Mental Health Courts ~ The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

“The custodial response to people with mental health problems is an historic one. To incarcerate people merely because we have failed to develop appropriate supports has always been shameful. In 2007, this is totally unacceptable.”
~ Archie Kaiser, Professor, Faculty of Law and Department of Psychiatry, Dalhousie University

Canadian statistics show that 12 per cent of men in federal institutions in 2007 had a mental disorder, up from seven per cent in 1997. The rate of mentally ill women in prisons was even higher, at 21 per cent, compared with 13 per cent in 1997.

In a similar vein, American research has found that more than 16 per cent of adults in jail have a mental illness, roughly 20 per cent of young people in the juvenile system have a serious mental health problem and 40 per cent of Americans with a mental health problem will butt up against the U.S. justice system at some time in their life.

Viewing such statistics and depending on your point of view (perspective, as they say, is everything) the concept of a "mental health court" can look like a very good or a very bad idea. But no matter your point of view, such courts (part of the Progressive Conservative government's crime-reduction strategy) will soon be a reality in Nova Scotia.

The plan is to have the system running by April 1, 2009. After visiting different court models in New Brunswick, Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador, the Nova Scotia Department of Justice ultimately opted for a referral system that would see offenders treated by a team of trained court staff, including social workers and a probation officer. The Nova Scotia court model is to allow family, friends and justice officials to refer such offenders for help through the mental health court, with candidates first having to undergo an assessment, be found fit to stand trial and be willing to accept responsibility for their actions.

As in the regular court system, sanctions at the end of the day could range from an absolute discharge all the way up to incarceration. However, the bottom line of the mental health court is said to be to get the person out of the criminal justice system.

In general, the concept appears to be supported by the police. According to Halifax police Chief Frank Beazley

"You go from the courtroom to the social services, who then get you through the housing people who get you through the doctors — whatever you need to deal with that individual," he said. "It's a much superior approach."

Beazley said his officers will deal with 1,100 to 1,200 calls this year related to incidents involving people with mental illnesses.

"Those are the ones that are coded either mental health or suicide, attempted suicide, but there's many calls we go to that get coded theft or robbery where there's a mental health issue also," he said.

But not only the police are in agreement. Noting that people should not be criminalized because of their mental illness, the executive director of the Canadian Mental Health Association’s Nova Scotia branch has also said the theory behind a specialized mental health court is "an excellent one."

That theory being that by connecting people with mental illness who have committed low-level crimes with community-based treatment, we can make better use of our jails and tax dollars, increase public safety, and make our communities healthier.

And the research does look promising. Participants in one American mental health court program received more mental health services and spent fewer days in jail than they might otherwise have if they had been sentenced in the criminal court and fewer days in jail than they spent related to a prior arrest.

Despite this, concerns remain in some circles about mental health courts, which are really still in their infancy in Canada. Some fear that such courts simply generate more stigma and forced treatment of persons with mental illnesses.

Still, recalling the case of the mentally ill Nova Scotian woman who was ordered into the care of the provincial Health Department by the court after it failed to find her a suitable place to live while awaiting the outcome of numerous charges, one can't help but think that something must be done. Something has to change. Only time will tell whether mental health courts are at least part of the answer here in Nova Scotia.

The issue of how the courts deal with accused with mental health issues is also currently being examined in New Brunswick.

Update: For a fuller, more depresing view of the extent of the mental health crisis within the justice system, check out this interesting Globe and Mail story.

**You can view the relevant legislation, the Mental Health Court Act, here.

Saving Now and Paying Later ~ Generic Will Kits

Surfing around the blogosphere this evening (when I really should be doing so many other things), I came across this piece at Sui Generis -- a New York Blog concerning online wills. Which - although as the name states is a New York legal blog - raises a very valid point.

I have been concerned for quite a while over the rising profusion of mail-order will kits. As pointed by Elizabeth Randisi at Sui Generis, although such Wills would most likely be adequate for some, a generic online (or mail order) document might completely "miss the mark" on a person’s estate plan. And equally generic "disclaimers" advising when one might require the services of a lawyer can often miss the mark as well.

We've already discussed the need for some very precise wording when it comes to protecting your beneficiary's government benefits when using a Henson Trust. As well as how important it is to ensure you find a lawyer who actually knows how to draft such a document properly.

So just in case you think these circumstances are likely to mix well with a mail order or online generic will kit, you might want to think again.

Just a word to the wise. And the cautious.

Small Victories

I wrote earlier this year about my personal endeavour to have our local bus company institute a policy to which would allow the support person of a person with a disability to ride free of charge when accompanying the person with a disability. As I noted at the time, although they did have a policy in conjunction with the CNIB, providing that a blind person could travel with a support person without paying or a second fare, no policy existed around any other disabilities.

It was just in the midst of that little debate that the Canadian Transportation Agency "released a landmark decision concerning the right of individuals with disabilities to travel by air without having to pay for a second seat, for an attendant or other use, to accommodate their disability. In a historic decision in the “One Person, One Fare” case, the agency has recognized the right of these individuals to have access to a second seat when traveling by air in Canada without having to pay a second fare".

Which sounded like good ammo to me.

At any rate, I am pleased to announce that in June, 2008, Kings Transit passed the following policy:

Where any rider with a disability that requires the need of an attendant to ride the Kings Transit bus system the attendant shall be entitled to ride free of charge.

All riders requiring attendants shall fill out a form and register with Kings Transit identifying who their attendants are.

Attendants are only entitled free ridership while in the presence of their client and if necessary their return trip should they be returning alone.

Riders shall notify Kings Transit of any changes with their attendants.

Which just goes to show, I suppose, that we should never, ever give up. We will get there. Eventually. One step. One policy at a time.

And, lest we foget, kudos to Kings Transit.

Let Your Voice Be Heard

Good news, this.

The Canadian Association for Community Living has developed a disability specific analysis of Federal election platforms for the Conservative Party of Canada, the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party and the Green Party of Canada.

CACL does not endorse any particular party or platform; the purpose of this analysis is to provide an overview of commitments to persons with disabilities. To see where the parties stand on disability please click here http://www.cacl.ca/infoat/

There is also the general election information and links to both INFO@ at www.cacl.ca/english/government/elections.asp

According to the website the analysis uses the three issues CACL identified as election priorities as the benchmarks for reviewing party platforms; namely,

1. Poverty – Making the Disability Tax Credit refundable for low income Canadians and establishing specific participation targets for persons with disabilities within Labour Market Agreements;


2. UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – Ratifying by March 2009; and


3. Inclusive and Accessible Communities – ensuring adequate financial investment to create inclusive and accessible communities; incorporating a disability lens in regards to general investments, government polices and programs to ensure that new and continued investments are inclusive and not creating new barriers and obstacles for people with disabilities

So check it out and make your vote count on October 14th.

Pro Bono Publico

Courtesy of Wikipedia:

Pro bono publico (usually shortened to pro bono) is a phrase derived from Latin meaning "for the public good." The term is sometimes used to describe professional work undertaken voluntarily and without payment as a public service. It is common in the legal profession and is increasingly seen in marketing, technology, and strategy consulting firms. Pro bono service, unlike traditional volunteerism, uses the specific skills of professionals to provide services to those who are unable to afford them.

Pro bono legal counsel may assist an individual or group on a legal case, in filing government applications or petitions, or on appeal. A judge may occasionally determine that the loser should compensate a winning pro bono counsel.

And on that note, I was pleased to attend the Nova Scotia Pro Bono Study's Round Table Discussion this past Friday in Halifax.

It was a good meeting of not just lawyers, law professors and law students but also individuals representing various mental health, immigration and youth services in the community. And I was pleased to see that the disability community was well-represented by the attendance and advocacy of Professor Archie Kaiser, who currently serves on the Board of Directors of both reachAbility and the Nova Scotia Division of the Canadian Mental Health Association.

The purpose of the various Round Tables being held throughout the Province (**the remaining upcoming Round Tables include Sydney and Antigonish) is to study engagement and interest in pro bono legal work and examine whether a formal pro bono program would benefit the communities in Nova Scotia.

So, here is just a smattering of what I learned on Friday.

• Every law school in Canada currently has a Pro Bono Students Association.
  
  
• In addition, four provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and, most recently, Saskatchewan) have Pro Bono Associations.
  
  
• Some models currently in use include drop-in centres at the court house manned on a rotating basis so two volunteer lawyers are always present (Ontario) and "summary advice clinics" where individuals receive one-half hour consultations with a lawyer at no charge and if further legal representation is required, the individual will be referred to a lawyer who has agreed to make this larger time commitment (British Columbia).
  
  
• The suggestion was also made that not every individual seeking "legal advice" necessarily requires the services of a lawyer; a social worker or court worker (who can assist with procedural questions and the filling out of forms) may be all that is actually required in some cases.
  
  
• Another idea floated was that of a pro bono volunteer "board" where lawyers interested in volunteering as a member of a community board could be matched up with an organization seeking such a board member.
  
  
• Issues raised for me when discussing the above models included what the income cut-off line would be for such a service and the necessity of "streaming" people in the proper direction, so that those who actually did need to speak to a lawyer would be able to do so.

As I said, it was a good discussion and I think it was well worth my (and by extension, your) time. This is an issue that really needs to move forward in this Province and, at least in the small sub-group I was involved in, the two communities most identified as needing such a service were youth and the disabled.

But what was really heartening and exciting for me, personally, was to see was a committed, passionate group of Nova Scotia lawyers who recognize the need for such an initiative and appear willing to move it forward.

The Study is currently gathering information from stakeholders around the Province through these Round Tables and surveys of the legal profession and will be presenting a final report/presentation in the Spring of 2009.

And fortunately for you, it's still not too late. You can provide your valuable input to this initiative by completing the Community Members Survey.

So stick around and I will keep you updated.

** Antigonish: Monday October 6, 2:30-4pm, Maritime Inn, 158 Main Street.
Sydney: Tuesday October 7, 10-11:30pm, Program Room, McConnell Library, 50 Falmouth St.
Please confirm attendance in advance at: (902) 429-1913 or nsprobono@gmail.com

Update: Organizations currently offering pro bono services include reachAbility, the Halifax Refugee Clinic, Canadian Mental Health Association, Nova Scotia Legal Aid, Legal Information Society, Dalhousie Legal Aid, Pro Bono Students Canada and various religious institutions.

The Time Has Come To Talk Of Many Things ...

The topic of individuals with special needs and their interaction with the criminal justice system is not one that's been much discussed in this blawg. The reason being that criminal law is, in all honesty, not my forte. And I have always taken the view that when it comes to criminal law, you best really know what you're doing or else stay out of the field. Seeing as how there are serious consequences to be had, should you screw up.

However, that being said, there are a few issues related, but not limited, to the criminal justice system that I would like to discuss here.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

You might recall Mr. Mitchell's recent guest post concerning the right and ability of individuals with mental illness to represent themselves in court. Referencing a decision of the US Supreme Court in which an individual with schizophrenia was ultimately denied the right to represent himself on a charge of attempted murder due to the perceived risk that allowing the accused to represent himself could in fact undermine his own dignity, Mr. Mitchell found himself in agreement with a minority of the court.

A minority who would have granted the defendant's desire to represent himself on the basis that the fundamental principle must be that course which would allow the individual best to exercise his own autonomy which is what it was found the principles of individual equality truly rely on. “We could surely choose worse than "fulfillment of human dignity," they said.“

So, who got it right?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In a similar vein, you might also recall the much-publicized ongoing trial of Glen Douglas Race, a New Brunswick man accused of murdering an American in New York State. Race, who has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, was recently denied his request to represent himself part-way through the trial. And although that diagnosis wasn't noted in the news reports as the reason for the court's refusal to honour Race's request, one has to wonder if it didn't play a part in the decision.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Moving out of the criminal justice system, I found it interesting that the Canadian Association of Community Living (CACL) has characterized guardianship as "an ancient mechanism that was constructed without consulting people with disabilities" and takes the position that "supported decision-making" is not only preferable to guardianship, but given that "guardianship laws assume that some people do not have the capacity to make legally binding decisions" have invited us to "adopt a paradigm shift in which everyone has an equal legal capacity, without distinction based on disability."

Supported Decision-Making means a person may accept help in making decisions without relinquishing the right to make decisions. In supported decision-making, freedom of choice is never violated. Supported decision-making does not question the wisdom of a person’s choices but allows everyone the dignity of risk.

Supported Decision-Making helps a person to understand information and make decisions based on his or her own preferences. A person with a learning disability might need help with reading, or may need support in focusing attention to make a decision. A person who has no verbal communication might have a trusted family member who interprets their non-verbal communications, such as positive or negative physical reactions, or uses Alternative and Augmentative Communication.

Guardianship laws theoretically protect people with disabilities from abuse but in practice they open the door to abuse. Guardianship facilitates institutionalization; the guardian can easily give consent even when the person opposes being institutionalized. One decision by the authorities and a person loses the right to decide where to live, loses the right to vote, the right to choose who to marry, the right to start a business. This results in living in a humiliating and degrading way.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

What do these various subjects have in common?

To me, they both examine the question (albeit in different contexts) as to whether and how much it is acceptable for society to act to "protect" individuals with disabilities. And although not so many years ago, that would have been hailed by most as a lofty goal, it seems to have fallen into disrepute more recently. As if attempts to "protect" the disabled, much like we attempt to attempt to "protect" our children, is somehow insulting and degrading to them.

And yet, although the concept of protecting disabled person from both themselves and others, so to speak, will no doubt be quite off-putting to some, I have to think that it does have a valid place in certain contexts and certain circumstances. Admittedly, in an ideal world, such a thing might well be not necessary. But who amongst us will really argue that we live in an ideal world?

Whether we are considering a defendant's right to represent himself in court or when (if ever) a guardianship order might be appropriate, we are really talking about the same thing. Do we treat individuals with disabilities like everyone else? Do we accord them special 'privileges'? Or do we place special 'burdens' or 'restrictions' on them?

And more importantly, can those questions be answered, can all the above examples be analyzed in a logically consistent way? Or is better to proceed with a haphazard, whatever 'feels right' approach?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Let me put it this way. It's 'peachy-keen' to opine that nobody should be subject to a guardianship order, to have their rights taken away in such a manner. Much better the route of "supporting" them as opposed to doing for or to them.

Just as it might give one a warm fuzzy feeling to state that every challenged person accused of some crime should be able to represent him or herself if they so choose. Perhaps we can "support" their legal advocacy in some shape or form? Just one thing, please, let me know when you figure out what that latter might look like.

Here's the problem. What might sound good ... nay, feel good, as an approach must always be tested against real world conditions. In this case, we're talking about the reality of the legal system. Which is, at the moment, as it is. Not as we might wish it to be in some idealized world.

And in the real world, people over the age of majority, who are considered competent are free to handle their own affairs as they see fit. To enter into contracts (in which they consent to having binding legal obligations placed upon them). To spend their money as they see fit. And they also have certain responsibiltities, like ensuring they have a decent place to live and food to eat, just as a start. And that they "keep their part of the bargain" and be responsible for their part of any contracts they enter into.

Consider the person with disabilities in this world.

How feasible is it to "support" their decision-making every step of the way? How agreeable might that person be to having someone else "suggest" how they might spend their money so as to be responsible? And exactly who is it that will be on the hook if the individual with disabilities enters into a contract in which he is unable to keep his part of the bargain ie) pay the bill? And if we presume him competent to enter any contracts he wishes, what will happen when he makes what any one of us might consider an obvious "bad bargain"? When he or she is taken advantage of by the unscrupulous amongst us?

Remember, you can't have it both ways.

If a person is competent to make all the daily decisions that you and I do, then they must be also be held responsible for all the choices they make, just as you and I are.

And that's the reason why, for example, I feel that CACL would be doing a grave injustice to take a stand or recommend against guardianship.

It's also the reason why I agree with the majority of the court (and disagree with Mr. Mitchell) in it's decision in Indiana v. Edwards, at least in the abstract. Without knowing more as to the exact extent of the defendant's disability in that case, it is hard to make a judgment call as to whether or not the court 'got it right' in that instant case. But I do agree with them on principle.

Just as in the case of how one implements "inclusion" in a school classroom, I believe there are no one size fits all answers when it comes to how individuals with disabilities should be treated in the legal system, be it criminally or civilly.

The "right answer", or at least as "right" as it can be, will depend on the extent of the individual's disability.

Nova Scotia Conference on Learning Disabilities Alert

October is Learning Disabilities Month across Canada.

Which would probably help explain why October 2nd and 3rd are the dates of the Nova Scotia Conference on Learning Disabilities.

Which you can find out more about here.

But don't let the cost scare you off; I have it on good authority that there are special parent rates available. Go ahead and give them a call.

Just don't wait too long. Time, it is a passin'.

Appeal Strategies For Tuition Support Program

This comment was dropped on the "Tuition Support Program Gets Fourth Year' post.

I have a daughter with a non verbal spvisual [sic] spatial disorder. Even though she has had Resource an IPP and tutoring paid by us, she is two years behind. She has no behavior issues, is a good student and tries extremely hard. She is exhibiting anxiety, and we want to send her to a place that can help her. Why would the Governmnet [sic] take this away.

Why indeed?

Which led to me a dated, but good, post outlining Strategies For A Tuition Support Appeal at the Equal Education Association of Nova Scotia blog.

Which you should check out.

Urgent Request - Ratification of U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

You might recall that we have previouslydiscussed this UN Convention and why it is so important for the disability community.

Now a recently-received missive from the Nova Scotia Association for Community Living, advising that it is considered urgent that Canada ratifies this convention now, noting that Canada, and in particular, Nova Scotians, played a crucial role in framing this document.

We need to ratify this document within days if we are to continue to be able to influence the roll out of the Convention world-wide. Simply put, there will be a meeting of nominees of advocates and experts from countries who have ratified the Convention next month. These nominees will choose the membership of an oversight Committee that will work to ensure that the convention is being adhered to by countries. If Canada does not ratify, by October 3rd, we will not be at that meeting. Canada needs to be there to make sure that the correct interpretations of these articles are being made. Please note that some countries that have ratified the Convention do not themselves have stellar human rights records but will be at that meeting by virtue of their ratification.

We need to immediately be in touch with Peter MacKay, Minister of Defence, and with David Emerson, Minister of Foreign Affairs to urge Canada to ratify.

Peter MacKay Fax ~ 902-755-9572
Peter MacKay E-mail ~ petermackay@votepetermackay.ca
David Emerson E-mail ~mailto:~emerson.d@parl.gc.ca
David Emmerson Fax ~ 613-943-0219

Where Politics and Law Collide

I have intentionally avoided much comment on the US election. It's not like it's all that relevant here and it's far too divisive anyway. Unless, of course, you enjoy spectator sport.

Until today, that is. Although my attention was grabbed by the headline, "U.K. Mother Murders Daughter Because "Embarrassed" by Disability", I really didn't expect to find much more than the usual macabre story of a parent unable to "cope" with their child's disabilities.

I certainly didn't expect this particular political spin.

This trial, which is still in progress, comes during a week in which the devaluation of children with disabilities has been very much in the media spotlight, thanks largely to Gov. Sarah Palin's much publicized decision to carry to term her son Trig, who has Down's syndrome.

Prominent bioethicist Wesley Smith recently commented on the media bias against Palin, and says it occurs in part because, "Palin is viewed as 'the other,' symbolized by her and Todd's (Palin's husband) loving acceptance of Trig."

Smith said he hopes that the unconditional love the Palin's show to their son Trig will be an example for a world that is evermore justifying murder of the innocent.

"I hope that people will decide to emulate the Palins in their unconditional acceptance and love for their beautiful son, Trig," said Smith.

Well, yes, I hope so, too. But, I still wasn't sure I really saw the connection. Until I read Patricia E. Bauer's blog [which blog, I might point out, looks very interesting from the point of keeping up with Canadian disabiltiy issues].

Andre Lalonde, executive vice president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada (SOGC), says he is concerned that abortions in the case of Down syndrome may decline as women follow the example of Sarah Palin. Palin’s infant son Trig was born after she received a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome.

From the Globe and Mail:

As a vocal opponent of abortion, Ms. Palin’s widely discussed decision to keep her baby, knowing he would be born with the condition, may inadvertently influence other women who may lack the necessary emotional and financial support to do the same, according to Lalonde.

Dr. Lalonde said that above all else, women must be free to choose, and that popular messages to the contrary could have detrimental effects on women and their families.

Then I got it. Remember this?

Last year, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada and the Board of the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists issued a recommendation that all pregnant women be offered screening for Down syndrome. Sounds good, right? Until you consider the fact that statistics point to over 90 per cent of pregnancies diagnosed with Down syndrome being terminated.

Which leads to the question of just what exactly parents whose pre-natal screening show that their child will have Downs Syndrome are being told. And perhaps more importantly, what aren't they being told?

It's no real secret that doctors generally paint a very dark picture of life with Down syndrome during prenatal diagnoses. In fact, it's this very situation which has led to the Canadian Down Syndrome Society challenging the ethical implications of the recommendations by the obstetricians’ group. And to the currently circulating Petition for a Prenatal Diagnosed Condition Awareness Act. The Petition we discussed here.

The thing is that if we believe in a right to "choose", if we are ever going to give more than lip service to that concept, we must never forget that the key word is choice. As in making that extra effort to ensure that the choices are promoted in a fair and valid manner. Which means giving giving people all the information they need to such a life-altering choice.

So, please, if you haven't already, read this previous post and give serious consideration to the Petition.

But getting back to Sara Palin, in the words of Krista Flint, executive director of the Canadian Down Syndrome Association:

“We know overwhelmingly the message families get is ‘Don’t have this baby, it will ruin your life,’” Flint says. “And I don’t think people would look at Sarah Palin and see a ruined life. Regardless of politics, I think it’s a good example.”

So love her or hate her (and God knows there's enough of both swirling around the blogosphere), you have to give Ms. Palin credit where it's due ... she might just be bringing into light an issue that has for too long been in the shadows. And that, no matter what your political persuasion, has to be a good thing.

As an aside, it's interesting to note that Dr. Lalonde has apparently attempted to clarify his previous remarks. According to the L.A. Times,

Doctor Lalonde's point of view should not have been portrayed as a concern that the number of abortions would decline but rather, as expressed in the Globe and Mail, that women would be influenced by Gov. Palin's decision to keep Down syndrome children that they were neither emotionally nor financially prepared to care for. Here's a link to the article on which the post, since removed was based.

Which is a good thing, I suppose. Particularly when you consider that one of the principal precepts taught all physicians is "First Do No Harm".

Pro Bono Legal Services In Nova Scotia

There should be no need to tell those in the disability community in this Province that one of the many issues we face is the inability of individuals with disabilities and their families to obtain affordable legal services.

With this in mind, I have been pleased to see recent action on the part of the Nova Scotia Pro Bono Society around the formation of a formal pro bono [free] program for legal services in the Province. This would involve lawyers donating time to "facilitate access to justice by providing free legal information, advice, and sometimes representation in court".

The Society is currently hosting round-table discussions across the province, seeking input about the legal needs of various communities and what role a pro bono organization could play in addressing them. Here is your opportunity to contribute to this study and make your opinions known.

The next round table will be held in Halifax, NS at the Weldon Law Building, 6061 University Ave. on Friday October 3rd from 2:30-4:30pm. Please note that it is requested that people RVSP.

Further meetings will be held in October in Bridgewater, Sydney, Antigonish. For more information and to contact the Pro Bono Society.

A Conservative Fan I'm Not, But ...

I think it's really important for the disability community to make a real, concerted effort to get our issues out there and on the radar when it comes to federal and provincial elections.

Although it's true that the majority of issues we deal with (education, health care, access to services) are provincial, there are federal issues, such as those dealing with income tax benefits and the ever-venerable, RDSP.

In that vein, I draw your attention to Stephen Harper's announcement yesterday that a re-elected Conservative Government would:

• Allow families to split their income between spouses to reduce their taxes in situations where one spouse is not working full-time in order to care for one or more family members with disabilities – whether children or adults.
  
  
• Improve the Registered Disability Savings Program by making it easier for a person with disabilities to access money that has been transferred from the unused retirement savings of a deceased family member.

Now, as I noted above, I am most definitely not a fan of the Conservatives. However, we need to get our issues out there. So ask anyone who knocks at your door or otherwise waylays you what they are going to do to make life easier for individuals with disabilities.

Including the Conservative candidates, let's make sure they at least know what it is they say they are going to do if re-elected.

And just for the record, the above promises bring a few questions of their own to mind:

• If one spouse works full-time and the other part-time, will the family be able to take advantage of these income splitting provisions?



• Will the RDSP be amended to allow funds to be transferred from an RESP to a RDSP?

Mark Your Calenders

Big News ~ The 2008 version of the annual Tools For Life Conference and Exhibit has expanded to a two day event.

A "pre-conference" will be held on Thursday, October 23, 2008, at the Old Orchard Inn with the regular Conference and Exhibit day to be held on Friday, October 24, 2008.

The pre-conference theme is Working Beyond the Diagnosis: Interventions and Transition. Dr. Susan Bryson, a leading researcher in Autism Spectrum Disorders with the IWK, will deliver the keynote address with sessions focusing on research, strategies and tools for individuals with a lifelong developmental disability.

Although there is no charge to attend Friday's presentations or to view the exhibits, there is a fee to attend the pre-conference. However, I am happy to note that the $75 fee for professionals has been lowered to a special rate of $25 for family members and students. Registration for the pre-conference closes on October 21, 2008.

On Friday, October 24, 2008, Tools for Life returns to Horton High School between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. with free sessions and exhibits. Millie Colbourne, Director of Services for Persons with Disabilities, Department of Community Services, [does the name of that program sound familiar to anybody?] will deliver the keynote address. Seventy-five presentations on a variety of topics are scheduled on Friday, with more than 115 informative exhibits on display.

I have to tell you, I am a big fan of Tools For Life. With information and material on everything from physical to mental challenges, learning disabilities, aging, education, transportation, advocacy (legal and otherwise), assistive technology, speech and language therapy, home care and nursing services, medication needs, residential living ... from infancy, through childhood, adulthood to our golden years, it's all there.

Hey, I warned you that I was a big fan, right?

Unfortunately, last year, I was struck by a migraine on the scheduled day and only it made it late in the afternoon to attempt a mad dash through the numerous exhibits. I was very disappointed, I didn't even have get the chance to see all exhibits, let alone attend some sessions I was really looking forward to. This year will be different.

More information, on both the pre-conference and a complete list of the sessions available on Friday, October 24th can be found here. And the registration form can be found here.

See you there!