Man oh man, where do you see any apology? I have nothing to apologize for and I did not attack anyone. I only pointed out the obvious!
Not my problem if you can not put this behind us.
I will move on quite happily.
Cheers
I guess he missed the “Claude” part…
There is no way out of this non-stop merry-go-round… He picks parts out of posts and interprets the way he feel with no regards about the facts.
Best regards,
Pat
Agreed. I suspect that a number of other Inspector may be retired soon too. 
We’ll keep everyone up to speed as negotiations proceed. We are taking all the concerns to the ministry and presenting them in the most positive way possible to they are heard. If they will be acted upon however, … :blank
Thanks Len.
All we can do is make sound logical representations and let the chips fall where they may. But, just because everyone else does it that way does not make it right. The courts my have to decide sometime in the future if changes are not made.
I just have a hard time believing that this government can do anything without screwing it up and/or costing billions of $$$
Cheers
Latest updates on the proceedings. Opposition MPP’s are obviously being lobbied by the OAHI. The fact that they have resided over the debacle in the profession for the last 24 years and led us to the need to have government regulation pushed on us should be sufficient for the government to realise that an new independent regulator is indeed the right way to go.
We have written to the Minister on behalf of all the other associations with this regard.
I also noticed that OREA are trying to get their oar in the water. Having not been at the panel (CREA was but not OREA) they are now suggesting it was their idea all along. It’s funny how a trade association that represents the Real-Estate profession is so gung-ho for regulating Home Inspectors, but are so against restrictions of their own profession wit respect to conflict.
Just today we head an opposition MPP state ‘"“High standards and a clear legal framework in the home inspection industry will ensure home buyers and sellers receive reliable, informative and professional advice when making one of the largest decisions of their lives.” That quote comes from the CEO designate of the Ontario Real Estate Association—otherwise known as OREA—Tim Hudak.’
My comment to the Minister was
“Inspectors will never be able to ensure home buyers and sellers receive reliable, informative and professional advice when making one of the largest decisions of their lives if Realtors are continue to be allowed to plant the seed of doubt regarding buying a home with conditions, regardless of how they sugar coat their own defence after the fact. Regulation of the home Inspection Profession alone will not provide the protection to consumers, tightening on the regulations governing the Real Estate profession, especially around contradictory advice to consumers and referrals of inspectors would be needed to complete the solution.”
As for the following statement “OREA was happy to be a member of the volunteer panel of experts who developed a report with 35 recommendations for the home inspection industry.” my response was While OREA may have been happy to be a member of the volunteer panel, unless I was asleep for the 10 months of the panel meetings, I don’t recall a representation from OREA. We did have a member from the Canadian Real Estate Association (CREA) on the panel, but we were all specifically asked to work on behalf of the consumer and not advocated for our own parties, which is what, I and the others on the panel believe, was the outcome.
The panel had members from CREA, OAHI, CAHPI, OntarioACHI, InterNACHI, PHPIC, the Insurance service, the colleges, the legal profession and consumer advocates, We all came to a consensus that the recommendations were the right way to go. OAHI lobbying is now trying to overturn that consensus!
I am hopeful that this Minister, and the team that assist her are wise to these ploys.
As for the costs of running a DAA, OntarioACHI costs for all of our IT and phone services are around $15,000 per year. Running the DAA should not require extensive infrastructure or expenses. The wages are what will push up the costs. Keeping it lean and mean will ensure sustainability with no drain on the public purse.
Thanks Len good post Good information , Much appreciated .
I’m sorry, wasn’t the thread about Bill 59?
Yesterday the Bill impacting Home Inspectors has passed 2nd reading and is now off to “Committee”.
I find it quite interesting that this subject is being debated quite fully and without rancor on the Inspection News web site.
Nachi is falling way behind in the Ontario licensing issue.
The Liberal Party will have their way and use the licensing of Home Inspectors as a triumph for the protection of the public and this will be used as a feather in their cap for the next election.
Should OAHI be designated the acting authority (and they are actively seeking this) it will mean the doom of InterNachi in the Province of Ontario.
The extremely competent and free courses offered by InterNachi will not be recognised in Ontario and Carson Dunlop will prevail. (even at thousands a pop)
InterNachi missed the boat on this one!
In reality the consumer be dammed and the Home Inspector will not only be subjected to extreme measures under the proposed act but will be hamstrung with exorbitant costs to stay in business. (the winners, Carson Dunlop. P2P, HUB etc)
OAHI will win hands down. Read Hannsard.
Claude Lawrenson has spoken and posted on IN quite eloquently and he is the one individual for whom I have the deepest respect.
Do not Blame NACHI it is the Ontario NACHI inspectors who say little .
The reason behind this is simple Roy. It has been plainly seen that offering an opinion on this, un-moderated message board leads to inflammatory and argumentative (at best) comments in return.
We have had several examples of threads started on this message board, which attempt to give accurate and unbiased information on the subject matter, that have all be sideswiped unnecessarily.
As for the “without rancour” statement made about the Assembly, by our Ontario NACHI colleague Bryce, the Omnibus Bill 59 is there to protect consumers. It would be political suicide of any Member of the Provincial Parliament to come out against such a Bill. Here at InterNACHI, those Ontario NACHI members who are still practicing and are subject to the outcome of the legislation are worried and want answers and can’t come here for them for the fear they get emotionally castrated by the caustic responses.
That’s why we are posting information to the profession in Ontario directly from an Ontario base, and offering the facility for members and non-members alike to comment and query. If we don’t have the answers, we go out of our way to get them. We’ve long since realised that fighting a majority government head-on is like banging you head against a rock-wall. It gets you no-where and gives you a headache.
We have taken the approach to work with the government to ensure the Professions concerns are taken into account during the development of the regulations.
Insurance provisions in Ontario home inspector licensing bill helpsreduce sellers’ liability exposure: MPP .
A bill before the Ontario legislature could pave theway for regulations “prescribing the types of insurance” that home inspectorsmust have, and also proposes to prohibit people from performing homeinspections without a licence.
Bill 59 was generally well received by oppositionmembers, including Teresa Armstrong, a former insurance broker.
“As an insurance broker, when we had people purchasenew homes, we had insurance inspections go out to make sure that the home wasfunctioning properly for services like furnace, roof, plumbing andelectricity,” said Armstrong, NDP MPP for London-Fanshawe, during debate onBill 59 Wednesday. “We understood at that point how important it is for thefunctionality of the home and to insure it for losses.”
Tabled Nov. 3 at Queen’s Park in Toronto, the omnibusbill, if passed into law, would create the Home Inspection Act 2016.
Right now, “there are no mandatory qualifications thata home inspector working in Ontario must possess,” government and consumerservices minister Marie France Lalonde told the legislature during a recentdebate. “Various home inspection associations set different qualifications,resulting in various levels of competency across the home inspection field. Ifconsumers receive a poor quality or incomplete inspection report when buying orselling a home, they are at risk of being left with unexpected costs or couldlose a sale. It could even lead to a health and safety risk.”
Earlier this year, Bill 165 – a private member’s billtabled by Liberal MPP Han Dong – was referred to the Standing Committee onRegulations and Private Bills.
Bill 165 also proposed a licensing scheme for home inspectors and proposed tolet the Ontario government make regulations “prescribing the types ofinsurance” they must have, such as errors and omissions and commercial generalliability.
The insurance provisions in Bill 59 will “help sellersbreathe easier as their exposure to a liability risk will be decreased,” saidJim McDonnell, Progressive Conservative MPP for Stormont-Dundas SouthGlengarry. “If I sold a defective home to anyone today, I would expose myselfto the possibility of being sued for damages and would have to prove that I didnot know of the defects at the time of sale,” he added during debate Nov. 21.
Lalonde suggested Nov. 16 that if Bill 59 is passedinto law, home inspectors would be overseen by “an independent, not-for-profitcorporation funded by licensing fees collected from individuals and businessesin the regulated sector.”
That new organization “would be responsible foroverseeing complaints from consumers,” she added.
Bill 59 lets the government and consumer servicesminister make regulations “governing the insurance” that licensed homeinspectors must have, including, “prescribing the types of insurance they musthave” and “prescribing the minimum amounts for which they must be insured undereach type of insurance.”
Bill 59 “would create a regulatory authority for homeinspectors that would require funding, collected through licensing fees, inorder to run,” McDonnell said. “The first attempt to establish such anauthority was through a private member’s bill in the previous session, where wehighlighted that the government needed to take the legislative initiativethemselves, consult extensively with the profession, homeowners and consumeradvocates, and prepare both the legislation and the enabling regulations in acoordinated manner.”
Bill 59 – which he characterized as a “newincarnation” of Bill 165 – “also contains several new provisions related to theconduct of inspectors, investigations and disciplinary proceedings, as well asthe explicit creation of an appeals committee. The PC caucus welcomes suchchanges.”
If passed into law, Bill 59 “would adopt a technicalstandard for home inspection to define what must be inspected,” Lalonde said. “Itwould standardize home inspection reports and contracts to protect clients andmake it easier for them to understand what they are signing. It would set outinsurance requirements that balance risk and costs for both the industry andconsumers.”
Many have unpleasant things to say about INACHI.
Others want the bar set the highest.
OAHI and Lobbying is hard to stop.
Look like The ACHI had the right idea. With the teamsters behind you lobbying muscles would be flexed.
Number of lobbyists working for the teamsters in Ontario = 0
Len, I guess they have nothing to lobby for. Your point being?