What is a “College”?
This is a central question for understanding the relationship of the College with those both inside and outside the organization.
According to the Regulated Health Professions Act (RHPA, 1991), a College is defined as “the College of a health profession or group of health professions established or continued under a health profession Act” (s. 1(1)). The Health Professions Procedural Code (HPPC) further clarifies that a College is a corporation without share capital and with all the powers of a natural person (Sched. 2, s. 2(1)).
The HPPC assigns the College a core duty:
“It is the duty of the College to work in consultation with the Minister to ensure, as a matter of public interest, that the people of Ontario have access to adequate numbers of qualified, skilled, and competent regulated health professionals“ (Sched. 2, s. 2.1).
The HPPC goes on to outline the College’s “objects” (functions), the first of which is:
To regulate the practice of the profession and to govern the members in accordance with the health profession Act, this Code, and the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, as well as associated regulations and by-laws.
After listing 11 (some muiti-part) objects, the HPPC adds:
“In carrying out its objects, the College has a duty to serve and protect the public interest” (Sched. 2, s. 3(2)).
When the current framework was established in the early 1990s, the goal was to ensure consistency across all health regulatory colleges, ensuring that the public had equal rights when interacting with any College.
Colleges are set up through government legislation, sometimes prompted by professional associations with public support. Their purpose is always to protect the public interest—by handling registration, setting practice standards, and encouraging collaboration among professionals, etc. Importantly, these Colleges are accountable to government.
In recent years, language and structures have shifted to reflect modern regulatory practice. For example, the term “member” is being replaced with “registrant” to emphasize the regulatory rather than associational relationship. This is now seen, for example, in British Columbia’s new College of Health and Care Professionals, which includes psychology.
But governance models have also evolved.
Many Colleges now have governing Councils with representation from multiple professions or with a balance between registrants and public members.
Some jurisdictions, such as British Columbia, Texas, and Kansas, have implemented composite regulatory boards overseeing multiple health professions. For example, the College of Health and Care Professionals of BC, has 9 health professions but only 6 health professional seats on the College Council (psychology is not one of those on their Council), and 6 public members.
Our own College is considering updates to its language and governance structure to align with these modern practices, beginning with internal policies and potentially seeking regulatory or legislative changes to support this evolution.
In summary, while the regulatory framework in Ontario is over 30 years old, we continue to work with government to modernize our practices and fulfill our core mandate: to serve and protect the public interest by regulating psychology and behaviour analysis professionals.