Autism Ignorance: Conservative James Moore Says Autism Is Not a Disability

UPDATE: NDP Candidate Mark Ireland who was present at the forum has twice CONFIRMED in a message below that James Moore stated that autism is not a disability.  Mr. Ireland also confirmed that Moore made the statement in a twitter discussion with Ben Brisebois that I have posted on Facing Autism in NB.

Conservative candidate James Moore was asked at Riverside Secondary All Candidates Meeting  in the  BC riding of  Port Moody–Westwood–Port Coquitlam whether he would support legislation to amend the Canada Health Act to include autism treatment (ABA/IBI) under Medicare.  

His reply, as reported at Medicare for Autism NOW,  demonstrated Mr. Moore's fundamental ignorance of autism disorders:

"No, autism is not a disability and The Canada Health Act is not for Special interest Groups."

Mr. Moore obviously knows nothing about autism disorders when he states that autism is not a disability.  He might want to visit web sites of agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee in the US.  Or he could talk to officials at the Canada Revenue Agency who do consider autism a disability for Disability Tax Credit pruposes and specifically mention autism at page 7 of document  RC4064(E) Rev. 10  Medical and Disability-Related Information.    

As to why James Moore would define persons with autism as a special interest group or why the Canada Health act does not apply to them his brief dismissal of this serious issue provides no illumination. 

This Autism Dad Will Not Be Voting Conservative or Green

I will not be voting Conservative in this election. Nor will I be voting Green.

As the father of a son with Autistic Disorder, assessed with profound developmental delays, I am heavily influenced by party autism platforms and histories. The Conservative Party of Stephen Harper has made clear on many occasions that, while it governs, there will be no meaningful attempt by the federal government to assist autistic children and adults or their families. That position has also been made crystal clear by the responses of Conservative candidates to questions from the Medicare for Autism Now Society.

Some Green Party candidates have been positive, and some negative, in response to the MFANS question: "If you are elected to the House of Commons on Oct. 14th, will you publicly commit to supporting legislation which will amend the Canada Health Act to include autism treatment?"

The Green Party has responded to an email from Autism Canada about creating a new federal autism bureaucracy by stating that it does not have a specific position on autism at this time. The Green Party answer, perhaps because of Autism Canada's focus on bureaucracy building, reflects the possibility of future Green Party support for an autism bureaucracy but shows no awareness of the need to provide targeted federal funding to ensure that all autistic children in Canada receive evidence based, effective ABA treatment:

On behalf of Elizabeth May, I would like to thank you for your email and for sharing with us your concerns.

While the Green Party of Canada does not have a specific policy on autism at this time, we are strongly in favour of the Department of Health furthering its mandate to include mental health, as well as developmental health, such as autism. Similarly, we would be committed to expanding the mandate of the Public Health Agency of Canada to include studies on developmental and mental health.

I asked Elizabeth May and the Green Party the following question on September 22, 2008:

Shawn Murphy, the Liberal MP for Charlottetown introduced a private members motion Bill C-304 which called for a National Autism Strategy that included an amendment to the Canada Health Act to require provincial funding of ABA treatment for autism. The motion was defeated on a second reading vote by the combined opposition of the Conservative and Bloc Quebecois parties. The Liberal and NDP party members almost all voted in favour of the motion.

Ms May will the Green Party of Canada follow up on the Shawn Muphy autism motion by also seeking amendment of the Canada Health Act to require ABA treatment for autism?

I received no reply to my question. Autistic children in Canada do not need another federal bureaucracy to study autism and"better inform Canadians as promoted by Autism Canada. The Green Party of Canada, with no specific autism platform at present, has shown interest in Autism Canada style bureaucracy building but no interest in actually taking real action to help autistic children in Canada receive effective treatment wherever they live.

The Green Party, like the Conservative Party, will not be receiving this autism dad's vote in this election.

autism

A Fredericton Autism Follow Up To Alberta MP Brian Storseth

Brian Storseth MP
Westlock-St. Paul

4401 50th Street

St. Paul, Alberta

Telephone: (780) 614-6440

Fax: (780) 645-6817

Storseth.B@parl.gc.ca

Dear Mr. Storseth

On August 27, 2008 I emailed you in response to a Member of Parliament mail out I received from you concerning the Conservative Party. That mail out was an obvious attempt to exploit fear of crime for political purposes. Since you had taken the trouble to use your parliamentary mail privileges to contact me I replied by email. Since you had adopted me as a constituent I expressed my concerns about your government's failure to address the autism crisis in Canada and asked that:

" you encourage your party leader Stephen Harper to adopt a real National Autism Strategy. Send federal dollars to the provinces to ensure that every autistic child receives evidence based treatment regardless of their parents' postal address. You have reached across the country once; you can do it again - for autistic children."

Now that the federal election campaign is in full swing I ask, as one of your adopted constituents, whether you have acted on my request. Have you encouraged Mr. Harper to provide federal funding for autism treatment across Canada and what is the current position of the Conservative Party?

Your response, prior to election day, would be appreciated.

Respectfully,


Harold L Doherty
Fredericton NB

cc. Facing Autism in New Brunswick


autism

The Two Autism Faces of Pierre Poilievre

Pierre Poilievre is yet another of what seems to be an abundant supply of MP's in the Conservative Party of Stephen Harper who, while in opposition presented one face on the need for inclusion of autism treatment in Medicare, then wore another face once the Harper Conservatives formed the government. When it comes to federal financing of autism treatment for Canadians with autism Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC) has presented two decidedly different faces.

Autism FACE # 1 - Opposition MP Pierre Poilievre

While serving in opposition Conservative Party MP Pierre Poilievre was quite happy to use the cause of autistic children to bludgeon the Liberal government of the day as he did in the House of Commons on October 5, 2005.

38th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 132

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Madam Speaker, I rise today with honour to introduce petitions on behalf of constituents in my riding who wish to see the government finally show some leadership in seeking a national framework that would see autism treatment covered by health insurance as part of an overall universal health care system.

The government has deliberately excluded families, who have children with autism, from health coverage, and as a result middle class families are stuck with $40,000 health bills year after year. Members across the way do nothing about it.

Today I proudly introduce a petition calling for some action and calling for some fairness.

Autism FACE # 2 - Government MP and Parliamentary Secretary Pierre Poilievre

HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA 39th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION No. 115 (Unrevised) Wednesday, February 21, 2007 1:00 p.m.

Private Members' Business

Pursuant to Standing Order 93(1), the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of Mr. Murphy (Charlottetown), seconded by Mr. Szabo (Mississauga South), — That Bill C-304, An Act to provide for the development of a national strategy for the treatment of autism and to amend the Canada Health Act, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health.

YEAS: 113, NAYS: 155


NAYS

Poilievre

Once again, a member of Stephen Harper's Conservative Party has been willing to wear two autism faces. On October 5 2005 , Pierre Poilievre, wearing Autism Face # 1, while sitting as an opposition MP, rose in the House of Commons, to chastise the Liberal government of Paul Martin for excluding familes, who have children with autism, from health coverage, and as a result sticking middle class families with $40,000 health bills year after year. Mr. Polievre ripped "Members across the way do nothing about it."

Then on February 21, 2007, wearing Autism Face # 2, now sitting as an MP and Parliamentary Secretary in the governing Conservative Party Mr. Poilievre voted NAY , he voted against, the Private Members' bill of MP Shawn Murphy which, if passed, would have required the federal government to do exactly what Mr. Polievre had previously crticised a different federal government for failing to do.

Pierre Poilievre now a "member across the way", sitting in government, has done exactly what he criticised the Liberals for doing - he has helped perpetuate the exclusion from medicare coverage of treatment for autistic children.

Pierre Poilievre you are a hypocrite.

autism

Autism in Ireland - Fianna Fail Uses Old, Failed Logic, Tired Clichés, In Denying ABA Help To Autistic Children

It is sad to see that in Ireland today that old, failed logic and tired clichés like "one size does not fit all" are being trotted out by the governing Fianna Fail party to deny Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) services to autistic children in Ireland:


Fianna Fáil's Peter Power appealed to the Opposition not to assume that those opposing the motion were 'anti-children', saying nobody was absolutely right, or absolutely wrong.

There was derisive laughter from the gallery when Fianna Fáil's Margaret Conlon, a former teacher, referred to children with special needs demonstrating their abilities 'when they play their tin whistles as a group'.

Concluding the debate for the Government, Minister Micheál Martin said the Government did not believe 'one size fits all', because autism is a continuum, and said the idea of a wide range of teaching methods was not a ridiculous suggestion.



These rationalizations were trotted out a decade ago in New Brunswick and other jurisdictions in Canada and the United States in an effort to deny proven effective ABA services for autistic children desperately in need of such help. These rationalizations are used to provide cover for a refusal to provide effective help for autistic children, not because of genuine concern that other methods might be more appropriate, but because of the cost implications of providing effective ABA intervention.

The reality is that stubborn insistence on refusing the only widely endorsed, evidence based, effective intervention for autistic children is motivated by nothing more than miserliness. The concern of those who resort to such obviously weak excuses has nothing to do with ensuring that each autistic child receives the best intervention possible for that child. If it were they would provide ABA for each child for whom, in their wisdom, they consider it appropriate and other interventions, whatever they might be, for the others. But they won't do that either; governing parties are often just too cheap to spend money to provide evidence based, effective ABA treatment and education for autistic children.

In New Brunswick the government of the day tried the old "one size does not fit all" approach . The debate over whether ABA should be provided by government was intense and at times very personal. But today, although improvements are badly needed, government funded ABA intervention is provided for pre schoolers and some methods and resource teachers and teacher aides are being trained to provide ABA in the school setting. My son with Autism Disorder , and in grade 6, receives ABA instruction every day at Nashwaaksis Middle School. ABA services are also provided to one extent or another in jurisdictions across Canada.

The debate in New Brunswick, and elsewhere, was moved forward by focusing on the principle that interventions should have a solid evidence basis to support their effectiveness. Without an evidence basis parents and officials are essentially gambling with the development of autistic children by wasting time on unproven and unreliable interventions. Here in New Brunswick it was the insistence on evidence based interventions that emerged from an Inter Departmental Committee review of autism specific services in 2001, which at that time were virtually non existent. It is that commitment to evidence based practices which has led to substantial improvements, and to the provision of ABA services for autistic children in New Brunswick.

One of the most helpful and influential reviews of the studies of autism intervention effectiveness was the MADSEC ( Maine Administrators of Services for Children with Disabilities) Autism Task Force Report 1999, 2000 (rev.ed.) The MADSEC Autism Task Force was commissioned to:

perform a detailed analysis of methodologies with which to educate children
with autism. This analysis will focus upon the scope and quality of scientific
research which objectively substantiates, or fails to substantiate, each method’s
effectiveness. Based upon the research analysis, the MADSEC Autism Task Force
will make recommendations for the consideration of decision makers who are key
to the intervention of children with autism. (Mission Statement, p. 2 )

The MADSEC team reviewed the scientific literature, literally hundreds of studies, in support of various autism interventions. It concluded, as summarize in its Executive Summary at pages 5-6:

• Substantiated as effective based upon the scope and quality of research:

Applied behavior analysis. In addition, applied behavior analysis’ evaluative procedures are effective not only with behaviorally-based interventions, but also for the systematic evaluation of the efficacy of any intervention intended to affect individual learning and behavior. ABA’s emphasis on functional assessment and positive behavioral support will help meet heightened standards of IDEA ‘97. Its emphasis on measurable goals and reliable data collection will substantiate the child’s progress in the event of due process.

• Shows promise, but is not yet objectively substantiated as effective for individuals with autism using controlled studies and subject to the rigors of good science:

Auditory Integration Training, The Miller Method, Sensory Integration, and TEACCH.

• Repeatedly subjected to the rigors of science, which leads numerous researchers to conclude the intervention is not effective, may be harmful, or may lead to unintended consequences:

Facilitated Communication.

• Without scientific evaluation of any kind:

Greenspan’s DIR/”Floor Time,” Son-Rise.

The MADSEC depiction of ABA as the only autism intervention substantiated as effective, based on the scope and quality of research in support, was not the only review of the research literature to reach such a conclusion. State agencies in New York and California and the office of the US Surgeon General had reached similar conclusions. Nor was it the last.

In Management of Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders, October 29, 2007 the American Academy of Pediatrics stated:

Applied Behavior Analysis

Applied behavior analysis (ABA) is the process of applying interventions that are based on the principles of learning derived from experimental psychology research to systematically change behavior and to demonstrate that the interventions used are responsible for the observable improvement in behavior. ABA methods are used to increase and maintain desirable adaptive behaviors, reduce interfering maladaptive behaviors or narrow the conditions under which they occur, teach new skills, and generalize behaviors to new environments or situations. ABA focuses on the reliable measurement and objective evaluation of observable behavior within relevant settings including the home, school, and community. The effectiveness of ABA-based intervention in ASDs has been well documented through 5 decades of research by using single-subject methodology 21,25,27,28 and in controlled studies of comprehensive early intensive behavioral intervention programs in university and community settings.29–40 Children who receive early intensive behavioral treatment have been shown to make substantial, sustained gains in IQ, language, academic performance, and adaptive behavior as well as some measures of social behavior, and their outcomes have been significantly better than those of children in control groups.31–40

Other interventions were evaluated by the AAP but no other intervention received a comparative positive assessment, not even close.

Fianna Fail is using the old beaten argument that one size does not fit all to justify refusal to provide ABA services to autistic children. In doing so they are denying those children the opportunity to realize, in the words of the AAP, "substantial, sustained gains in IQ, language, academic performance, and adaptive behavior as well as some measures of social behavior".

Fianna Fail has its counterpart here in Canada. Although most provincial jurisdictions try to provide ABA services, the level of funding, and extent of service provided, varies from province to province. Our federal government has huge surpluses but will not provide funding to the provinces to pay for more ABA intervention. The Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Alleged Health Minister Tony Clement refuse, on a variety of flimsy grounds, including the old "one size does not fit all cliché", to spend money to help autistic children.

For Ireland's Fianna Fail, and for Canada's Conservative Party, it appears that money means more than children .... more than autistic children anyway.

autism

Four Strong Autism Winds

Four strong winds that blow slowly
Seven seas that run high
All these things that don't change come what may
Now our good times are all gone
And I'm bound for moving on
I'll look for you if I'm ever back this way

Guess I'll go out to Alberta
Weather's good there in the Fall
Got some friends that I can go to workin' for
Still I wish you'd change your mind
If I asked you one more time
But we've been thru that a hundred times or more


- Ian Tyson

Ian Tyson's Four Strong Winds is viewed by many as Canada's unofficial national anthem, a tale of Canadian migration to Alberta in search of work. Today Alberta continues to draw Canadians in search of work. But it is also a magnet attracting Canadian families with autistic children in search of its government funded autism treatment. In neighboring Saskatchewan meanwhile government funding for autism is virtually non-existent.

In Parliament the Scott-Stoffer private member's motion calling for a National Autism strategy to deal with this national health crisis was passed while the Shawn Murphy bill seeking inclusion of autism treatment under medicare was defeated by the Harper Conservatives and the Bloc Quebecois on spurious jurisdictional arguments. Canada would not have a national medicare system at all if this feeble rationalization was employed consistently. Indeed why do we even have a federal Health Minister, at present Tony Clement, if the federal government has no role to play in health issues? The reality is that prior to the election of the Harper Conservatives Canadians had long recognized the need for federal provincial cooperation to address health issues of national magnitude that might be beyond the ability of smaller or poorer provinces to address.

To most Canadians the hundreds of studies documenting the effectiveness of ABA in treating autism should be enough to justify extending a federal hand to ensure that Canadians do not have to move to Alberta to seek treatment for their autistic children. To most Canadians the fact that 47-50% of autistic children can be rendered indistinguishable from their peers by school age, with intensive behavioral intervention, would be enough to justify federal involvement. For most Canadians the improvement in quality of life, the increased ability to communicate, to function in society, to avoid self injurious behavior would be compelling motivations justifying an effective national autism strategy. Since Stephen Harper is Prime Minister though a different argument, one which does not rely upon empathy or compassion, must be found - studies show that autism treatment saves governments very substantial sums of money, in reduced government services, over the life of an autistic person.

How about it Mr. Harper, how about offering a real national autism strategy to address Canada's autism crisis? You have clearly said no. Still I wish you'd change your mind, if I asked you one more time.


Autism funding drawing parents to Alberta

Last Updated: Monday, January 16, 2006 | 9:37 AM MT

CBC News

Alberta's coverage of an intensive therapy for children with autism is prompting some families to move to the province to receive additional care for their children.

"I used to see easily a kid a month that came to Alberta for autism services," Calgary pediatrician Dr. Neil Cooper said. "Probably it's been 10 years that we've been in this office that we've seen kids come from other provinces, mostly because of the funding."

The therapy – known as intensive behavioural intervention – is time consuming and expensive, but parents like Kim and Mike Stafford say it's worth it.

The Moose Jaw couple moved to Calgary 18 months ago because Alberta's health care system pays for the therapy, which they say has led to a big difference in their son.

When six-year-old Trey was diagnosed with autism, a developmental disorder which can be accompanied by severe problems with social interactions and language, three years ago, it seemed he had retreated into his own world, his parents say.

However, since he's been involved in intensive behavioural intervention, his progress has been remarkable, they say.

For example, although now Trey spends part of each morning spelling words, he could barely even say them a year ago, Kim Stafford said.

"Now he knows all the kids' names in his class. He can write down the names, he can spell them. It's really wonderful to see," she added.

The treatment involves speech therapy, physiotherapy, music and games – between 20 to 30 hours per week. It costs around $60,000 per year.

The Saskatchewan Health Department would only pay for one hour a week, which the Staffords say was inadequate, so they moved to Alberta. Almost immediately, Trey began receiving the full 30 hours, the Staffords said.

Roger Carriere, executive director of the Saskatchewan Health Department's community care branch, said the therapy is expensive and there are questions about its effectiveness. He also noted there are many other priorities competing for Saskatchewan's health dollars.

Autism Champ? NO! Mike Lake Champions Bigfoot! LOL

Politicians must pick their battles carefully, decide which causes to champion, decide on which issues they will invest their energies and political capital. For Edmonton Area MP and Autism Dad Mike Lake the choice is clear cut. Lake did NOT support the cause of autism in voting against MP Shawn Murphy's motion to amend the Canada Health Act to include treatment for autism. Mr. Lake did not protest his party's decision in the recent federal budget to fund ZERO dollars towards the cause of autism in Canada. In fairness to Mr. Lake though he does have a more important cause to champion- BIGFOOT!!!! Yup, Mr. Lake is the official BIGFOOT Champion. Mike Lake Bigfoot Champion!!

Bigfoot risks extinction, says Canadian MP

Wed May 2, 1:52 PM ET

OTTAWA (AFP) - Bigfoot, the legendary hairy man-like beast said to roam the wildernesses of North America, is not shy, merely so rare it risks extinction and should be protected as an endangered species.

So says Canadian MP Mike Lake who has called for Bigfoot to be protected under Canada's species at risk act, alongside Whooping Cranes, Blue Whales, and Red Mulberry trees.

"The debate over their (Bigfoot's) existence is moot in the circumstance of their tenuous hold on merely existing," reads a petition presented by Lake to parliament in March and due to be discussed next week.

"Therefore, the petitioners request the House of Commons to establish immediate, comprehensive legislation to affect immediate protection of Bigfoot," says the petition signed by almost 500 of Lake's constituents in Edmonton, Alberta...."

FEAT BC Response to Betrayal of Autistic Children by Mike Lake & Conservatives

Personally I found the actions of Alberta MP Mike Lake in voting down Bill C-304 one of the more disheartening aspects of that defeat. Mr. Lake is a parent of an autistic child in Alberta where the province has the money to fund treatment for autism. He pretends to have the cause of autistic children at heart. Yet he was the front man for the Conservative Party which killed a bill which would have opened up funding for autistic children to receive evidence based effective treatement wherever they reside in Canada. Mr. Lake's wisdom and advice? Go after your provincial governments! What Mr. Lake does not mention is that not all governments have the cash resources to provide the treatment. And he has the nerve to smear Charlottetown MP Shawn Murphy for daring to bring the bill to the floor of the House of Commons? You can claim to care and advocate for autistic children in Canada Mr. Lake. Few parents of autistic children in Canada will believe your audacious claim.

The response of FEAT BC to Mr. Lake's audacious betrayal of autistic children follows:


Ottawa’s Ongoing Refusal to Provide Autism Health Care
Why Federal Conservatives and Mike Lake MP are Wrong in Killing Bill C-304!

On February 21, 2007, MPs were asked after several hours of debate at Second Reading to vote on whether to refer Bill C-304 to the Committee Stage for detailed examination or whether to kill the Bill. Regrettably, the Conservative and Bloc Quebecois MPs ganged up to kill it, along with any hope that families with children afflicted by autism may have had that the discrimination against them in Canada’s Medicare system may come to an end within the foreseeable future. On that day Alberta MP Mike Lake issued a “Media Statement” explaining his motives for voting against Bill C-304 and many Conservative MPs have been sending it to parents of autistic children as an explanation of why they refused to allow the Bill to be examined by a House Committee and opted instead to defeat it. The Media Statement is a disingenuous, flawed and misleading text that must be refuted. The words in bold below are those of Mike Lake. The text in italics is the annotation.

As background, please consider this:
• The cause and cure of autism are not yet known.
• The medical and scientific community have known for over twenty years that the early diagnosis of autism combined with the immediate application of Intensive Behaviour Intervention (IBI) therapy treatment based on the principles of Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA) can lead to as many as 48% of autistic children developing to such an extent that they become indistinguishable from average kids. IBI/ABA constitutes the core healthcare need of autistic children.
• The “universality” of Medicare, one of they key five principles of the Canada Health Act (CHA), does not apply to autism. Regrettably, not one province offers the treatment under Medicare. While some provinces offer nothing, or next to nothing, others offer treatment programs under social service departments that are plagued with lack of resources and expertise, as well as unconscionable waiting lists and discriminatory age cut-offs. Of all the provinces Alberta is considered to be the most helpful to parents in terms of financial assistance and access to treatment, and many parents have opted to move to Alberta solely because of their child’s autism.

MEDIA STATEMENT of MIKE LAKE, MP dated February 21, 2007

To Whom It May Concern,

Tonight, I will vote on a Private Member’s Bill titled “An Act to provide for the development of a national strategy for the treatment of autism and amend the Canada Health Act.”

I have a son with autism. I have heard from countless other parents of children with autism, virtually all of whom are wholeheartedly encouraging me and my colleagues in all parties to support this bill. There is nobody who wants to help these families more than I do. Nobody.

Mr. Lake here conveniently omitted making any reference to the reason why “countless” parents were encouraging him to support Bill C-304. Any discussion of whether and how to address a problem has to begin with some discussion of the nature of the problem. The fact is that Medicare has a huge discriminatory gap. Between the time that Bill C-304 was tabled (May 17, 2006) and defeated, the U.S. Centres for Disease Control (CDC) has reported that the prevalence rate of autism has increased (again). 1 in every 150 children can be expected to be diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). In response to this growing public health crisis the U.S. government passed the ”Combating Autism Act” which will pour an additional $1 billion over five years into improved autism diagnosis, treatment and research. In contrast, the Canadian government adopted an ostrich approach to crisis management.

If I were to vote to support Bill C-304, some parents of children with autism would be very happy with me; my colleagues who disagree with me would support me because of my unique family experience; my constituents would applaud my compassion and sympathize with me; and there seemingly would be no downside.

The problem is this. Bill C-304 is bad legislation. It proposes an ad hoc amendment to the Canada Health Act that changes the entire meaning of the document. It would set a precedent that would eventually undermine the entire Canadian health care system when taken to its logical extension.

If there are some flaws with a proposed piece of legislation, but its underlying purpose and intent are valid and good, then why not try to fix it at the committee stage and propose amendments? Why not offer positive alternatives, instead of killing the Bill?

The clairvoyance about the death of Medicare is a shameful attempt at fear mongering that is akin to saying the doomsday clock will move a minute closer to midnight if autistic children get access to public health insurance. Bill C-304 contains two parts. The first, which Mr. Lake completely omitted making any reference to, would require the Minister of Health to meet with his provincial counterparts and develop a National Autism Strategy and require that he table the plan of action. If this part of the Bill was not a problem, then why not support it or at least propose an amendment or alternative Bill that would contain this part? Candour would necessitate that at least this first element of the Bill be recognized for what it is: something that is long overdue and that would be good if it finally happened.

Regarding the proposed amendment to the CHA, what is this “logical extension” that Mr. Lake is referring to? He provides no explanation of why such an amendment would undermine the “entire” Medicare system or justification for his hyperbole. The sky will not fall any more than the institution of marriage collapsed after the legalization of same-sex marriage.

If this Bill were to pass, autism would be the one and only disorder or disease named in the Canada Health Act. Cancer is not named. Neither is diabetes or cardiovascular disease. Why autism and not these? Why not Down Syndrome? Why not Schizophrenia?

In the interpretive section of the CHA, there are named services specified under “extended health care services”. Moreover, the regulations provide some of the operational rules for the CHA. If it had the will to fix the autism treatment problem, the federal government certainly has more than enough levers, legal and financial, to get the job done.

Mr. Lake misses the point about adding autism treatment to the CHA. Cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, etc. are already dealt with and covered by Medicare. If you feel sick you go to the hospital and if you are diagnosed with cancer you get treatment. Medicare covers the core healthcare needs of those Canadians who suffer from those medical problems. However, autism is not covered. Medicare discriminates against those who suffer from autism by not providing the recognized core treatment. That’s why the autism community has pursued every avenue it could to get autism treatment into Medicare, including this one.

Under the Canada Health Act, the provinces are clearly responsible for decisions on which medical treatments they will fund. If we are to maintain the integrity of the Act, only the provinces can make those decisions.

While it is true that the provinces have the right to decide which treatments to cover, they do not have the right to decide which people to cover or not cover. Everyone must be in Medicare for his or her core health needs. The functional effect of not funding autism treatment is that the provinces exclude from Medicare an entire (and growing), identifiable group of Canadians.

Mr. Lake argument here is a classic illustration of obstinate thinking. If a statutory amendment will affect other parties, the traditional Canadian procedure is to consult with those parties and attempt to develop consensus. Negotiations occasionally result in surprising and positive outcomes, as was the case with the Health Accord of September 2004, which involved billions of dollars and specified specific medical services (except autism). There is a crisis, which by any measure is an epidemic, and the federal government has had 11 consecutive years of budget surpluses. There is no reason why the federal Minister of Health could not raise this matter and the potential amendment with his provincial counterparts. If this element of the Bill is so problematic, why not have the Standing Committee on Health examine the Bill and explore alternatives such as the “Combating Autism Act” in the U.S.? Regrettably, now that Bill C-304 is dead no House committee will have a chance to explore the feasibility of this process or alternatives.

In my opinion, it is completely unacceptable for any province not to fund Applied Behavioural Analysis (ABA) for those who need it. If voters feel as strongly as I do about this, they must let their provincial governments know and then hold them accountable at election time.

This argument is clearly specious. It is exceedingly difficult for a minority (e.g. families struggling with autism) to “hold government accountable” for any specific policy failings, including the healthcare neglect of their children. They simply do not have enough votes to do what Mr. Lake says.

The autism community has nonetheless been letting the provincial governments know for years about the need for ABA in Medicare and the responses have always been inadequate. Time and again, in practically every province, and with every political party, the matter has either been ignored, or excuses have been proffered with crocodile tears, or, as was the case in Ontario during the last election, promises were made that were broken. For example, former Opposition Leader Dalton McGuinty stated in writing during the last election in a letter to a mother of an autistic child that the age six cut-off from treatment in Ontario was discrimination and that if he was elected he would do away with it. Once he became Premier he not only continued the practice, he continued litigating a case on the issue. When the government lost at the Superior Court he immediately announced an appeal to the Court of Appeal. When the “Auton”case from BC was heard before the Supreme Court of Canada in 2004 every province and the federal government intervened against the kids being able to access treatment in Medicare. The fact is that the provinces have been negligent and irresponsible on the autism file and federal leadership is needed. If Mr. Lake feels as strongly about this as he says, what has he done to address the crisis (apart from contributing to the death of Bill C-304)?

The sad thing is that Shawn Murphy, the Liberal Member of Parliament who is sponsoring this Bill, knows all of this. He has been in Parliament since 2000 and would never have supported this piece of legislation when he was in government.

Children with autism need treatment. Accusatory personal arguments among politicians is not going to help. The autism community is not naïve. Political parties frequently make promises and fail to fulfill them. What any MP would have done yesterday is not relevant to the February 21, 2007 vote on whether to refer Bill C-304 to the Committee stage. The autism community is grateful that Bill C-304 was tabled in the House and that its contents had to be addressed.

What he apparently doesn’t understand is that this is not an appropriate “wedge issue” to exploit for political gain. These are real people, with real challenges, who are absolutely desperate for real solutions. This Private Member’s Bill gives false hope to families who deserve so much more than to be treated as pawns in some political game.

It is highly inappropriate to call the wholesale healthcare neglect of tens of thousands of Canadian children a “wedge issue”. This trivializes and minimizes what is in fact a catastrophic issue for families who are going broke and/or falling apart trying to pay for medically necessary autism treatment on their own.

Before Mr. Lake starts to accuse anyone of spreading false hopes he should take a look at his own Party. They are the governing party now with the hands on the levers of power. They cannot blame anyone else if they used false hopes to get into power with no intention of using it as stated. The Conservatives ran in the last election (2006) on Healthcare and Childcare. Autistic kids need both. The Conservative platform certainly provided hope. Now we know it was false.

Before the election many of his Conservative colleagues attended autism rallies on Parliament Hill and spoke about the need to do something, including speaking at press conferences, including 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, and Marjory LeBreton.

Pierre Poilievre had an Op-Ed article of his published in “The Hill Times” in March 2005 in which he accused the then government of a “shameful low in Liberal hypocrisy” for intervening in the “Auton” case against autistic children. He further went on to say ”So what can be done? We must amend the Health Act so Medicare will include effective, scientifically validated autism treatment for children with autism;” Now that Pierre Poilievre is a Cabinet Minister and voted against this amendment with his caucus, shall we call it a “new low in Conservative hypocrisy”?

On the first anniversary of the “Auton” decision Alberta MP Peter Goldring spoke at an autism rally on Parliament Hill and issued a November 17, 2005 press release titled “Golding calls for funding for early autism treatment: federal government has national role” in which he stated “the current situation of no financial contribution from the federal government, specifically dedicated to the early treatment of autism, is unacceptable”. He further added, ”The true measure of a government is in how it treats its citizens who are most in need. At present, in terms of the needs of the many autistic children across Canada, our federal government measures very poorly. Things must change, soon”.

Similarly, B.C. MP Randy Kamp also attended the rally and issued a press release (November 21, 2005) in which he stated “Minister Dosanjh has been unsupportive of autism groups since his days as Premier of B.C. I understand their frustration with him. As the federal Health Minister, he now has an opportunity to do the right thing and I call upon him to have compassion for autistic children and move forward with a National Autism Strategy”.

On a more positive note, in 2006 Mr. Murphy’s Liberal colleague, Andy Scott introduced a Private Member’s Motion, M-172, on a national strategy for autism. To his credit, Mr. Scott designed his motion not to divide the House, but to build consensus among members of all parties. Mr. Scott’s carefully considered motion chose to focus on areas within the federal realm, and the Government (and the vast majority of members of the House) agreed with him – with a few minor amendments.

The fact is that a motion is not binding and is not law. The motion was watered down by the Conservatives who insisted on amendments to the original motion in order to make it palatable enough to support. The passage of the motion was historic but no one is expecting it to result in any government action and certainly no meaningful improvements with respect to access to treatment.

What is interesting in terms of action is that after almost a full year of sending letters to parents saying that autism is a provincial issue and has nothing to do with the federal government, the day before a previously announced FEAT BC autism rally on Parliament Hill in late November, 2006, the federal Health Minister Tony Clement held a press conference which he began by stating that the autism situation is now so serious, that doing nothing was “not an option”. He proceeded to outline five new autism initiatives that by his own description are “modest”. To many in the autism community, that is an inflated exaggeration. “Exploring the establishment of a research chair”, holding a “symposium” and creating a website will not help a single autistic child get access to treatment anytime soon. The autism community is tired of feigned consultation, showcase conferences, website window-dressing and motions with no teeth. Our kids need treatment.

When I first saw Mr. Murphy’s Private Member’s Bill I suggested to him that perhaps he might consider changing his course and introduce something that would build on what was done by Mr. Scott rather than play politics. Mr. Murphy’s actions obviously demonstrate that he is not focused on helping families dealing with autism. My sincere hope is that every other Member of Parliament will put the interest of these families ahead of their own political ambition.

Rhetoric and personal attacks aside, why won’t Mike Lake change his own course and actually do something for autism? What has Mike Lake done to promote the interests of the autism community besides standing with his autistic son next to Minister Clement during the November 2006 press conference or providing MPs in his party with this empty letter to justify the continuation of what most Canadians consider intolerable.

In a December 2004 Ipsos-Reid public opinion poll 84% of Canadians indicated that they supported the inclusion of autism treatment in Medicare. Has Mike Lake organized any information/education sessions for other MPs about autism and the needs of the autism community? Has he contacted autism groups with a view to consulting on a strategic approach to advancing the community’s interests? Has he tabled any motion or Private Members’ Bill of his own? Has he lobbied to get the treatment of autism on the agenda of the Standing House Committee on Health? Etc… If so, he has not made it public.

What we do know is that in 2004 an autism treatment petition was drafted and posted at www.CanadaAutism.com and that the community supplied thousands of signatures on the petition to MPs for tabling in the House. The petition calls on the government to create a graduate level teaching chair in IBI/ABA at a university in each province and to include autism treatment in Medicare. The petition was tabled 88 times by dozens of MPs. Shortly after his arrival in Ottawa Mike Lake met in his new offices with two members of the community. He was presented with several signed pages of the petition. Although tabling a petition is not synonymous with supporting a petition, Mike Lake is the only MP we are aware of who took a look at the autism petition and immediately gave it back stating that he refused to table it.

Personally, I am determined to fulfill my commitment to families dealing with autism as stated in my maiden speech in the House of Commons, “that I will do everything that I can do to promote action to the full extent that the federal government can play a role within its area of authority.”

And what has Mike Lake done to date? What specifically will Mike Lake do in the future? What action is he referring to (besides voting against Bill C-304 and criticizing the MP who tabled it)?

As I mentioned in the opening paragraphs of this statement, the easy decision for me would be to vote in favour of this legislation. However, I was not elected to make the easy decisions. I was elected to make the right decisions, and in this case the right decision is to vote against Bill C-304.

Wrong. The easiest thing is to vote against change and to preserve the status quo. The hardest thing is to promote change and improvement in institutions where the culture is one of a herd mentality. Doing what the Party leaders tell you to do is easy. Voting against their wishes is what takes courage and is considerably harder. The right decision would have been to vote in favour of sending the Bill to the Committee Stage for a review and examination there of the problem and whether the Bill is the best means to solve it. By voting against the Bill, we will have no National Autism Strategy and certainly no treatment in Medicare anytime soon. However, since the Conservatives came to power, the federal government has on a regular basis been announcing the creation of a National Cancer Strategy, a National Heart Health Strategy, a National Spinal Cord Rehabilitation Research Strategy, etc. Why is it that certain medical conditions are more attractive to the federal Conservatives and more deserving of special status than autism? The autism community is seeking equality and equal access. Nothing more, nothing less. If disabled children cannot count on Mike Lake and the Conservative Party for equality, can you?

For more information about the discriminatory exclusion of children with autism from Medicare,
please call Families for Early Autism Treatment of British Columbia (FEAT BC) at 604-534-6956
http://featbc.org