CAHPI.. Restricting Trade ?

[rwand1]

Claude

The reason for the price variance from what I have read indicates the extra charge is to ensure the system is self sustaining. Thus the burden to administer the program is through non members who will be up-charged $600.00, is that correct?

Then there are mandatory courses such as the legal risk reduction course, reaccessed every 5 years and pay an additional service charge of $200.
And that no money will be provided by CAHPI to the National? But taxpayers money has gone into OAHI and CAHPI and HRDC?

Why would taxpayers money be spent on a self regulating body that has no assurance of being successful be a prudent investment?

Would it be wiser for each provincial body to use the National as the standard and licence inspectors provincially? I mean either way its taxpayers money in the end, right? And that seems to be the objective in
Ontario, right?

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by clawrenson

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.

LETS GET RID OF THE if"s AND GIVE US SOME ACTUAL DOLLAR FIGURES.
Why do you bring in the FNNBOA it has nothing to do with this
Claude can you tell me why you ask me to be respectfull when Bill Mullen is the person who wrongfully calls me a liar.
Claude can you tell me why you have said basically the same words to me before and ignored Dave Bottoms who was a member of OAHI and CAHI and the editor of the Canadian Home Inspector the Magazine of CAHI and CAHPI.
He continued to belittle NACHI and many of its members and you said zip.
You ask me to be respectfull where Claude I ask you to please do the same thing .
You are a member of both OAHI?CAHPI and NACHI .
How can you wear both shoes with out trying to give directions both ways . I and others have asked you many questions and you disappear and give no reply.
Why should you ignore Bills slanderous posts and jump on me .
Shame on you Claude you show your bias regularly.
I not seen you try the fair play method.
Please do not try the BS about how many hours where put in with OAHI .
I was on committees with PACHI.OAHI and NACHI .
Big Deal I and others are on these committees for the betterment of all Home Inspectors and because we want to be .
Repay is self gratification .
I attended more OAHI meeting when I was with OAHI and was always early and regularly stayed to help set up and clean up.
I do not belong to an association for repay neither should you?????.
It would be nice if you do not run away and hide with out answering the questions.

Roy Cooke A NATIONAL CERTIFICATION HOME INSPECTOR

[Claude Lawrenson]

Roy what is a "national certification home inspector" or "nationally certified home inspector"? I am glad you opened that can of worms. It speaks highly of exageration and ambiguity. It's misleading. Being a certified home inspector is very different than claiming to be a nationally certified inspector. If you have proof to officially prove otherwise - I will gladly donate $100 to NACHI to a charitable cause of your choice. Feel free to privately email to me your proof.

A reference to "unfair practices" if they are directed at one or more potential consumers. It's an attempt to mislead - the exact same thing some seem to be focusing on CAHPI for.

Check out "business practices act or fair trading act".

BTW: My comment respecting FNNBOA - was used as an example of your claimed allegation of unfair restrictive trade. Not that it is - which is more to my point.

I tried to provide an example of other venues that must also be deemed unfair - if we want to "fairly" compare "apples with apples".

And furthermore, since you profess to refute my statement - please advise me how many hours did I donate in-kind betweem 1999 and 2006 to the CHIBO project.

BTW2: I also belong to ASHI, OACETT and CSC - what does that have to do with wearing many pairs of shoes? Perhaps it makes me more knowledgeable and open-minded - than you think.

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by clawrenson

Roy what is a "national certification home inspector" or "nationally certified home inspector"? I am glad you opened that can of worms. It speaks highly of exageration and ambiguity. It's misleading. Being a certified home inspector is very different than claiming to be a nationally certified inspector. If you have proof to officially prove otherwise - I will gladly donate $100 to NACHI to a charitable cause of your choice. Feel free to privately email to me your proof.
Thanks Claude Please send it to the NACHI Charity that gives Smoke detors to the deaf. This will add to what I sent in previously . I ask you to keep the info you have confidential Thanks ..

A reference to "unfair practices" if they are directed at one or more potential consumers. It's an attempt to mislead - the exact same thing some seem to be focusing on CAHPI for.
.I do not try to mislead I speak straight and blunt. You ignore Bill and Dave and their mean post's and centre out me.



Check out "business practices act or fair trading act".
.I have a copy and can tell you how to gety a free copy if you would like . Both OAHI and CAHPI do not folloow the rules thew way I see them .

BTW: My comment respecting FNNBOA - was used as an example of your claimed allegation of unfair restrictive trade. Not that it is - which is more to my point.

I tried to provide an example of other venues that must also be deemed unfair - if we want to "fairly" compare "apples with apples".

And furthermore, since you profess to refute my statement - please advise me how many hours did I donate in-kind betweem 1999 and 2006 to the CHIBO project.
.Please Show me where I refuted your statement about hours you put in for OAHI?CAHPI.


BTW2: I also belong to ASHI, OACETT and CSC - what does that have to do with wearing many pairs of shoes? Perhaps it makes me more knowledgeable and open-minded - than you think.
Gee are you saying belonging to these and other associations makes a person more knowledgeable and open minded .
I too can show where I belong to other associations.

To me there is only one that is trying to help all hoem inspectors NACHI.

I as I have said before can back up my statements and I let my conscience be my guide and always try to do what is proper and give help where I can .
Self gratification is all I need .
Please send me a copy or post it here when you get the NACHI receipt .
For the futue it might be a good idea to believe what I say and post.
.Many questions still have not been answered

Thanks Roy Cooke

[Claude Lawrenson]

Ray - respectfully - agreed the intent of National Certification is it must be sustainable and self-sufficient. That is but one part of the cost.

Another is the additional work (time) and cost of the certification committee to review unaligned applicants. And yet another part is the concerns and costs in instances of discipline not though a committee but through legal means to handle issues.

So perhaps one may see that there are "many" factors that account for differences in the two-tier cost of processing an application. These are the same concerns that have been shared and expressed by other associations in that CAHPI followed in their system.

I am not aware of any money given to OAHI or CAHPI-Ontario.

From a personal view point - I like the americanized association models of one umbrella group such as NACHI or ASHI with regional chapters. I guess that being the top down model. Everything being handled away from the provinces and out of potential of harm or allegations by any group or association. Than again currently CAHPI National technically has no individual members. It is only an association of associations.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by wjung

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.

This will sound argumentitive so I apologize in advance.

Would a womens only exercise gym have to meet this same standard?
Would a cigar lounge have to accomadate non-smokers?
Does a religious organization have to "marry" same sex couples in violaton of the tennets of their faith?

There are many, many more that could be listed. The point is that only government can make an activity or particular form of discrimination illegal. Each and everyone of us discriminates every day in some manner.

Originally Posted by wjung

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.

If tax payer monies with strings attached where used then pursue the matter on those3 grounds.

[Claude Lawrenson]

Michael - Not argumentive at all.

It's called egocentric thinking - some think they have figured out the way things actually are and that they have done it objectively. They naturally believe in their perceptions -even if they may be inaccurate and because they feel they have rights that have been infringed upon.

That is not to say that there may be some value in the debate, but perhaps the egocentric assumptions can lead to flawed interpretation of data, and tid-bits of misinformation. Faced with facts that may counter their argument, they choose to debate the issue until their self-serving perspective is validated by a few believers. If in doubt - drag up the past and blame others. Hey it's worked so far - but some are getting tired on the same old - same old!

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by clawrenson

Michael - Not argumentive at all. ................... Hey it's worked so far - but some are getting tired on the same old - same old!

Thanks Claude. I think.

[rwand1]

Would a womens only exercise gym have to meet this same standard?
Would a cigar lounge have to accomadate non-smokers?
Does a religious organization have to "marry" same sex couples in violaton of the tennets of their faith?

I fail to see the connection, those examples are voluntary choices, and they don't appear to affect ones livelihood.

[rwand1]

Claude,

You and Bill have had ample opportunity to publish documents to enlighten those wishing to participate in the National here on this forum.

The program seems to have administrative issues, and governance issues with non members.

The program is discriminatory by very nature of its pricing structure.

The program is to be self sustaining which can only work if adequate interests exists.

It is a misnomer to be suggesting it will result in more work, that too is spectulative, which under closer scrutiny seems to hang on endorsements from CREA, and other professional associations.

From what I have read many private colleges and some colleges have not shown interest in meeting the course requirements of the National/CHIBO.

How does CAHPI/national now intend to solicit more work for their members? Given that there are to few to fill any possible flood of work?

[Claude Lawrenson]

Ray - I am not responsible to act or be the "official" spokesperson for CAHPI - National, or on behalf of the NCA Process. Nor do I believe that Bill should be obligated either. Let's agree its a matter of choice. To date we have offered what I believe we have had as knowledge about. That does not mean we have all the answers - therefore the unfair comments pertaining to our lack of response is out of place.

Questions or inquiries should be addressed to the NCA. It now has a website linked through CAHPI-National. Any "official" announcements should be part of the NCA communication stategy. Perhaps some may confuse that Bill's offer as well as mine to communicate here is at best an offer to supply some information. At the same time it has also become readily apparent that some have chosen to use some of those statements against individuals and associations into negative terms to stir up trouble. Perhaps that is a good reason for those that have offered in the past to only communicate guardedly.

Again, I suggest that people should proceed cautiously and with an open mind, and seperate fact from fiction, and rumour from reality.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by rwand1

I fail to see the connection, those examples are voluntary choices, and they don't appear to affect ones livelihood.

Raymond,

I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of your ongoing argument with CAPHI. My only point was that private organizations are permitted to discriminate unless they violate some governmental law with regard to said discrimination.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I understand the CAPHI is not a government agency.

If it is private (even though received a grant) they can make their own rules unless the government does not permit it.

How does this affect your future business if you are not required to be a part of it? Isn't it voluntary?

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Raymond,

I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of your ongoing argument with CAPHI. My only point was that private organizations are permitted to discriminate unless they violate some governmental law with regard to said discrimination.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I understand the CAPHI is not a government agency.

If it is private (even though received a grant) they can make their own rules unless the government does not permit it.

How does this affect your future business if you are not required to be a part of it? Isn't it voluntary?

I would say the laws in Canada could be different then the USA laws .
CAHPI is what up here is called a not for profit organization and must follow certain laws.

These are just two . Thanks for your questions .

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/.../cl00700e.html http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tp/it496r/it496r-e.html Many questions asked few answers given . Claude and Bill are just part of a secret self appointed group who are trying to gain control of all home inspectors in Canada. Roy Cooke

[Claude Lawrenson]

If it's a "secret self-appointed group" - how would you know? fact or fiction or based on your assumption.

Seems like a bit of an oxymoron statement! My official appointment was approved by HRDC and CMHC representing a national education in Canada.

[Michael Larson]

I will read the link but in the mean time:

Is it voluntary?

How will it affect your busimness?