Open Letter to RMT's on AIT

March 11, 2009

An open letter to RMT’s the effect of the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT)
From Ron Garvock, RMT


April 1, 2009
As many of you already know, after this date, RMT’s from the regulated Provinces of Ontario and Newfoundland/ Labrador will be able to register in BC, after successfully completing only a jurisprudence exam. There will be no further barriers to registration with the CMTBC, as long as applicants are regulated in another province.

This will likely set a precedent and a direction that other Provinces may take as they consider regulating the Profession of Massage Therapy in their jurisdictions. Many of us predict Alberta and Manitoba will move to regulate RMT’s in the near future.

The fact that B.C. students of massage therapy are required by the CMTBC to graduate from an accredited school that provides a minimum of 3000 hours training won’t impact registrants from other jurisdictions that have fewer hours of training. Currently in Ontario and Newfoundland/Labrador, the typical number of hours for entry to practice is around 2200.

The CMTBC Board has for some time been working with other regulated jurisdictions and stakeholders to seek ways to develop national standard for massage therapy competencies. I am fully in support of the Board doing this work. It is an exciting step forward for our profession.

The national standard will be competency-based. In the sense that training “hours” may be tied to that, it is likely to be about 2200 hours. BC can be a major contributor to the future of Massage Therapy standards across Canada by helping to identify and harmonise core competencies for entry to practice in regulated jurisdictions.

The Agreement on Internal Trade and Massage Therapy training in B.C.

Currently our profession has to meet the challenge in the timeline imposed upon us by the federal government to implement the AIT by March 31, 2009. This new legislation decreases barriers to movement of labour within Canada which is why there will be removal of barriers for RMTs from Ontario and NL to set up practice in BC, despite educational differences.

This has caused much turmoil over the last few months within the BC RMT community. I am dismayed that some communication has been very disrespectful and misleading. Because there has been quite a bit of misinformation generated, I wanted to send this message to the RMT community and invite your responses, either for further clarification, or to let us know what you think.


Background
The MTA memorandum dated October 28, 2008, suggested that the Okanagan Valley College of Massage Therapy (OVCMT) was the only party concerned about the AIT changes. We at Utopia Academy echoed our concerns and made similar recommendations in creating win - win solutions. Others in the room seemed to share similar views. The MTA memo suggests the meeting was called to discuss changing to a 2200-hour educational program in B.C. This is incorrect. In fact, it was clearly stated at the meeting that hours are not the contemporary way in which standards are described. Ontario does not use that terminology, nor were “hours-of-training” used in any of the AIT negotiations.

The MTA memorandum suggests that OVCMT proposed lowering educational standards. This language was not used nor has it ever been the intention by OVCMT nor Utopia Academy to lower standards of education in the massage therapy profession. There was a proposal to adapt the current BC competency document to ensure all relevant competencies remain in our scope of practice. The schools’ proposal further suggested that we develop a specialization system allowing for better recognition of RMTs with advanced skills. This would offer a corresponding understanding of differing skill sets by the public.

The MTA memorandum reported only one reason for proposed changes by OVCMT –“the causing of a serious reduction in enrolment at the school”. This reason was one of the many given and not the primary one by both OVCMT and Utopia Academy. In sharing the enrolment concern we also shared the rationale behind presenting this information to the CMTBC.

The CMTBC oversees RMTs and massage therapy education in BC. If there are changes to the external environment such as legislation or laws that are likely to impede a school from continual success, albeit unintentional, the CMTBC needs to know about them.
The major reason for making changes to the current standards is to ensure that in the future, when other provinces, such as Alberta, become regulated, that they do not affectively lower the entrance to practice competency skill sets in BC.

It would be possible for a newly regulated province to lower the entrance to practice competency skill sets in BC. For example, Alberta is set to become regulated in the near future. The AIT requires any new regulated province to have standards perceived to be equal to those that presently exist – currently Ontario... It is possible that a newly regulated province’s competency document could look the same as Ontario’s, however without BC, Ontario or Newfoundland’s input into the exam process or without accreditation and a high level of quality control for the provider schools, the actual occupational competency level could be much lower. This could also happen in Quebec where standards differ hugely from the regulated provinces.

OVCMT and Utopia suggested that the best way to minimize this risk is to create national standards and national exams. This would clearly identify the minimum “entry to practice” occupational competency level. Furthermore, it would have BC involved in the process. BC would be at the table supporting standard evaluation and school evaluation at the highest level. The significance of participating in discussions with the other regulated provinces is reinforced when one considers potential future occurrences, such as:

Another province has the ability to make agreements with out-of-country parties. For example, should Quebec and France make a labour trade agreement, other regulated provinces must live with the results.
Distance education for massage therapy presently exists in Alberta and Nova Scotia. It is imperative for BC to be part of the discussion and decision-making process as this education medium progresses. After all, BC will be directly impacted by it.

The MTA memorandum also omitted alternative solutions that were put forward. These suggestions could lead to an improvement of advanced competency development/specialties.
Such as the creation of post-graduate specialty streams would support a methodical development to mastery level. Furthermore, a formal process could lend itself to having these specialty skill sets recognized by the public who seek them. It is also quite possible that with this type of formal post-graduate training, students could receive credits toward a degree. With these types of changes, BC would remain the province with the highest standards in North America in terms of overall competency delivery, and would truly reflect a “gold standard”. BC would be adjusting to the current climate, reducing risks and ultimately, participating in the changes as opposed to waiting for them to happen.
The MTA’s memorandum states that “we are concerned about how this proposal could impact our laddered degree program with Thompson Rivers University (TRU)”. This was discussed at the stakeholders meeting.

In fact, TRU had been contacted prior to the meeting and responded with assurances that if a student has two years of massage therapy education they will receive 57-60 credits. If they have three years of massage therapy education they will receive 87-90 credits. This is the way it has been since the beginning of the articulation with TRU. TRU has already done this with two-year massage therapy diploma applicants from out-of-province.
In other words, individuals can obtain a Bachelor of Health Science degree in four years, combining the massage therapy diploma with other college courses which meet the TRU criterion. All attendees at the meeting were made aware of this.

Conflict of Interest
I recently received the CMTBC Notice of Resolutions that will be presented at the AGM on March 28. 2009.
The resolution noted as “7.2 Title: Conflict of Interest” caught my attention.
This resolution is requesting that the CMTBC board amend its bylaws to restrict any person from holding a position on the CMTBC Board that may have either a financial interest or income from their association with an Accreditation Educational Program.
In effect anyone from any of the BC schools that are accredited.

When reading this resolution it occurs to me that the current policy used by the CMTBC Board may not be well understood.

For your information, I have enclosed the conflict of interest policy currently used by the CMTBC board, approved February 14, 2006. This policy reflects what is currently used by many health professions and recognizes that a self-regulating college, by definition, will have board members that, at times, will be in conflict, causing the need for guidelines.

Conflicts of interest
18.
(1)
For the purposes of this section, a Potential Conflict of Interest is deemed to exist in any situation where a Registrant, Board, committee or panel member or officer has a personal interest in a matter that may be reasonably seen to influence their professional advice or conduct in relation to the College or its’ Registrants.

(2)
For the purposes of subsection (1) “personal interest” includes, but is not limited to financial, family and other personal relationships, and includes those situations in which a family member or associate of the Registrant has a significant interest in the matter.

(3)
Registrants, Board, committee and panel members, and officers must ensure that they avoid any situation that may give rise to a Potential Conflict of Interest.

(4)
If a Board, committee or panel member, or officer discovers that he is in a Potential Conflict of Interest situation, he must:


(a) disclose the Potential Conflict of Interest to the Board and the Registrar;
(b) not vote or exercise his duties in regard to the area of Potential Conflict of Interest, and;
(c) Take any immediate steps available to resolve the Potential Conflict of Interest.
Further processes that protect the mandate and integrity of the board are the selection of three public members to the CMTBC board. Since the inception of the CMTBC in 1995, the board has benefited from this structure. Although this has never happened, one could imagine that if the public members perceived that the board was being directed to do something that is not in the public interest, the government would immediately intercede in a convincing manner. Another protective mechanism is that the bylaws state that members cannot direct the CMTBC board to do anything that is not in the interest of public safety.

If a topic or motion is put forth on the board and a sitting member feels that another member is in conflict, an anonymous or open vote can take place to determine if the board feels there is a conflict. If so, the member in conflict would be bound to the above policy.
My understanding is current Board member(s) with School interests have removed themselves from decisions and votes relating to the upcoming AIT changes.
I believe that the current conflict of interest policy used by the CMTBC is more then adequate to address any conflict of interest identified or even perceived by any board member. The motion proposed in my view is unnecessary and reflects a level of distrust in the Board.

Proxy and Board Nomination Deadlines
In light of the upcoming AGM, which will include an AIT panel, and two AIT related motions, I encourage you to attend the AGM or send a proxy. In this critical time of change, informed voters and voices are needed, not only for the proposed motions but for the election of CMTBC board members. There are diverse opinions and messages being sent out and I believe our profession is best served by informed members. Proxies must be submitted to the CMTBC office by March 17, 2009 next Tuesday
(fax is fine). If you are having trouble finding someone to give your proxy to, let me know and I’ll try to hook you up with an AGM attendee.

In addition, the CMTBC board is in need of new members. If you have an interest in discussing the board experience or any of the above, feel free to contact me or any board member.
Nominations must be submitted by March 20, 2009 next Friday .
I hope that this information is helpful to you.

Have a look at these Additional Websites for further Info on AIT:
http://www.cmtbc.bc.ca/
http://www.ovcmt.com/

See you at the AGM.
Regards
Ron Garvock, RMT ron.garvock@utopiaacademy.com