You are only seeing posts authors requested be public.
Register and Login to participate in discussions with colleagues.
President Eric Cadesky's report on the 2018 CMA Summit and General Council
Public
Dr Eric Cadesky, DoctorsOfBC President, in his president's blog reports on the 2018 CMA meeting in Winnipeg that just recently wrapped up.
He shares, "In past years, the CMA’s General Council meeting (GC) – the 'medical parliament of Canada' –focused on doctors debating motions on evolving and important topics ... the CMA this year instead organized a two-day Health Summit comprised of speakers and panel discussions. ... As is usual, the federal health minister attended, but was interviewed by a non-physician rather than giving a speech, and while she repeatedly stated she was “here to listen” she did not take any questions from the audience ... followed by the CMA’s Annual General Meeting and a pared-down GC without motions; many felt there was not enough time to debate the proposed changes to CMA governance and the Code of Ethics and Professionalism."
While he tells us, "The Health Summit was not a substitute for a GC, because here member participation and debate was limited." and "A motion to reduce the size of the CMA’s board from 26 to 19 did pass."
Does the passing of a motion to reduce the size of the CMA Board simply concentrate more power in the hands of fewer directors along with the staff?
He ends his blog with a confusing message, "As professionals we hold ourselves and our national association accountable. We value progress, but want to ensure everyone is brought along. We are open to innovation insofar as it supports relationships with the people we care for and about. And if those are the takeaway messages from the Summit, then as a profession we’re getting closer to our peak."
So, what was it? Was the CMA meeting close to the peak for doctors or the peak for the hood-winking of doctors and controlling the agenda?
https://www.doctorsofbc.ca/presidents-blog/spacemen-holograms-and-what-m...
Groups:
ProgressPublic
Thank you for the post, Zafar.
The decrease in size from 26 to 19 can be seen to decrease the concentration of power. For example, Ontario doctors previous held seven of the 26 positions; now each province and territory will have one.
The progress that I discussed speaks exactly to your point: the agenda that was proposed by the CMA leadership was not wholly accepted by members and further engagement will continue, especially when it comes to ensuring that doctors are able to meet to discuss issues of national importance.
Respectfully,
Eric
What does it really mean? What about the sale of MDF?Public
What does it really mean? What is the vision for the future of our national physician body?
The Canadian Medical Association came into being so long ago it was patterned as a parliamentary body, not a typical society and certainly not a corportion.
On reviewing the document "Governance changes at CMA: What you need to know" (attached below), the proposed changes not only included a reduction of the number of Board directors to 19 but also the dissolution of General Council. The document also outlines the corollary to this change.
So what happened, did the changes pass without amendment?
Was this the last General Council? Has it now been dissolved?
Will we now see a dissipation of physician led medical focus to "Communities of Interest" scattered around the country? Will these be more promotional exercises like the summit itself, event planning and marketing organized by staff?
Was there any discussion about the sale of MDF to the Bank of Nova Scotia?
Does 2018 mark the year when CMA sells doctors through MDF to BNS and dissolves General Council, the "medical parliament of Canada"?