programs currently in place and in funding these programs appropriately. Where provincial regulatory bodies have established barriers to "on the job" training of technologists, we need to engage the regulators to balance their responsibilities relating to both public safety and access to services. We're on less solid ground in arguing that there should be more residency positions assigned to the base disciplines of clinical neurophysiologists (Neurology and Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation) except as part of an overall increase in residency positions across disciplines. Provincial ministries have committed to increases in medical school enrollment and to increases in residency positions to accommodate this expansion. However, these same ministries have embraced a need for more "generalists" and fewer sub-specialists like clinical neurophysiologists. Arguments that Canada needs more clinical neurophysiologists will be lost in the din of similar arguments for more family doctors, geriatricians, psychiatrists and general internists. What about IMGs? Where regulatory authority requirements exist that mandate clinical assessments for "practice-readiness" by practicing specialists, we can take on the assessment challenge enthusiastically, knowing that we're the only ones who can do such assessments with face validity. Finally, we can (and likely will find ourselves forced to) revisit our current service provision paradigm by developing careful utilization guidelines and access filters that, if done properly, may reduce service demand without sacrificing truly appropriate access.