External Board Representation
http://www.cpa.ca/cpapadvocacyproject/
CPAP Reports to the Board
February 2007
At the most recent meeting of CPAP the delegates reported on the feedback received from their home jurisdictions concerning the decision in June of 2006 to separate CPAP into two groups: a group for the Regulators and a separate group for the Associations. The feedback supported the council decision. Therefore a formal motion to split CPAP into two groups was made and was carried unanimously. The only concerns raised by the home jurisdictions focused on the establishment of a liaison relationship between the two groups such that issues of mutual concern can be addressed. A subcommittee was created that will discuss this liaison relationship and provide feedback to the CPAP delegates by the end of March 2007.
The plan is for the Associations to continue as CPAP with the acronym changed to reflect the new name, the Council of Professional Associations of Psychologists. A draft of changes to the current CPAP bylaws was presented with all references to the Regulators removed. Legal advice will be sought before the June CPAP meeting to see if this is the best course to separate the two groups.
It was also decided that the current assets of CPAP will be split evenly between the two new groups with the exception that the funds CPAP receives from CAPP (the APA subcommittee Committee for the Advancement of Professional Practice) will remain with the Associations as it is for advocacy work. Recently CPAP was informed that CAPP will fund us for another 3 year term.
In addition to detailing the separation, CPAP also had a presentation by Rodney Hancock (of McFarlan Rowlands Insurance Brokers) as we do each January. As well two additional issues were raised that generated considerable discussion. The first concerned the issue of getting 3rd party funding for psychologists providing CBT and the implications for psychologists not trained in CBT. The second issue is the rising concern about who can buy and administer psychological tests/instruments. This latter issue was discussed at length and a decision was made to have a subcommittee discuss it further between meetings in preparation for the June CPAP meeting.
To close I want to acknowledge the ongoing assistance of John Service in discussions about the future of CPAP. Several conversations have been had about the role of CPA in the new CPAP and I look forward to continuing this discussion.
Respectfully,
Dr. Jennifer Frain, C.Psych.
CPAP Chair
November 2006
Following the CPA Annual Convention in June, CPAP met for its second meeting of the year. One of the major issues facing CPAP in the last couple of years is the cost-sharing formula that provides the funding for travel, accommodations, and meetings twice a year.
Out of this focus on funding rose the more substantial issue of the whole purpose of CPAP as an organization and whether it was an organization that the collective wanted to maintain into the future.
The upshot of the June meeting in Calgary is that a motion was passed to break CPAP into two new organizations: one for the Regulators and another for the Associations. Following the meeting, each CPAP delegate was to seek feedback from his/her local board about the decision taken to “divorce” the Regulators and the Associations. As well, there was discussion about maintaining a liaison between the Regulators and Associations and delegates are expected to bring back feedback about the possible shape (functions, frequency of meetings, etc.) of the liaison relationship to the next CPAP meeting in January in Ottawa.
In June, following the first day of meeting together, the two groups split for a second day of discussions as Regulators or Associations. In the Associations break out session, three Association delegates agreed to meet in August to work on the “divorce” proceedings. This subcommittee met in Winnipeg and will propose that the Associations organization keep the name CPAP in recognition of the fact that CPAP originally grew out of CPA as an Association group to focus on issues related to the practice of psychology. We will recommend that the “P” be changed from “Provincial” to “Professional” in the CPAP acronym to reflect the desire for inclusion of both CPA and the territories into the newly reformed CPAP (i.e., the use of “provincial” in our name could be seen to disenfranchise both our national partner and the territories so that needed to be changed). Other work, on the by-laws for example, was also done in Winnipeg so that the Association group will be ready for the January discussions with the Regulators.
Continuation of a CPAP seat on the CPA Board is very much hoped for as is a strengthening of the relationship between the advocacy work of CPA and the Associations (as reflected through CPAP). Preliminary discussion has begun between CPA and the subcommittee of CPAP conducting the preliminary work on this new version of CPAP. CPAP very much appreciates the assistance provided by Drs. John Service, Karen Cohen and Ian Nicholson to date on these CPAP developments.
Respectfully submitted,
Dr. Jennifer Frain, C.Psych.
CPAP Chair and CPA Board Member