Comments correlate to the…

Comments correlate to the questions posed in the discussion paper:

1.1. yes
1.2. little to none
1.3. improvements may be required for test facilities (ex. 2 monitors)
2.1 yes
2.2 clarify/simplify the language used for the exam questions (ex. double and triple negatives- no need)
3.1 may be beneficial to municipalities, practitioners, and the public; but this may be financially unattainable for new practitioners.
3.2 perhaps grants/subsidies could be made available to encourage more people to enter the field(s) to aid with the intent of Bill 23.
4.1 I suggest that there is currently an exemption for PEO and OAA. see below
4.2 the complexities of implementing this idea across trades or holders of specific diploma or bachelor degrees may prove difficult and cumbersome. the spectrum of specialized knowledge appears as a barrier to consistent application of this proposal.
4.3 no
5.1 practitioners do not require all qualifications to practice in the specific BCIN disciplines, though this may reduce the potential scope
5.2 Ministry clarification is required regarding the permitted scope of each current BCIN. I believe there is inconsistent enforcement/application of this currently. this is required for both private and municipal users.
6.1 Ministry driven practical interpretation updates would be beneficial
6.2 yes
6.3 comprehensive technical bulletins, more than just the amended clauses of the building code