategically leverage the competitive advantages that we have and to seize the opportunity to create new ones.

That is missing in the budget.

If we go through the budget we see nothing on housing. It has no housing strategy and no national transit strategy. It has nothing on employment insurance and does not establish a $10 minimum wage. It has no poverty reduction strategy. It has no plan to end student debt. We see no cancellation of the corporate tax cuts. It says nothing about pharmacare, home care, long term care or improved access to health care for aboriginals. It has nothing for coordinated training of medical professionals and it has nothing for catastrophic drugs for the Atlantic region.

The budget provides no significant new money for aboriginals. We see only one-quarter of the money we wanted for child care. We see no money for autism. We see no ban on bulk water exports. We see nothing for the pine beetle infestation. We see nothing for seniors and no increase in OAS. We see no action on veterans. We see nothing for forestry, FedNor, ACOA and western diversification.

All the rhetoric in the world will not cover up the fact that this budget is severely deficient when it comes to meeting the needs of average Canadians, working people, middle class families, ordinary folks, everyday men and women who have worked hard to make this country what it is.

We will vote against this budget unless the government comes to its senses.

[Andrew Kavchak]

Dear Senate Committee looking into Autism Funding,

Please see the press release posted on the US "Autism Speaks" organization website. It is an interesting contrast between the USA and Canada. Notwithstanding the government's support for Motion M-172 just a few months ago which involved the creation of a National Autism Strategy with several specific points, the budget of two days ago does not mention autism anywhere.

Yet, on the same day, March 20, the US Congress was introducing the "Expanding the Promise for Individuals with Autism Act of 2007" which would expand federal funding for life-long services for people with autism. US$350 million.

I can see a difference. Can you see a difference? Please eliminate the difference. Please recommend that the gap in what treatment and assistance that people with autism need and get in Canada versus the USA be eliminated. We need a serious National Autism Strategy and we need one now.

Thank you.

Andrew Kavchak

_________________________________________________

Autism Speaks Applauds Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Senator Wayne Allard for Introducing the Expanding the Promise for Individuals with Autism Act of 2007

Landmark Legislation Would Provide $350 Million in New Federal Funding for Services for Individuals with Autism Act of 2007

WASHINGTON, DC (March 20, 2007) – Autism Speaks, the nation's leading autism advocacy organization, today joined with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO), as they announced the introduction of the Expanding the Promise for Individuals with Autism Act of 2007 (EPIAA), landmark legislation that would dramatically expand federal funding for life-long services for people with autism. The EPIAA would authorize approximately $350 million in new federal funding – above and beyond all existing federal dollars – for key programs related to treatments, interventions and services for both children and adults with autism.

Among the EPIAA's key elements are the authorization of a task force – which will include significant representation from the autism community – that will report to Congress and the Executive Branch on the state of evidence-based biomedical and behavioral treatments and services for both children and adults with autism, including identifying gaps in applied research on such treatments, interventions and services. It would also mandate a GAO study on service provision and financing.

EPIAA would also authorize a variety of grants: $20 million in annual demonstration grants for the coverage of treatments, interventions and services; $20 million in annual planning and demonstration grants for services for adults with autism; $10 million in grants in FY09 (growing to $20 million by FY12) for the expansion of access to immediate post-diagnosis care; $13.4 million annually in training grants for the University Centers of Excellence for Developmental Disabilities for training, technical assistance and additional services for individuals with autism and their families; and $6 million in annual grants to protection and advocacy systems to better meet the needs of families facing autism and other developmental disabilities, including legal representation.

"EPIAA represents a critical next step in establishing an appropriate federal response to the urgent national health crisis of autism," said Bob Wright, co-founder of Autism Speaks. "We thank Senators Clinton and Allard for their leadership in introducing this legislation, and for recognizing that the federal government must do much more to help people with autism get the comprehensive services they need and deserve."

"This is an important and compassionate piece of legislation for many reasons, but perhaps most of all because it remembers those who are most frequently forgotten and that is the adults, be they 22 or 72, who are struggling daily with the challenges of autism," added Jon Shestack, Autism Speaks board member and co-founder of Cure Autism Now (CAN). "The EPIAA will make dramatic and real change in the lives of thousands of Americans with autism and their families."

ABOUT AUTISM
Autism is a complex brain disorder that inhibits a person's ability to communicate and develop social relationships, and is often accompanied by extreme behavioral challenges. Autism Spectrum Disorders are diagnosed in one in 150 children in the United States, affecting four times as many boys as girls. The diagnosis of autism has increased tenfold in the last decade. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have called autism a national public health crisis whose cause and cure remain unknown.

ABOUT AUTISM SPEAKS
Autism Speaks is dedicated to increasing awareness of autism spectrum disorders, to funding research into the causes, prevention, treatments and cure for autism, and to advocating for the needs of affected families. It was founded in February 2005 by Suzanne and Bob Wright, the grandparents of a child with autism. Bob Wright is Chairman and CEO of NBC Universal and Vice Chairman, General Electric. Autism Speaks has merged with both the National Alliance for Autism Research (NAAR) and Cure Autism Now (CAN), bringing together the nation's three leading autism advocacy organizations. To learn more about Autism Speaks, please visit http://www.autismspeaks.org.

[Author]

Posts