My few loyal readers will know by now that I am one of three physicians (along with Drs. Dubord and Conte) who are sponsoring six motions at the College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) annual general meeting (AGM). I genuinely feel that these motions will push the CFPC into a better direction, and will help make it a more accountable organization for frontline members like myself.
I have no illusions, and neither should you, that simply passing these motions will “fix” the CFPC. I’ve come to realize that there is, in fact, no “fixing” of any physicians’ organizations, for a myriad of reasons. But what there can and must be, is ongoing, consistent vigilance and pressure applied by frontline members. These organizations must constantly be pushed to go in the right direction. I believe that passing these six motions will do that.
Having said that, I confess to being completely befuddled by the approach that the current leadership of the CFPC is taking towards these motions. Make no mistake, I fully expected the CFPC leadership to oppose the motions as written. That’s fair. Healthy disagreement and tension are vital for the success of any membership organization. But the strategy they are using honestly suggests that they hope member indifference will stop the motions. (NB – I do recognize there is a large degree of apathy towards the CFPC – but that doesn’t mean that it a GOOD thing).
For example, in the initial emails to the membership announcing that these six motions would be presented at the AGM, the CFPC specifically pointed out that the doctors supporting these motions did not respond to attempts to reach out and work cooperatively on them. Did they not think we would keep receipts? Dr. Dubord clearly reached back and asked for clarifications on what parts of the amendments were felt to be in contravention of Canada’s Not for Profit Corporation Act (NFPCA). We still don’t have a clear answer to that question.
As recently as last week, CFPC president Dr. Sarah Cook (who I will say has done a good job promoting the importance of family physicians in public) stated that our motions “sit uneasily with the law,” and that “court direction may be needed.” But which parts of the motion sit “uneasily”? Which part of the NFPCA will necessitate “court direction”? The specifics have not been provided to the members at large.
Additionally, while the CFPC has developed five alternate proposals that they state could be implemented much more quickly, a review of these alternate proposals suggests that there’s enough leeway for the board to NOT implement them. Remember, this is the same organization that treated a 95 percent vote in favour of access to Board Minutes and a 91 percent vote in favour of an indecent review of the PGY-3 mess as suggestions, and declined to implement either. Did the CFPC leadership think we would have all forgotten that? And that we wouldn’t want something with more “teeth” the next time round?
Our six motions are by-law changes that the CFPC would be forced to abide by. Given the unfortunate lack of trust that appears to be there between the membership as a whole and the CFPC leadership, I really don’t understand how the CFPC thought alternate proposals without “teeth” would be acceptable.
Additionally, it would seem that members are expected to forget that last year, the CFPC wanted to institute perpetual annual fee hikes for members (up to the rate of inflation). The argument was basically “we’ve trimmed all the fat we can.” (In fairness they did trim their budget a lot). But suddenly, this year, they don’t need a hike anymore (there is a motion at this year’s AGM presented by the CFPC to keep the fees the same). You mean, membership pressure works? Golly.
All of which is my way of saying that I have the strong sense that members need to continuously push the CFPC to do the right thing. We CAN have a better organization, we just have to put a little bit of effort into it.
It should surprise no one that I’m going to encourage all of you to support the six motions and reject the alternates. As a reminder, members can vote by proxy but MUST register by Sunday October 25 at 11:59 pm.
The directions, once again, for voting by proxy:
First search your email inbox with the phrase “CFPC”. This should identify all the emails from the CFPC you have. Go to the email dated on October 7, 2026. That one will have a link to register, personal information and your control number. Then do the following:
1. Log in at: election-client.ca.electa.lumiconnect.com/cfpc/proxycard/ with their email and the control number from the College’s Oct. 7 email. NEVER send your control number to anyone else.
2. Item 1: Appointing a proxy. The default options are Board officers. Pick the middle option and type: Paul Conte. He has graciously agreed to hold proxy votes. He has set up an email just for proxies: paul.cfpcproxy@gmail.com
3. Items 2 to 9: This is all CFPC business. Vote as you see fit. As an FYI Item 5 approves keeping the fees where they are.
4. Item 10: This is the CFPCs own package of needed bylaw fix, and I support these and encourage you to support them too.
5. Items 11 to 21: I ask that you approve every Member Motion (Items 11, 13, 15, 17, 18 and 20). It is ESSENTIAL to REJECT EVERY Alternative Motion (Items 12, 14, 16, 19, 21). NB. The Proxy Card refers to these as CONTESTS, NOT ITEMS. See image below (modified from an original made by Dr. Kamphuis):
With any luck, we can have a better CFPC on October 29, but only if we are willing to make our voices heard by voting.
