CAHPI.. Restricting Trade ?

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

This sure sounds to me to be very simular to what CAHPI is trying to do with the Home Inspection Industry in Canada .
Charging some HIs $500:00 and others $1,100:00.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Todays Toronto Star

http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/195899
Real estate association faces probe TheStar.com - Business - Real estate association faces probe
Competition board is asking if CREA is restricting trade

March 26, 2007
Tony Wong
Business Reporter
The Federal Competition Bureau has launched an investigation into whether the Canadian Real Estate Association is being anti-competitive by making it difficult for discount brokerages to operate, and making it potentially more expensive for consumers to buy homes.
On March 16 the bureau hit the Ottawa-based organization, which has 85,000 members and represents the majority of realtors across Canada, with a court order requesting extensive records detailing how it and related boards operate.
"Information obtained from industry participants indicates that rules enacted by CREA and proposed interpretations of those rules have restricted, and will further restrict, access to the MLS database, and have prevented and limited, and will further prevent and limit the entry and expansion of potential competitors in the residential real estate brokerage industry in Canada" said a statement from senior competition law officer Jean-Pierre Bornais in Federal Court court records obtained by the Star.
Bornais said he interviewed 13 real estate brokers across Canada in a preliminary probe before filing the court order.
Last November, Realtysellers Ltd., one of Canada's largest discount brokers, announced it was shutting down because it could no longer operate in the face of proposed changes to the Multiple Listing Service, which is owned by CREA. Other low-price agencies have complained about new rules that could bar some of their listings from the MLS, a members-only computerized database responsible for about 90 per cent of all home sales in Canada.
"The commissioner must consider whether CREA has engaged in, or is engaging in, a practice of anti-competitive acts, or has committed, or is about to commit an offence by restricting access to the MLS database," said the court filing.
CREA's board last year announced a series of proposed changes designed to protect the MLS trademark. One proposed that agents could no longer "merely post" properties on the MLS unless they represented the seller for the term of the contract. Another prohibited the seller's name from appearing on www.mls.ca.
Discounters argued the rules meant that they could not post new homes for sale on the MLS at a cheaper price to customers who simply wanted access to MLS. Selling a home outside MLS is usually more difficult, since the database is by far the most popular vehicle used by consumers and realtors when accessing housing listings.
A spokesperson for CREA was not available for comment yesterday. But on Saturday, despite the competition bureau investigation, the organization decided to go ahead with the controversial changes to the MLS rules at their Annual General Meeting in Ottawa, in an overwhelming vote of 92 per cent in favour of the new guidelines, according to one source.
In a letter given to members at the meeting and obtained by the Star, the organization tells members, "If CREA lost control over the use of MLS trademarks, the public would suffer, because the public would no longer be able to depend on the integrity of brokers using MLS trademarks to identify their services, or on the accuracy, completeness and uniformity of MLS data."
In an earlier letter, CREA president Alan Tennant said the board is consulting with their lawyers. "Some of the information that CREA has been asked to provide resides with real estate boards and associations," said Tennant.

Roy Cooke . "National Certification" ..Home Inspection.. CMI..

[wjung]

Roy,
with the dual fees alone it appears to me that CAHPI has created a discriminatory/two level system, which seems to fligh in the face of the equal opportunity for all message they are trying to present.
Wolf

[Michael Larson]

Fellas,

The reason for the "dual fees" has been explained numerous times.
I understand why you don't like it but if they won't change the formula the only choice you have is to participate or not.

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Fellas,

The reason for the "dual fees" has been explained numerous times.
I understand why you don't like it but if they won't change the formula the only choice you have is to participate or not.

Explained the way Bill sees it .
Strange how you Believe Bills stories.
If you have read all you will see where he has made many mistakes in lots of them.
This National Certification is being mainly paid for with Tax payers money.
Having been a member of CAHPI/ONTARIO I like most other see it as Blackmail to get NACHI out of Canada.
If they join OAHI at about $400.00 I can do the National for $500:00.
Does this not look starge to you.
Roy Cooke..NATIONAL CERTIFICATION..Home Inspection...RHI..CHI... CMI..

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by rcooke

Explained the way Bill sees it .
Strange how you Believe Bills stories.
If you have read all you will see where he has made many mistakes in lots of them.
This National Certification is being mainly paid for with Tax payers money.
Having been a member of CAHPI/ONTARIO I like most other see it as Blackmail to get NACHI out of Canada.
If they join OAHI at about $400.00 I can do the National for $500:00.
Does this not look starge to you.
Roy Cooke..NATIONAL CERTIFICATION..Home Inspection...RHI..CHI... CMI..

It's not a matter of believing Bill. I don't know him.
He has simply presented the reason for the dual fee structure.
You etiher accept his explanation or not.
You either consider it "fair" or not.

How often in life is one presented with "unfair" situations?
You either dwell on them or move on.

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by mlarson

It's not a matter of believing Bill. I don't know him.
He has simply presented the reason for the dual fee structure.
You etiher accept his explanation or not.
You either consider it "fair" or not.

How often in life is one presented with "unfair" situations?
You either dwell on them or move on.

He explained his reason I guess we have to carry on and agree to disgree.
You seem to feel it is OK to lie and OK to use taxpayers money for one side only .
Do I need it not in the least .
I will continue to fight so others can see that they are being treated unfairly.

Roy Cooke.. I can give a NATIONAL CERTIFICATION home Inspection.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by rcooke

He explained his reason I guess we have to carry on and agree to disgree.
You seem to feel it is OK to lie and OK to use taxpayers money for one side only .
Do I need it not in the least .
I will continue to fight so others can see that they are being treated unfairly.

Roy Cooke.. I can give a NATIONAL CERTIFICATION home Inspection.

No it's not OK to lie and it's commendable that you want to fight for others.

If tax payer money has been used illegally then that should be pursued. If the activity to allege is not breaking any laws then the organization making the rules has the right to do so. Is it possible that some are being treated unfairly-sure. Wouldn't it be better for those on the inside of the org with some integrity fight for changes?

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by mlarson

No it's not OK to lie and it's commendable that you want to fight for others.

If tax payer money has been used illegally then that should be pursued. If the activity to allege is not breaking any laws then the organization making the rules has the right to do so. Is it possible that some are being treated unfairly-sure. Wouldn't it be better for those on the inside of the org with some integrity fight for changes?

Yes and there are a large group who are just doing that , you read some of the members posts on thsi BB.
Roy Cooke

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by rcooke

[/color]
Yes and there are a large group who are just doing that , you read some of the members posts on thsi BB.
Roy Cooke

I wish them well Roy. Change only happens when people who care stand up and fight for it.

[wjung]

Michael,
since it seems to be ok with you that fees differ for CAHPI members vs non members maybe it's just as ok with you if the rates were changed (increased/decreased) for members of different ethnic backgrounds and/or religous believes. As I see it, it is nothing more that a form of discrimination dispite the fact that the national program with heavy taxpayer support via CMHC is supposed to be all inclusive and unbiased. Obviously it is not, quite the way to market such a program and attract intrest. NOT!
Wolf

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by wjung

Michael,
since it seems to be ok with you that fees differ for CAHPI members vs non members maybe it's just as ok with you if the rates were changed (increased/decreased) for members of different ethnic backgrounds and/or religous believes. As I see it, it is nothing more that a form of discrimination dispite the fact that the national program with heavy taxpayer support via CMHC is supposed to be all inclusive and unbiased. Obviously it is not, quite the way to market such a program and attract intrest. NOT!
Wolf

Let's try to compare Apples to Apples.

I will repeat in different words.
If illegal activity as defined by Canadian or Provincial law has occurred then the alleged illegality should be addressed through the courts.

If a private organization wishes to charge different amounts based on criteria they establish(and not disallowed by the government) what recourse do those who don't agree and are outside that organization have?

Try this.
I don't presume to tell you how much to charge for a HI or tell you how to run your business. Is this not as it should be?

[rwand1]

Michael

This is not provincial law so much as CAHPI is I believe a Federally Incorporated Company. Therefore it comes under Federal jurisdiction, its not a provincial matter.

We have a body that through its National Spokesperson along with others with the assistance of taxpayers money, being used to triumph one association over others.

Statements have been made in the press that grievously portray the National as a body which will Certify all 5,000 inspectors by 2007.

No one can provide any docuementation repeatedly asked for, now a situation has developed with the Federal Agency taking a second look at their press release.

There is also a concern with limiting competition by way of advertising or suggesting that the National Certification is the choice. This flies in the face of fair marketing.

Yes we have a right to express our concerns because we are taxpayers, and some of us are members, while others aren't but are not digesting the swill thats being passed off as truthful marketing.

Thanks for your concerns and support,

Cheers,

[Claude Lawrenson]

This National Certification is being mainly paid for with Tax payers money.

Roy I respect your opinion - but that is an unfounded "assumption". If CAHPI association members contributed 50% and the government subsidy matched was 50% - than who was the "mainly paid' - inferrence majority? Now add in thousands of hours of a committee - that added more -in-kind contributions. I hope my years of time and losses away from business - had some value.

Besides this is not a restriction of trade. It's recognition of the majority of members in an association that supported the project over the past years. To me to expect everyone should be a given a "free" pass is reverse discrimination and completely unfair. There are other examples such as FNNBOA process that have very similar two tier fee structures, as well as many education and seminar fees.

Michael's comments make perfect sense! Please and respectfully - Get over it.

[wjung]

Michael,
I don't give a rats a** if an organization is private or not if it descriminates against any specific group in any way it is wrong period. That holds even more true if large sums of taxpayer money have gone into the support of such a group, with its written mandate being to be inclusive of all. Your milage/opinion on this may differ, but we all know, opinions are like a**holes everybody has one. So let's agree to disagree.
Wolf

[wjung]

Claude,
please give it a rest. I just like Roy and Ray and most likely others had payed into the Nationl for nearly 10 years and had been there since the earliest talks on national certification, before leaving OAHI. Are you trying to tell me now that my fee is to be more than double just because I am indipendent. Please tell me how that balances with the mandate of equal inclusion for all. Just because I have payed in for longer than some others does not make them any less equal IMHO.
Wolf