NOTE RE: ACRONYMS USED IN THIS REPORT

A plenary session of representatives of regulatory bodies of psychology from all Canadian provinces and the Northwest Territories, with representation from the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) and the Canadian Register of Health Service Providers in Psychology (CRHSPP) was convened to begin developing an agreement for meeting the obligations of the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT). The session was also attended by representatives from HRDC, LMCG, and ACHHR, and was facilitated by Louise Bourgault.¹

Five possible mechanisms for mobility were proposed by the facilitator and presented for discussion. These were:

This model consisted of three options for mobility: i) identification of conditions required for "fast track" mobility (i.e., immediate recognition of qualifications leading to registration for the independent practice of psychology); ii) requirement of a period of supervision for individuals who do not meet the requirements for immediate recognition; iii) accommodation mechanisms for individuals where immediate recognition is not possible, and a period of supervision is not sufficient (i.e. remedial actions). Such an individual would be granted a "restricted" or "limited license" until such obligations were satisfied.

This mechanism proposes the development of a national test to assess an individual’s competency to practice psychology. Such a test would be competency-based, and could be applied for the purposes of mobility between jurisdictions where entry-level requirements differ, as well as at the entry-level to the profession.

3 Bi-Lateral/Multi-lateral agreements between jurisdictions

This mechanism is equivalent to the Recognition, Reconciliation, and Accommodation Model (RRAM) presented for discussion by the Psychology Sectoral Workgroup on the Agreement on Internal Trade (PSWAIT) at the last CPAP meeting. The model consists of jurisdictions entering into bi-lateral or multi-lateral agreements with other jurisdictions in which some qualifications may be immediately recognized, others reconciled through a process of negotiation, and where differences cannot be reconciled, identification of accommodation mechanisms (e.g., additional coursework, period of supervision, etc.).

This mechanism proposes the development of an accreditation process which would accredit programs of training which focus on competency-based outcomes. Individuals completing such a program would be fully mobile between jurisdictions.

Development of a credentialing process which would credential individuals for the independent practice of psychology, which would permit full mobility between jurisdictions.

Participants were instructed to discuss the models in the following terms:

• Advantages
• Disadvantages
• How does the model improve mobility?
• Is it defensible?
• Is it realistic?

Participants were also requested to rank-order the five models in terms of preference.

Participants met in three small sub-groups, to discuss the mechanisms, and to generate other potential mechanisms. Sub-group composition consisted of representatives from a wide range of jurisdictions, and sub-group composition was re-constituted once, in order to facilitate exposure to a wide range of views.

PART II: OUTCOME OF DISCUSSIONS OF POTENTIAL MECHANISMS FOR MOBILITY

Considerable overlap and similarities were noted between the various models. For example, one group noted that the Three-Option Model was very similar, if not identical to the RRAM model. It was also noted that no single model, as outlined, was optimal. Rather, each mechanism contributed useful mechanisms/processes for mobility. In general, discussion in the sub-groups evolved away from the suggested format of considering each model according to the various criteria (advantages, disadvantages, etc.), and towards a discussion of a single framework for mobility which utilized a variety of concepts borrowed from the above models, as well as new concepts introduced during the discussions.

The three sub-groups each presented a framework for mobility developed out of the small group discussions. There was considerable overlap between the three proposed frameworks.

The following concepts for mobility were outlined by the three sub-groups:

• Many mechanisms already exist for enhancing mobility
• A "fast-track" (i.e. immediate recognition) is needed, which could include, for example, registration elsewhere, no disciplinary actions, accredited programs, etc.
• Consider developing a National Credential which assesses the nature, amount and content of education, training, and experience rather than the educational degree obtained (i.e., does not rely on the degree obtained to determine whether an individual has satisfied all of the educational and experiential requirements for registration). One could compare an individual’s training experiences to the ASPPB/National Register Designation criteria, for example.
• Consider the development of a national body to credential individuals and grant them a "gold seal" which would qualify them for complete mobility between provinces. This could be optional (i.e., those who do not anticipate moving to another jurisdiction would not be required to be credentialed).
• A variety of ways could be developed to achieve the criteria.
• Eventually training programs would move towards the criteria.

• Develop a detailed set of courses and supervised training experiences required for entry to independent practice of psychology. This would emphasize the nature, amount and content of education, training, and experience rather than the educational degree obtained (i.e., does not rely on the degree obtained to determine whether an individual has satisfied all of the educational and experiential requirements for registration, except that training would be at the graduate level). The sub-group felt that this would be similar to the education and training requirements described in the CPA Psy.D. task force document (but without reference to degree title).
• Individuals who do not satisfy the requirements as described above, or for those who are already registered for independent practice, would be eligible for mobility if they have been registered and practising full-time for a minimum of 5 years in an organized setting with no disciplinary actions against them.
• The sub-group noted that a preliminary review of registration requirements suggested that educational requirements were very similar for Quebec, Manitoba, Alberta, New Brunswick, and British Columbia if one examines only course requirements, and if degree requirement is set aside.
• The possibility of a National Credentialing Body, which would grant a credential similar to a "Red Seal" was discussed and there were differing opinions about whether the creation of a 3^rd Party Credentialing body was desirable. Some felt that this would be unnecessary, and would be yet another organization to which psychologists would be required to join. Alternatively, a possibility was to have the Regulatory bodies assess an individual’s qualifications for national credentialing at the time they become registered. Others felt that a National Credentialing Body offered the advantage of being an efficient means of identifying qualified individuals, the introduction of a 3^rd Party, independent of provincial/territorial regulatory boards was desirable, and that a National body would be desirable in that it could be burdensome for provincial/territorial regulatory bodies to evaluate credentials of members who may already be registered, but who desire the National Credential for the purposes of mobility.

• There should be a "fast-track" for mobility. Some examples of mechanisms for "fast-track" entry were generated. Any one of the following could be considered acceptable by all jurisdictions for entry to the independent practice of psychology. These were preliminary suggestions for fast track, and others, which meet or exceed the national standard might be added.
  • Certificate of Professional Qualification (CPQ)
  • Doctoral degree in Psychology plus 5 years registration for independent practice without disciplinary action against them
  • American Board of Professional Psychology (ABPP) diplomate status
  • Completion of an accredited post-doctoral internship in psychology.
  • Master’s degree in Psychology plus 5 years of registration for the independent practice of psychology, with no history of disciplinary action against them.
  • Where the registration requirements in the home jurisdiction equal to or exceed the registration requirements in the receiving jurisdiction.
  • A jurisprudence and ethics examination would be required in all cases.
• Competency requirements should be identified, and would need to be met for those not eligible for fast-track. Regulatory boards would prescribe additional courses, experience, etc., as needed to increase competencies for applicants who do not meet these requirements.

The issues of entry-level training and occupational title were also raised at the plenary session and discussed. These discussions are summarized as follows:

Entry-level Degree (Masters vs. Doctoral): There was agreement that training in professional psychology is at the graduate level. The session emphasized the content of the training program rather than the name of the graduate degree.

Occupational Title (Psychologist vs. Psychological Associate): The issue of regulatory title was raised (i.e., psychologist versus psychological associate). There was considerable discussion on this issue. In particular, if an individual moves from one jurisdiction to another but, as a result of their educational degree (e.g., master’s versus doctoral) their title changes (e.g., from psychologist to psychological associate), would this be acceptable under AIT, assuming that the individual continues to have access to the independent practice of psychology? Differing opinions were expressed. Mr. Walsh (HRDC) suggested that occupational title was as important as access to the occupation, and that a different title could be defensible only if it could be demonstrated that there is a difference between a psychologist and a psychological associate in terms of competencies, or the work done by the individual. Others expressed that granting full access to the practice of independent psychology (regardless of the individual’s title) should meet the obligations of AIT. Following lengthy discussion, the plenary decided to set aside the issue of occupational title in order to continue to work towards an agreement on the requirements for independent practice. The issue of occupational title, however, will require further discussion.

PART III: SUMMARY OF FOUNDATIONS FOR DEVELOPING A MUTUAL RECOGNITION AGREEMENT

APPENDIX I
Checklist provided by facilitator to assist with discussion & negotiation²