Letter to Minister Fontana

These message board pages are now for archival purposes only. Please visit https://www.nachi.org/forum/ for our most recent forum discussions.

Letter to Minister Fontana

AuthorMessage
Roy Cooke

Roys Home Inspection
NACHI Member: Yes
(as of 3/25/07)
NACHI Member
Posts: 1987
User: rcooke
Posted: Nov 16, 2005 9:14 AM       Post Subject:
OAHI/ONTARIO.
Talk about wanting to turn down free advertising (Sounds Archaic to me )
Niki , Coke , Pepsi give out a lot of hats just to get the name out there.
They all love to see there name on peoples coats.
Remember OAHI they are only volunteers.
They get no rewards, NO PAY???? so they say!!!!!
Back to Top
Raymond Wand

Raymond Wand Home Inspection Service
NACHI Member: Yes
(as of 3/25/07)
NACHI Member
Posts: 447
User: rwand1
Posted: Nov 16, 2005 9:40 AM       Post Subject:
The strange thing is that the OAHI logo does not have "R" (registered) beside it. Ooooooops. How can you enforce the logo graphics use when its not even registered. Maybe my budgie will know. icon_confused.gif icon_confused.gif

--
Raymond Wand
Alton, ON
The value of experience is not in seeing much,
but in seeing wisely. - Sir William Osler 1905
NACHI Member
Registered Home Inspector (OAHI)
http://www.raymondwand.ca

Back to Top
Raymond Wand

Raymond Wand Home Inspection Service
NACHI Member: Yes
(as of 3/25/07)
NACHI Member
Posts: 447
User: rwand1
Posted: Nov 16, 2005 9:45 AM       Post Subject:
I named my budgie, "CHIBO". icon_lol.gif icon_lol.gif icon_lol.gif

--
Raymond Wand
Alton, ON
The value of experience is not in seeing much,
but in seeing wisely. - Sir William Osler 1905
NACHI Member
Registered Home Inspector (OAHI)
http://www.raymondwand.ca

Back to Top
W Paul Blakey

The HomeTeam Inspection Service
NACHI Member: Yes
(as of 3/25/07)
NACHI Member
Posts: 72
User: wblakey
Posted: Nov 22, 2005 7:27 PM       Post Subject:
Thought you might be interested to read this reply from the minister to an email query I sent to him a little while ago...

Dear Mr. Blakey:

Thank you for your electronic messages of October 22 and 28, 2005, expressing concern about the relationship between Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and the Canadian Association of Home and Property Inspectors (CAHPI), and about the exclusion of other organizations from consultation.

In 1996, a CMHC survey of the private home inspection industry indicated that there was a strong need to have a unified national body that represents the private inspection industry and bring professionalism to it. There was also the need to establish a structure that could be used to educate and protect the consumer. The private inspection industry was highly fragmented, comprised of a number of competing associations, franchises and individual firms with varying qualifications. This presented a serious problem within the housing sector.

In 1997, following extensive industry consultations, a report entitled "A Strategy to Provide Co-ordination of the Canadian Home Inspection Profession" was published. Responding to this strategy, the industry nominated private inspector representatives from across the industry and Canada, to form the industry alliance known as CAHPI.

As Canada's national housing agency, CMHC has strongly encouraged this industry-led national initiative. I encourage you to review the CMHC 2000 Research Highlight "Canadian Home Inspectors and Building Officials National Initiative", available on CMHC?s web site www.cmhc.ca, which outlines the background, the issue, the role of CMHC, the rationale for the creation of CAHPI, and its ensuing government-supported work, which has created the National Certification Process for Home and Property Inspectors. The National Association of Certified Home Inspectors (NACHI) is one of several organizations which, because they emerged following the extensive industry consultation and following the creation of a national alliance of private home inspectors and associations, did not participate in the consultations.

As previously explained to you in my October 27 letter, this industry-led national certification program will apply a consistent and national industry standard in Canada to voluntarily certify the competency of private home inspectors. While CMHC has no role in the certification of private home inspectors, the Corporation understands that the signing of certification equivalency agreements between CAHPI and other certifying organizations is key to national implementation. This may be a way for NACHI to participate in the national certification. You may wish to discuss this and the other questions you have raised, with CAHPI. It should be noted that the Standards Council of Canada Standard CAN-P-9, ?Criteria for Accreditation of Personnel Certification Bodies?, is the basis for the national certification model for home and property inspectors. CMHC is unaware if NACHI would meet the requirements of CAN-P-9.

I can appreciate your concern. I hope that the foregoing information has been helpful.

Sincerely,


Original Signed by


The Honourable Joe Fontana, P.C., M.P.

[/i]
Back to Top
W Paul Blakey

The HomeTeam Inspection Service
NACHI Member: Yes
(as of 3/25/07)
NACHI Member
Posts: 72
User: wblakey
Posted: Nov 22, 2005 7:46 PM       Post Subject:
To follow up on the previous post, I went to the website to download the CHIBO HPI certification and accreditation model document. On page 17, under the main heading National Standard of Practice I found the following...

Block F - Electrical

Task 21 - visually inspects drain, waste and venting

To paraphrase Russel... Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
Back to Top
Roy Cooke

Roys Home Inspection
NACHI Member: Yes
(as of 3/25/07)
NACHI Member
Posts: 1987
User: rcooke
Posted: Nov 22, 2005 7:53 PM       Post Subject:
wblakey wrote:
Thought you might be interested to read this reply from the minister to an email query I sent to him a little while ago...

Dear Mr. Blakey:

Thank you for your electronic messages of October 22 and 28, 2005, expressing concern about the relationship between Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and the Canadian Association of Home and Property Inspectors (CAHPI), and about the exclusion of other organizations from consultation.
I can appreciate your concern. I hope that the foregoing information has been helpful.
Sincerely,

Original Signed by

The Honourable Joe Fontana, P.C., M.P.

[/i]


THANKS This is a letter exactly like the one I received yesterday.
It seems to me that they have put complete faith in Bill Mullen and Claude Lawrenson.
They also say that they both will be holding meeting with all inspectors invited to give the presentation .
Unfortunately they talk about the CAHPI SOP and this is not being followed by Mr. Bill Mullen.
He continues to bad mouth NACHI and it's members on his Private forum.
There is no defense on our part and no way to challenge him and his followers.
The things he says and the language he uses is VERY VERY far from what a professional person should use .
He calls people Liars and some how I have trouble thinking that this is the person who is going to be one of the leaders of the inspection industry in Canada.
This looks to me to be a way of making money by a very few.
Bill had an Insurance survey and had just over 200 replies .
He stated this was not enough of a return to make a decision on.
CAHPI had a survey ( I know of no one who saw A copy ) they had 60 returns and this is what they are using to deciding your and my future on.
I feel this just another of the liberal Parties disasters.
I hope others do as you did read the CHIBO from the CAHPI site and give Mr Fontana your opinion.

Roy Cooke sr.... RHI......... CAHPI. ONT
Back to Top
Larry Willick

CBI Canadian Building Inspections, Ltd.
NACHI Member: Yes
(as of 3/25/07)
NACHI Member
Posts: 149
User: lwillick
Posted: Nov 22, 2005 8:34 PM       Post Subject:
Paul:

Has any one made Nick Grominco aware of the CMHC reply to your inquiry ?
I tried to advise Nick about a month ago.
He does not believe me, but now here it is in black and white.

Regards,

Larry
Back to Top
Claude Lawrenson

Ontario Home Inspections Inc.
NACHI Member: Yes
(as of 3/25/07)
NACHI Member
Posts: 684
User: clawrenson
Posted: Nov 22, 2005 11:10 PM       Post Subject:
Roy - for clarification purposes please consider the following:

Quote:
It seems to me that they have put complete faith in Bill Mullen and Claude Lawrenson.
They also say that they both will be holding meeting with all inspectors invited to give the presentation .
Unfortunately they talk about the CAHPI SOP and this is not being followed by Mr. Bill Mullen.
He continues to bad mouth NACHI and it's members on his Private forum.


1) Please clarify why my name is once again is posted and brought up. Is this another intentional baited trap to set off another round of personal attacks?

2) Regarding meetings - is that exactly what the Minister indicates - that Bill and I have an "mandatory obligation" to give a presentation. Seems some past posts and rumours, not to mention past history speaks for discomfort and ill feelings generated over the past year surrounding this issue. Not to mention the issue of cost, or perception that "we" are paid to do this. That is not the case - it is strictly voluntary and there is no budget to afford such time consuming and costly trips.

3) The issues between the you and Bill, or me and you, has nothing do with the value of the National Initiative. "As previously explained to you in my October 27 letter, this industry-led national certification program will apply a consistent and national industry standard in Canada to voluntarily certify the competency of private home inspectors." They are separate and distinct issues; so dragging the same old same old up once again does nothing to resolve those differences. Nor does it have any real impact on the N.I. - Those are best addressed as personal issues between the parties. Again I speak for myself and not for Bill.

4) Lets turn the table and think about - does NACHI "ever" badmouth OAHI and CAHPI? Or is it possibly just a few individuals? Don't think too hard because the facts and references are already collected.

Before you respond too quickly think about no matter who started this is - is it the right thing for either association to meddle with the others business? My point being - I am not taking sides or placing blame - but the continued personal attacks, unprofessional comments regardless of the source and sidebar inuendoes does nothing to help foster amiable resolutions to issues - does it?

So how can "we" best try to get along? It starts with a willingness in changing our mindset to move forward rather than continuing to reflect on those possibly unfortunate situations of the past? This not just a one sided issue - it takes two or more to make it what it is. That is likely why you will see very few responses acknowledging responding to your posts, other than those non-members that might like to but have been stopped from posting. Again, I don't have a problem it's NACHI's perogative to control the flow of information as it sees fit.

So with that stated - why make me your target? Why the personal attack? Why drag up my name?
Back to Top
Claude Lawrenson

Ontario Home Inspections Inc.
NACHI Member: Yes
(as of 3/25/07)
NACHI Member
Posts: 684
User: clawrenson
Posted: Nov 22, 2005 11:38 PM       Post Subject:
Regarding the following:
Quote:
To follow up on the previous post, I went to the website to download the CHIBO HPI certification and accreditation model document. On page 17, under the main heading National Standard of Practice I found the following...

Block F - Electrical

Task 21 - visually inspects drain, waste and venting


For clarification purpose only. This is certainly a typo. If this is cross-referenced the National Occupational Standards for Canadian HPI's this is an error. This actually should reference - Task 21: Electrical - visually inspects exterior service entrances.

The above error is actually Task 20 from Plumbing
Back to Top
Larry Ewens

All Certified Inspection Service Systems
NACHI Member: Yes
(as of 3/25/07)
NACHI Member
Posts: 840
User: lewens
Posted: Nov 23, 2005 8:30 AM       Post Subject:
"As previously explained to you in my October 27 letter, this industry-led national certification program will apply a consistent and national industry standard in Canada to voluntarily certify the competency of private home inspectors."
Claude
If this is the case why did a high level CAHPI official say that the CAHPI members would be tested first and in some cases would be given accreditation due to they're experience and education? If it is to be consistent standard why is no one but CAHPI allowed to submit past experience and education for accreditation?
Larry
Back to Top
Claude Lawrenson

Ontario Home Inspections Inc.
NACHI Member: Yes
(as of 3/25/07)
NACHI Member
Posts: 684
User: clawrenson
Posted: Nov 23, 2005 8:48 AM       Post Subject:
Larry E. - respectfully you or others are best to direct your concerns to that individual. The Minister's response and the terms of reference in the CHIBO 2 document - really indicate the real facts to the matter.

Perhaps that is what some individual may "feel" or may have felt at that moment in time. But possibly in hindsight that is now not the case, and is therefor really now a mute point.
Back to Top
Roy Cooke

Roys Home Inspection
NACHI Member: Yes
(as of 3/25/07)
NACHI Member
Posts: 1987
User: rcooke
Posted: Nov 23, 2005 8:50 AM       Post Subject:
clawrenson wrote:
Roy - for clarification purposes please consider the following:

Quote:
It seems to me that they have put complete faith in Bill Mullen and Claude Lawrenson.
They also say that they both will be holding meeting with all inspectors invited to give the presentation .
Unfortunately they talk about the CAHPI SOP and this is not being followed by Mr. Bill Mullen.
He continues to bad mouth NACHI and it's members on his Private forum.


1) Please clarify why my name is once again is posted and brought up. Is this another intentional baited trap to set off another round of personal attacks?

2) Regarding meetings - is that exactly what the Minister indicates - that Bill and I have an "mandatory obligation" to give a presentation. Seems some past posts and rumours, not to mention past history speaks for discomfort and ill feelings generated over the past year surrounding this issue. Not to mention the issue of cost, or perception that "we" are paid to do this. That is not the case - it is strictly voluntary and there is no budget to afford such time consuming and costly trips.
So with that stated - why make me your target? Why the personal attack? Why drag up my name?


Part of letter below I received from Mr. Fontana's office

Quote " CAHPI has informed CMHC that the national certification program will be made available to all home inspectors at the same time,without bias.CMHC understands that common criterafor certification will apply to all private inspectors, and that there will be no "grandfathering"of any inspectors,CAHPI members or others,into national certification.

I understand that the details of the CAHPI National Certification Program will be posted on CAHPI's web site at wwwcahpi.ca .In addition Mr. Claude Lawrenson and Mr.. Bill Mullen will be speaking to the private home inspection community on the national standard." end of quote

Your name was mentioned by me because of what was printed above .
Back to Top
Claude Lawrenson

Ontario Home Inspections Inc.
NACHI Member: Yes
(as of 3/25/07)
NACHI Member
Posts: 684
User: clawrenson
Posted: Nov 23, 2005 9:04 AM       Post Subject:
Thanks Roy - quite interesting - since this is the first I have been made aware of that - officially. Since I am not privy to your letter - how would I know otherwise, or even Bill. If possible could send me a copy of that letter. We simply "offered" to speak, but as stated have never been given the "green light" to proceed.

The purpose of having designated spokespersons is to assure that a consistent message gets out to the masses, not the ones that Larry E. or others may have heard. It simply makes practical sense to have one consistent presentation, void of association politics.

Next and respectfully, am I expected to do so at my own personal cost, and give up my day job too! Lets see how much travel time and expenses, or lost work time am I expected to absorb for this - for free? I don't have a problem in offering - but I certainly expect my full costs should be covered.
Welcome to the wonderful world of politics.
Back to Top
Charles R. Crooker

CROOKERHANCOX Home Inspections, Inc.
NACHI Member: Yes
(as of 3/25/07)
NACHI Member
Posts: 104
User: ccrooker
Posted: Nov 23, 2005 9:56 AM       Post Subject:
TO be able to work and eat one would have to get $. Yes? icon_question.gif
Back to Top
Raymond Wand

Raymond Wand Home Inspection Service
NACHI Member: Yes
(as of 3/25/07)
NACHI Member
Posts: 447
User: rwand1
Posted: Nov 23, 2005 9:57 AM       Post Subject:
Good morning Claude, et al:

Next and respectfully, am I expected to do so at my own personal cost, and give up my day job too! Lets see how much travel time and expenses, or lost work time am I expected to absorb for this - for free? I don't have a problem in offering - but I certainly expect my full costs should be covered.
Welcome to the wonderful world of politics.


Fwiw, I would expect your costs to be paid too. No one should have a problem with that.

Considering what has occurred and reading the letter from Mr. Fontana, he does not address the issues which have brought about this issue(s). I have concerns personally as a taxpayer how surveys from 60 participants resulted/aided in this document, along with other questions as viewed by a home inspector(s) which I previously have stated above.

By the way would you care to comment on the term as referenced on the cover page of the CHIBO 2 Project "National Certification and Accreditation "Model" for Home and Property Inspectors".

Thanks,

Raymond Wand
Caledon, ON
Back to Top
Claude Lawrenson

Ontario Home Inspections Inc.
NACHI Member: Yes
(as of 3/25/07)
NACHI Member
Posts: 684
User: clawrenson
Posted: Nov 23, 2005 5:12 PM       Post Subject:
For clarification purpose:

The response from those 60 (TPA - Task Priority Analysis) is based on determining the "critical skills" or "criticality" and nothing more in the National Occupational Standards. Albeit that number is low, I can at least substantiate some of that to the commonality of most every poll asking for busy inspectors to participate. You and I both know that as "apathy".

I know for a fact that when this information was solicited well over a year and a half ago, even handing forms out to about 40 people at a local meeting group only saw a return of a very small handful. The information was used to benchmark the important home inspection training element tasks and rank the importance of those certain occupation skills.

While we are on it, the issue of Mr. Blakey raised seems to make reference to the old document. The final report fixed that previous typo.
Back to Top
Raymond Wand

Raymond Wand Home Inspection Service
NACHI Member: Yes
(as of 3/25/07)
NACHI Member
Posts: 447
User: rwand1
Posted: Nov 23, 2005 6:41 PM       Post Subject:
Thanks Claude,

How about CAN P9... it says Chibo is based on CAN P9 but it is not known whether this document meets CAN P9 without an audit?

Thanks,

Raymond Wand
Alton, ON
Back to Top
Claude Lawrenson

Ontario Home Inspections Inc.
NACHI Member: Yes
(as of 3/25/07)
NACHI Member
Posts: 684
User: clawrenson
Posted: Nov 23, 2005 8:27 PM       Post Subject:
CAN-P-9 refers to the requirements to certify and accredit. The National Initiative report is not the issue; it is all about setting up and assuring a fair, open and accountable process in our case for home inspectors. If you read through the document it will become readily apparent that there is no wiggle room for an old boys club or the favourtism perception, or that of the claims surrounding past issues (real, pereceived or otherwise). It must be an above board process - plain and simple.

It is a truly accountable system. It will be used as a voluntary home inspection sector standization for certification and accreditation. There will be no room for favouritism or such to exist. It's somewhat like ISO certification - its a built-in quality control mechanism assuring that there is audits and an audit trail that is open to outside review. That is why a lot of the concerns and bashing of the initiative will soon become mute points.

I suggest that you read: http://www.scc.ca/Asset/iu_files/criteria/PCBAP_Handbook_e.pdf
Back to Top
W Paul Blakey

The HomeTeam Inspection Service
NACHI Member: Yes
(as of 3/25/07)
NACHI Member
Posts: 72
User: wblakey
Posted: Nov 24, 2005 2:28 PM       Post Subject:
It seems to me that the most contentious aspect of the whole National Initiative is that CAHPI has had center stage as far as being the only organization referred to in the CHIBO document.

Page 8:

CAHPI - the National Association which represents the Home and Property Inspection.

(Apart from being bad grammar, it is simply incorrect.)

By the way, the document I referred to was obtained by following the links indicated in the email I received from the minister. The mistake was obviously a typo, I mentioned it only to point out that mistakes are made all the time.

I am all for an agreed upon standard of training, but I am still uneasy about the way it has been organized. It seems to me that it is time that NACHI members should be included in the process.
Back to Top
Raymond Wand

Raymond Wand Home Inspection Service
NACHI Member: Yes
(as of 3/25/07)
NACHI Member
Posts: 447
User: rwand1
Posted: Nov 27, 2005 8:34 AM       Post Subject:
Quote:
It seems to me that the most contentious aspect of the whole National Initiative is that CAHPI has had center stage as far as being the only organization referred to in the CHIBO document.


Personally I would like to see anything by way of letter, act, legislation, or consenus which granted CAHPI the right to administer this project. Nothing has been bounced off the provincial members other than what everyone is told to say and think.

Then some wonder why personalities have been brought into the fray. I still haven't seen anything from the invisible man (aka Mr. Guihan) in regards to all the falsities and back room comments by some from CAHPI which have been allowed to be made. Yes this is some organization alright! It sure seems certain people have been allowed to say what they wish when they wish with no consequences. Nice way to run a National Certification. We are told not to worry about bias in the administration of the Certification but all we have seen thus far is bias. Heck we don't even know at this point in time who will sit on the Certification and/or how they will be appointed. This aspect should be a very big concern to all. CAHPI setting and picking what it assumes is its right. I haven't seen any right substantiated on paper. So who is dictating terms here?

Just some more of my thoughts.

Raymond Wand
Alton, ON
Back to Top
Go to page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next