Over the past two months, somewhat against form, I have found myself repeatedly zooming the camera out from Ontario to Canada as a whole.
That is against form because I have now officially begun my term as Chair of 91视频 for 2026鈥�2027, and our mandate is, of course, to serve the public interest in Ontario. Health professions regulation is also primarily a jurisdictional responsibility. And yet, at my first ACPRO meeting, the national association of psychology regulators in the provinces and territories, and in discussions with many colleagues across the country, I heard themes that were strikingly familiar.
Across jurisdictions, regulators are wrestling with questions of scope, professional titles, flat or insufficient growth in the supply of professionals, alternative training pathways not always envisioned by our traditional national frameworks, and the fair assessment and integration of internationally educated professionals. These are not Ontario-only questions. They are being raised, in different forms and with different local histories, across Canada.
When we look nationally, we also see a professional reality that is sometimes under-acknowledged: psychology practice in Canada is now carried out by practitioners with both doctoral and master鈥檚-level training in roughly equal measure. That reality is an important part of the conversation about the future of the profession.
Ontario is having this conversation now, and at a high level. Important decisions remain before us. Similar conversations are taking place, in their own ways, across the country.
Those questions lead us back, inevitably, to training and supervision. How do we ensure an increasing supply of competent psychology practitioners in light of growing population needs? How do we define entry-to-practice competence? How do we support rigorous training while also being honest about access, mobility, and the changing needs of the public?
These will be central themes at the upcoming national training summit now being jointly planned by a range of psychology profession stakeholders. As that planning proceeds, it is clear that we need new and more precise conversations about competencies, training models, pathways into the profession, and emerging areas of scope.
In Ontario, for example, we are discussing prescription privileges for some psychology practitioners. Speaking as a regulator, that is an important potential change in service to the public. But it is also something larger: a change in how the profession understands its own scope and identity. That kind of shift deserves careful thought, evidence, humility, and open discussion.
All of this is to say that leadership in this profession must be thoughtful. It must take into account, as best we can measure them, the possible benefits and risks of change. Historically, and understandably, that has often meant a focus on preserving standards and maintaining predictability.
There is value in that. Regulation should not be impulsive. Standards matter. Public confidence matters.
However, consistency and change are not opposites in responsible regulation. They are realities that have to be held together. We need continuity where continuity protects the public, and we need change where the facts, the needs of the public, and the realities of the profession have changed.
Workforce supply constraints, mobility, training pathways, public expectations, and interjurisdictional realities are all changing at once. At a certain point, an accumulation of pressures is not just background noise. It is a signal.
It can be difficult to meet that moment. Familiar ways of doing things can be deeply appealing but I would rather see us change-minded and careful than certain and immovable.
Turning back to the business at hand, I want to highlight a few important developments.
First, the Board has approved the circulation of proposed changes to By-law 25 for a 60-day consultation. These proposed changes would strengthen the 91视频鈥檚 ability to maintain accurate and current information about practice locations and supervision arrangements. In practical terms, they would help close an important information gap. They would support better oversight, clearer accountability, and more effective regulation in the public interest. This is the kind of governance improvement that may not attract headlines, but matters a great deal in the day-to-day work of responsible regulation.
Second, the third-party governance review has now been received, reviewed, and discussed by the Board. The review identified many strengths in 91视频鈥檚 governance, as well as areas for continued improvement. Work is now underway to respond to the recommendations. Good governance is not a destination reached once and then admired from a distance. It is an ongoing practice, and 91视频 is committed to that work.
Finally, I want to congratulate Dr. Tony DeBono on becoming Chair of ACPRO. This is a significant national leadership role, and it comes at an important time for psychology regulation across Canada. It is also a recognition of the contribution Ontario is making to national conversations about regulation, workforce, standards, and access.
As always, I am grateful to the 91视频 staff for their steady, skilled work in keeping the organization moving smoothly through a busy and important period. I am also grateful to Board and Committee members for their continued commitment to thoughtful, public-interest regulation.
My door remains open to registrants, stakeholders, and members of the public who wish to engage constructively in this work.
Best,
Peter Bieling, Ph.D., C.Psych.