as we always talk about good intentions executed poorly, lead to terrible outcomes. The college said, very clearly, our mandate is not to protect psychologists. Our mandate is to protect the public. But if your mandate is to protect the public, why are you taking away the guardrails of supervision and training that would best protect the public? Hello and welcome to awake at the wheel. So in today's episode, we're going to discuss some of the changes that are taking place with regard to regulation here in Ontario, Canada, with regard to the, profession of psychology and registration of psychologists. So, by way of background, I am a Master's prepared registered psychotherapist. Oren has a PhD and is a registered clinical So our training, while similar, there are some, vast differences, of course, in the level of education that we have, the number of years of education, historically, however, the College of Psychologists in Ontario had a special class where they would allow master's prepared individuals to register. If there was four additional years of training under the supervision of a psychologist, plus a large number of hours of service delivery and a few other different caveats. However, given the known shortage of psychologists and access to mental health care in Ontario and in Canada in general, there's been some discussion about changing the regulations, and making it more accessible for some master's prepared individuals to get registered. So it's interesting because, the association that I belong to, as opposed to ones that often belongs to, do have opposing views. We're going to talk a little bit more about that, but I want to start out by watching a video about, the opinion of the psychologist in Ontario and how they feel about this. And I think that this echoes some of the opinions of other psychologists as well. So let's take a look. I'm fuming. I'm upset and sad. I am really frustrated with. Let's. Let's just say it's the government right now. Right now in Ontario, there are changes being proposed and changes that are moving forward for the training of psychologists in your province. So if you're an Ontario resident, you need to know that there are changes coming in the direction of removing training to become a psychologist. So removing some of our licensing requirements from the way our exams are held to the number of practicums that are required to needing a PhD. Essentially bringing it down to a bare bones training. And that is what will be required in the future to become a psychologist. So we are decreasing the amount of training. I want you to imagine them taking doctors and saying, hey, you only need to go on one rotation and we're going to actually cut your education in half. That's what's actually happening. I'm going to post some more information about the proposed changes. There's ways the public can get engaged and complain. Please help us out. We're losing, our profession. So here's the thing I had. And I haven't spoken publicly or much about this. Because it was an ongoing battle that I had to get registered with the College of Psychologists in the past. As I mentioned, I am masters prepared. However, I also met all of the other requirements, that were in place, which was for and I had more than four years of supervised work under multiple psychologists. I had more than the number of hours required and so on and so forth. So I really did and still do believe in what was in place. But the reason that I didn't get registered was because of the delivery method of my degree. Because of my disability, I required online schooling because I can't function in a physical school setting. Because of my limitations. But although I met and exceeded all of the other requirements, it was deemed that the delivery method of my degree was unacceptable and I didn't get registered. Despite that battle, despite the tens of thousands of dollars I spent fighting them, I do still believe in the regulations that they currently have in place for master's prepared individuals to get registered. So I want to frame our conversation with that. But, Oren, I know that this really does impact the profession, really does impact other psychologists. So what are your thoughts on all this? Well, I mean, the fact is, they are doing this supposedly for, you know, inclusion and diversity and so on. And I'll throw on equity and, and also, as you said, about access. I am all for getting people access to, you know, therapists. We need far more therapists out there, good ones. And the problem is, the way the college is going about it, they are as this as the psychologist said in the interview, in the video, they're just stripping it down and they're taking a good idea. And as we always talk about good intentions executed poorly, lead to terrible outcomes. And that's what they're doing. And I've got to say, and you know, I it sounds it may sound like I'm just advocating on your behalf, but I'm not I'm being factual here. Knowing what you have done professionally, you know, running a clinic. All the work that is entailed and I know exactly what you do with that clinic. Okay. I mean, that makes you more qualified to do a number of things than a lot of psychologists would be. Yet the college said no on, you know, some technical, I'm going to call it technicality, pretty much. Right. So the thing that bothers me the most and people have to understand this because they're going to get a lot of misinformation. And by the way, I'm in a position because of the work that I've done. I did as a student in a graduate program and, as a psychologist, I know more than the average bear knows. So I'm just going to say, a couple of things. I'll be mindful. But the fact is, a lot of the education when it comes to becoming a psychologist is unnecessary. Not all of it, but there are a number of courses that you do not need. And the programs are so different across the province and especially across the country. I know this again because of some of the, research that you did on this. So you get such different levels of, of training, of education and so on and so on. There are so many discrepancies. Fine. But the point is, like I said, a number of the courses could be cut out. The, the years it takes to get a PhD could be shortened and the master's maybe could be expanded so that you have an extra year to get more on, diagnosis and assessment and so on that you wouldn't ordinarily, ordinarily get within only a two year program. So, you know, there's a compromise that can be had. But the thing is, and I've said this for so many years, so I've been teaching, which is, I've said the most important education. I got in my training, or in becoming a, a PhD psychologist was through the practical that where you get proctored internships, that's where you find out, you know, what the work that you're doing and there's oversight, there's rounds, there's discussion with colleagues, there's getting immersed in it, but there's guardrails because you have these people, you know, who are running the show, and you're just one of the people in that program. Okay. And so the, the, you're getting the proper training, you're getting the knowledge, you're getting the understanding, and the patients are being protected because there is a lot of oversight. And so for them, for the college to say, we're going to take out that necessary four years of, you know, of, of supervision. I want people to understand most in, in clinical psychology, this in Ontario, many of the internships are either unpaid or very poorly paid. But that's not what we're talking about here. When you have four years of supervision, you are being paid quite well. If it was well, they're going to be in school for so long and a lot of people can't afford it because they don't come from certain backgrounds or so and so on. You know, the of funding. Fine. That's one thing. But if you're saying no, no, we'll cut the education, which is fine. Again, I'm not saying just down to two years, but cutting it from four, six, eight or however many years it takes to a lower number. Fine. But you must ensure that once the person is out there that they do have that proper training. And I've said to many people, you know, quite frankly, if would I rather have a psychologist who did, let's say an extra 6 to 8 years of of coursework? Okay. Or would I rather have a master's student who got an extra four years of supervision, training, exposure and so on? Of course, I take the latter, and they're saying, let's take it out. Just give them two years of education, take out all that's training. And again, people are being paid well while they're doing that. Yes, they have to pay a fair bit of to the supervisor. Okay. So some people don't like that it's not the best system. But there's still being paid quite well. So it's not like we're robbing them of their livelihood while they're becoming a psychologist. Right. So I don't understand. I truly do not understand the logic behind cutting out that training and supervision. And that's the thing is, I think the main argument that I've seen is it's a in the name of inclusion and so on. And again, I will go back to my example and thank you for what you said earlier about, my work and what I've done. Let's look at my, my situation as an example of inclusion. Okay. I was still able to find a way to achieve the requirements to the standard and again exceed the standard that was in place, even though I have a very limiting, disability that that made it such that I couldn't do it the way that others do. So in that regard, perhaps changing because they have A stipulation in their registration that there's substantially similar education where they have provision to be a little bit more objective about the education program. That one did. Is it substantially similar to, you know, what they've laid out in the standards as they are? So perhaps exercising flexibility in that regard that could make up for some of these challenges that people are pointing out about inclusion. But stripping down the training altogether is absolutely irresponsible, in my opinion. And I guess maybe we should define what clinical supervision is a little bit more clearly for our listeners who don't know. It's not just, you know, it's not just something that's on paper, like it is an intense, concrete, structured relationship that a therapist has with a experienced psychologist. And they oversee everything that is being done. So a to get rid of that, I cannot wrap my head around a single argument about why that would be. Because like you said, these people are working a job after they're done school, they're making money, they're in the field, they're getting great experience. And I would say from my own experience and from all the students that have worked with us, all of them have said over and over again that they learn more in the practicum than they do in class. And obviously, we need to learn those foundational things in school to be able to execute in our practicum. But that's where the real learning happens. So what's the solution? What's the, what's going to make up for that? I don't know I don't know where this is coming from. And, you know, the irony, the ironic thing is that the college has made it very clear time and again, when people, when psychologists come to the college and say, hey, can you help me out here or there or when, the Ontario Psychological Association went to the college years ago saying, look, they'll try to advocate for us because we're losing our standing. Especially when the College of registered psychotherapist, came out. They were saying, like, we've got to protect our field here. What's going to distinguish us from the, you know, the psychotherapists that are coming up? And the college bits being created I forgot which year it was. I think it was created in 2007. But then 1314 is when I think a larger number of registrants came in. Now, I think that's when it became the actual, registered college, I think it been created. And then it got ascension through the, to the government and everything in 2013 or 14. Okay. These 14 but but you're right, it was created before then. And I was and again, I was in a position where I saw what was happening behind the scenes. And so anyway, when we went to the college and said, like, how are you going to protect the field? The college said, very clearly, our mandate is not to protect psychologists. Our mandate is to protect the public. Fair enough. But if your mandate is to protect the public, why are you taking away the guardrails of supervision and training that would best protect the public? Because again, for those first four years when that therapist said they're flying, you know, flying solo, there are so many, you know, issues that can come up that, you know, unless they have a really solid team behind them, you know, what are they gonna do? I'm going to go to ChatGPT and say, I have a patient is safe. Isn't that right? Right. Probably. Honestly, because what are they going to do. Yeah. They're not ready at that stage to be practicing independently. There's no way. And the other thing is, that I know a lot of therapists who, you know, they are terrified to go out on their own. They liked having that supervision because the buck didn't stop with them. There was someone above them, so something went wrong. They were protected because they didn't feel confident enough to be able to handle on their own. And so I think a lot of therapists are going to feel kind of like, whoa, we are ill prepared. Yeah. The problem is, and I'm so don't get in trouble here, but, one of my colleagues, I don't know the person personally, but they put out a, a blog, you know, complaining about these proposed changes. And I've got to tell you what, I read the comments to the blog. These are comments from people who are, I'm not sure where they are in the program, but they are basically people are not going to the PhD. They're ones who want this type of, you know, stripping down, dumbing down of of the programs, reading their feedback in their comments. I hate to say it, but I thought I was reading junior high school or high school students. You know, writing it was not only. And I don't want to be like, you know, people going to complain because of, you know, about the, say, the nitpicking on writing. But the fact is, if I am looking at supposedly mental health professionals, I want them to have the intelligence, the aptitude, the maturity, all right, the knowledge, the wisdom, the insight to be able to to give a response that looks far superior to what I read. It was embarrassing these people that they could barely, you know, and I again, I don't want to get in trouble, but let's just say I was appalled at their responses. Like I said, it didn't show any skilled writing and it showed in maturity these they looked like children. And these are the people we know without any safeguards, we're going to be let loose. Yeah. Well, and if I can add to that, you're not nit picking because, you know, psychologists oftentimes and you know, but I suppose it depends on their practice. But we are writing reports. We are writing things that are used in court that are substantiating a client's situation better diagnostic in nature through assessment reports like your you're trying to validate a point that, again, whatever the goal of that report is. And if these people can't write a simple post, in a comment section, how are they prepared to write these complex, very complicated reports like that's that's really concerning to me. Exactly. And again, just the level of analysis coming from them. There was there was no recognition of the concerns. Everything was just I want this and I want that. And how dare you say these things and racist and sexist. It was ridiculous. And this, once again, is what they're going to unleash on the public without any oversight. It's it is very concerning. And as and as you said, as as mental health professionals, we can do so much good. We can, you know, we can reflect, a reality that other people cannot understand or see or whatever. And it's our job to communicate it in ways that, you know, does help, you know, people understand a circumstance and individual and individual within circumstances and so on and so on. And it's so complex. And, you know, I think these people, who aren't getting the right oversight, I think what they're imagining is something you're seeing on TV or something like that, which is, you know, we'll have a chat, we'll talk, and someone's upset about this and we'll have a nice time. And I think, no, it's far more complex as far as. That's basic counseling. That's not clinical psychology. Exactly. And and again and I still I can't understand I mean I can understand the, the theoretical logic behind making it more accessible for people cannot understand how do you not protect the public by ensuring I, you know, again, I hate to keep, you know, I don't mean to belabor the point, but at this point is the most important point, which is, given the work that we do, if done properly, you know, we have to take such responsibility for our roles and, you know, in being involved in someone's life and decisions that they may or may not make or once again, writing reports. It's only the we we can't dumb the field down and that's what's happening. Just like everything it seems around us is being dumbed down and I'm sorry to say that. And again I'm sure that it's very insulting for us to to say that. But that's the reality of it is that, you know, we're not we're not selling candy like we are dealing with people's mental health. If people could die, if we are not properly equipped to do this job, that's the the scary reality of this. And to to what I. Okay, three thoughts in my head at once right now. And I can't spit one of them out. So like slow down. I read the whole history of the College of Psychologists in the master's class, and how much they tried to protect the profession from allowing people with the master's degree, even with the old, requirements of the four years of supervision and so on and so forth. There is a period of time I might be wrong. But somewhere in the 20 tens, I think the later 20 tens, they almost shut down that class altogether. Because there was such pushback from the PhD level, psychologists. So to go from that to this is very, very strange to me in a relatively short period, it's I'm going to say fewer than ten years ago, they were pushing so hard to close down the master's class of psychologists. And now they're just completely doing a 180. I don't really understand. Well, I really do think it boils down to, DEI I really do. Okay. And I think the people in charge are, you know, I can't speak for them, but let's just say, you know, if we we can make inferences. Either they truly believe it, in which means they're ideologically possessed or they're afraid of, you know, being called racist, homophobic, you know, etc.. So they're just caving, even though they know that it doesn't make sense. And you are right, there was a lot of pushback before. And people understand, like, before there was there were psychologists or psychological associates, and there's confusion around whether psychological sources still exist. And then they were grandfathered in to the calls, the psychologist, because they before they were separate and then the psychologist subsumed that and took them into them. And they basically became the same as psychologists, but they did only have master's, but once again, four years of supervised training. Okay. And what they're going to say is, that it's also, because different provinces and this whole inter province provincial treaties, where they're going to say that if someone in Alberta or, Halifax, I think New Brunswick, if they get, if they get a master's, a master's someone with a master's degree in those provinces will become a clinical psychologist, just like someone in Ontario with a PhD. And if they go from one province to the other, they don't have to do any extra classes, any extra training, any extra exams. They just, get basically, they get, stamped, so to speak. And they can practice psychology as any other psychologist. So they're going to say because of, because that's already in place, then why not? You know, you know, continue in that pathway. So for everybody to be able to do that, I think I say we our hands are tied because once again, it's inter-provincial. It's a rule. So they have a masters there. They can do it here. So why can't someone get a master's here and say the same thing. But I'm pretty sure in all those places there's supervised trainings, there is. And I was just going to jump in and say that because I, I owe many of my fellow colleagues from school were from Alberta, and they were able to register as psychologist after finishing school with several years of supervision. It was it was essentially the same as, the master's class here. I think there was a little there's, you know, some slight nuance differences. But recently, I believe Alberta has tightened up those restrictions even further. So it's not a matter of like, oh, you just get a masters and then you can register. No, there, there's a lot that has to happen post-grad to be able to register, at least in Alberta. I don't know about the other provinces, but, it's not as simple as you're making it sound. Right. And I've got to say, you know, as I said earlier, I realized in my graduate years that it was the it was the, the internships and the practicum that gave me what I really want to know because I would be working with a patient, I would think, I know what I'm talking about. Okay. I would talk to my mentor or supervisor, and their years of knowledge and insights on. They could see things that I had no clue about. So I know for another, oh my goodness, you know, and even if we disagree to say, okay, well understood and whatever. And then months later or days later, I'd say, oh my gosh, they were actually right sometimes like, yeah, it's that you only it's like an, it's an apprenticeship. Like this is how you learn. You learn from someone who has got far more experience and insight knowledge than you do. The problem is it really depends on the quality of the supervisor. I got really lucky in cases. In other cases, my supervisors were terrible. They were the worst. And you know. So yeah. And the fact is, as you know, as they water this down, the the quality of supervisors is going to dwindle even further. Now. Exactly. So and there's other changes as well, we should say. And so let's talk about the other changes. So do you want to you may have a list. I'm not sure, but I can see I. I don't yeah, I think you, you're more up on what these changes are specifically. So go ahead. Okay. So the jurisprudence exam basically to make sure that we're ethical. It is hard. It is really hard. And, and I, it's not so much the information that's hard. It's the way the questions are framed. I won't get into it, but let's just say, like, I'll tell you, it's like, you'll be given a scenario and they'll ask you what is the right answer to, you know, what is the right thing to do? And in some cases, it's obvious. Is black and white, okay? Like, you know, what are you don't in other cases, they give you four answers. Two of them are just not good. But the other two, neither one is great, but one is less bad than the other. And you got to. That was like my exam, too Yeah. Right. So it can be very tricky. I get it, it is really difficult. But what they want to do is they want to replace that with an online module where there's no fail. Okay. You basically come on. No no no no no, you didn't get it right. Well I guess you'll do I don't know the mechanics behind it, but I know that you want to do this like at universities whatever, where they have safety things we have to answer, you know. Do you read this? You watch this video and you answer question. If you get it wrong, they'll say wrong. She the right answer. Okay. Do it again. Got it. Right. Okay. So I'm failing racist like I don't. I sorry I didn't know that part of it. Like that's insane. Yeah okay. So again when it comes to ethical behavior, they are you know, they're just eliminating that requirement. Oh, but we're teaching them that because it's an online module. But you if you can't fail, there's no pressure to really understand it and. To pay attention to it, not just click through to get it done. Exactly. So that's one change and then the other change. You know, if done properly, if done properly is such an important component of the process. I don't know how well, how often it's done properly, quite frankly, but it's the, oral exam. So in theory, once you've done all the testing and everything like that, and then you have an oral exam where you have, I think 3 or 4 of your peers, but they're, you know, they're much more advanced than you are, and they can ask you face to face certain questions. They can ask you about, you know, jurisprudence. They can ask you about, you know, clinical insights and knowledge and so on. They can do all of that and if done properly, can put you in these scenarios. And they can really see whether you understand what you've gone through over all these years. And I think that again, if done properly, that can be the best test of whether someone is, in theory, prepared to go out there and, you know, and work with the public, but they want to get rid of that. And so like, so like, where is that ability to, you know, to discern who this candidate is in front of you? It's like it's like going for a job interview. If it's just simply people submit your resume and you get a job based on what says on the resume versus having a face to face, you know, interview and really being asked the hard questions and so on. And the funny thing with that is same thing where we assume that, the person doing the interviewing, all right will somehow gain some great insight by talking to them if the person has experience, if they, you know, if they're trained well, and so on, they really can glean a lot from that interview. Ironically, a lot of people aren't that great and they think they are. And so they hire the wrong candidates. That's what I'm saying. With the college, if done properly, that oral exam component can be so important in filtering out people or making sure the person you know maybe goes back and does a little bit A, B, and C to make sure they're really, really prepared. You get rid of that. You're losing that last, you know, guardrail. So, you know, it just doesn't make sense. And the irony is there is one more irony. There is an exam where it it to me, it was ridiculous. And I say I did very well because I studied for it, but, it's called the E triple P. And basically it's like all the testing that we did throughout undergrad grad to get into grad school is basically do it all again. And it's, I think 10 or 13. I can't remember now, different fields of psychology, most of which have nothing to do with psychology. All right. So clinical psychology, I'm sorry, I it's all these other areas that we studied before we became a clinical psychologist. So we had to have passed them the pass these exams over and over and over. You know, in order to get to where we are now. So what what's the point of doing it again, especially when 70 or 80% of the material has nothing to do with what we're going to be practicing, right? So if they got rid of that ago, makes sense because we already know the person knows that stuff. But the keeping that I believe I'm pretty sure that keeping it and getting rid of the stuff they should not get rid of. I don't understand. And this you know that this isn't factual what I'm going to say. So I hope I don't get in trouble for saying this, but I think that a lot of this was probably born out of the fact that, the college that I'm registered with this year is gaining a lot more traction and gaining a lot more power in the industry. And maybe the CPO is like, oh shit, we need to do something to to gain our standing back in the profession. I don't know, but, it it doesn't. None of this makes sense to me. And I don't know how you gain your standard, you know, or regain your standing when you lower your standards. So. Yeah, because I will I will say, at least with the ones that we've worked with and we've supervised, the registered psychotherapists that have come through our clinic are amazing and so well trained and so, ethical and, and they're strong clinicians. So I almost wonder if the standards of the CRP are going to be somewhat higher in some ways. That would be truly ironic. Okay. And yeah, yeah, yeah. And again, when you talk about that because I, you know, supervised, you know, quite a few therapists over the years and I really take that seriously. I love that ability, you know, to talk with them and saying, hey yeah. You know what you said that makes sense. Have you thought about this or. You know, I know it doesn't seem obvious. I don't know this client that you're working with directly. You know them better, but try this. And then hearing them and they go back and they try and go, oh my gosh, that opened up a whole other door and everything that you don't get that without, you know, again, having that special relationship with that supervisor and in my case, someone I call mentor who became my mentor in the field. And to this day, you know, I still will call him my mentor many years later because of the impact he had on me and my practice. Yeah. And it's it's necessary. And again, I feel like I'm beating a dead horse now, but it's just beyond my comprehension how this is the solution. Like, I, you know, I obviously don't make the rules. So my opinion doesn't matter here. But there's there's ways around this, you know, even if they want to change the standards, maybe go back to having more of a two tiered system, like how they had psych associates and psychologists, narrow the scope of diagnoses that a psych associate could do, for example, something like if because I do recognize that there is a need in the, in the province to have more mental health clinicians who can diagnose. Right. That's, that's the chief difference between psychotherapists and psychologists is that you can diagnose and I cannot. So fine. But if the crises in our province are surrounding things like mood disorders, depression, anxiety, trauma and so on, you know, give some the ability to diagnose maybe one class of disorders and not the other, and you have to do additional training or additional supervision. There's so many other solutions to this other than a blanket dumbing down of the standards, but that's just exactly. Not while it's the right opinion. Okay, right. This is a complex situation that requires a nuanced approach. And we're seeing a black and white approach and, you know, and anyway, we'll see what happens. Psychologists, are able to write to the college and give their thoughts and feedback and so on. And I hope that enough people get involved and say, you know, and I hope enough patients get involved and say that, you know, you know, we've seen different types of, therapists and we know what is important, what or what's what is lacking and so on. And I hope that, you know, the public speaks out and really, you know, just puts the brakes on this because it is this the wrong solution. Once again, there is a problem, a solution is required. This is just the wrong one. Yep. Agreed. So I'm curious what our listeners think. And again, like the psychology in the video that we watched at the beginning of the episode said the, the college is looking for the public's opinion. So if you have a strong opinion, I encourage you to voice that opinion because ultimately, these colleges and regulators exist to protect the public. It's not necessarily about us and what we want. It's about what's best for the public. So definitely make your voice heard. Let us know in the comments what you think is as good as is bad. Are we overreacting? Let us know what you think. Okay, and on that prudent note, until next time, keep your eyes on the road and your hands upon the wheel.