APTI face-to-face meeting notes1

11 May 2007

start 5:10 p.m. at Adler

1. Introductions

Linda Kirschner—send templates to all students, they wrote mpps, wrote a letter of position to each member of cttee & smitherman & trevor day—50-70 letters

Maria Iosue—Sandplay—10 or so letters, several e-mails, letters to smitherman & members of ctee, met with mpp this morning, Frank Klees, told him about APTI; has an interest in special needs children; conservatives has proposed amendment that supports OPA & group needing supervision; also supporting subtitles a la mft

Judy Dales—ATPPP—only about 10 analysts will be affected by the bill so about 10 letters, I have sent letters, as have executive & curriculum, to Smitherman, McGinty, RU

Marchez said to talk to liberals

Jim Duvall, Hincks-Dellcrest—offer various letters; have been in a crisis, but now can start writing letters, etc.; 110% behind APTI

Pat DeYoung—TIRP—most students belong to OSP or OACCPP, and all 300 people have been given templates; no disjunctions with APTI curriculum

Joanne Corbeil—Espritedu—6-year-old training program with 2 graduates; sent a brief to Blake & to Cristina Cho of HPRAC; not very involved in APTI because so new; have written to Shelley Martell

Jane Smith-Eivemark—CAAPE—also Bob Bond has been instrumental in asking each member in Ontario to write to MPP, percentages inching up; glad this is moving us to become regulated; prof assoc at a crossroads; Peter is active in Coalition, Marvin Shank also; a candidate in Jungian

Sharon MacIsaac-McKenna—CTP—had a robust letter-writing campaign, students and alumni, Gail Burns met with Rosario Marquesa who said he’d take letter and get it to the Ministry; send letter to Frances

Philip McKenna—CAPT, observer status—submitted a brief to HPRAC that seemed to have an effect—recognizing psychotherapy as an independent profession and insertion of a relational emphasis into definition of psychotherapy, and added through verbal and nonverbal communication; vigorous campaign to talk with people in Ministry; have reported back to CAPT, had letter writing campaign—probably 300-400 letters.

Linda Page (taking notes)—Adler—non-psychology students are active in OACCPP or OSP or CAPT, so lobby through those organizations.

2. discussion of controlled act—Coalition pictures more to less expertise on horizontal axis, more to less impairment on vertical axis

coalition said Alberta has defined serious impairment at a very high level, requiring expertise at a high level, meaning very few people would be qualified to work with those people

vs. Ontario, where insurance has moved impairment more towards everyday dysfunction, so probably anyone who has finished supervision could treat it

Philip suggests anchoring controlled act empirically in that disorder is ongoing inability for self-care—the kind of disorder that requires custodial care. So therapists who work with them would be members of a health care team

scope of practice includes psychotherapy, but question is who does authorized or controlled act?

in own psychotherapy experience, there are times when a client hits a patch of being more impairment; Philip wants to hammer until it is agreed that there needs to be a clear definition of how you know when you are doing or not doing the controlled act.

Coalition has said case law shows opportunity for a broader definition. And that is is an important public policy question.

Question is not whether one has more expertise, but rather what that expertise is in.

If you have a client who doesn’t get better, do they need to be referred out?

Worry that we get mired in the argument over what is therapy and then the bureaucrats will decide those questions.

That’s why need to have a definable, clearly adjudicable action that can know ahead of time.

Question: does the Alberta approach get social control mixed up with change? Forensic psychotherapy?

Goal is to protect the profession from as much interference as possible. Especially for lower-level bureaucrats, it would be a constant process of defining context.

What’s next step? We need something analogous to breaking the skin or communicating a diagnosis as a way of deciding whether someone has wielded the controlled/authorized act.

Take serious disorder, anchor it in custodial care. Why would we need to only have a certain subset of the College who could work with such a patient? Why not everyone?

Perhaps should argue that newly-regulated psychotherapists fit well into new community-oriented health system, so should be part of a care team for someone in custodial care.

Coalition position is that every member of the college can do the controlled act.

Even if every member of College of Psychotherapists can do the controlled act, still have to draw the line for people outside the College as to what that act is. Has to be descriptive, empirical so can go to court on it.

Question: what if APTI took the position that we want every registrant to have the controlled act, and the act should be defined empirically as impairment requiring custodial care? How would we argue for that?

3. The Transitional Council: Ministry bureaucrats are already working on the procedures, then government makes decision, then three-person all-party committee meets to consider. All positions that become open are listed on a web page, and anybody who wants to be a member must apply. Fairly simple application—name, accomplishments, references. Composition of Council will include a group of people from the public as well as those from within the profession. If know general public representatives, get them to apply. When you apply for position, have to fill in conflict of interest form where must reveal memberships or commitments that might potentially look like a promotion of own group or school. Once on the Council, you become a representative of the public, not of any group or school or organization.

APTI has decided that it would put forward a candidate or candidates for TC. If Coalition wants to back any of our candidates, that’s up to them. But APTI has a different makeup than the Coalition and may have a stronger position if it presents its own slate.

4. Putting people forward for TC:

Don Carveth, Philip McKenna, & Pat DeYoung (who is OSP’s candidate to the Coalition) will be willing to serve on TC.

Next Steps:

In terms of policies, wait until TC is in existence, and then decide how to proceed regarding particular positions (grandfathering, controlled act, etc.).

During next two weeks of Linda’s absence, if the bill passes, Jim Duvall will write a letter to Ministry as vice-chair of APTI once TC application process is announced, saying that Don Carveth and Philip McKenna and Pat DeYoung are candidates endorsed by APTI. Should make reference to APTI’s brief. Philip and Sharon will review letter before it is sent to Minister.

Linda will send electronic copy of APTI letterhead to Jim

Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.