On first reading, I find the…

On first reading, I find the various proposals either uninformed regarding the skills that are available in the building industry, or uninformed regarding the qualification and enforcement systems that already exist and that have been by and large functional.

For example, Theme 1's mention of "Coordinating Professionals" is confusing. Architects and engineers already provide, and are obligated to identify in permit applications, who is providing the "coordinating" service. A management person who is neither an engineer nor an architect is unlikely to have the broad exposure to building systems and processes to be any better than an experienced architect or engineer. This is, in other words, just asking for an additional layer of management and complication.

Both the architectural and engineering fields have requirements for code knowledge. The request for "Certified Professionals" seems to be a repeat for BCIN qualification training. If the current system is not fully functional, the first approach would be to use laws already in place to force the professional associations to tighten the strings.

For Theme 2, professionals are required to "maintain knowledge in their areas of practice" as it is. If this is not perceived by the law makers, then, again, the professional associations should be the first groups to enforce an increase in demonstrated knowledge. These groups exist for this reason, and already have the required infrastructure to deliver.

Codes of conduct and yearly (or bi-annual) attestations already exist for the professions. Can I ask what the problem is that this is addressing?

Theme 3 confuses me. There are laws and methods for enforcement that already exist. When applied, they seem to work well.

Theme 4 concerns sector support. We already have electronic versions of the code, and many municipalities have electronic submission. More consistency for submission requirements could be useful, as there is a plethora of different formats, rules, and reporting between different municipalities. The ministry could help align the many good efforts that already have been made, rather than striking out for a new and different answer.

Pulling all zoning and building and fire and ULC and cUL and other systems into one grand unified theory of construction is monumental and also prone breaking when one or another international system is updated out-of-step with the others. Perhaps developing a consistent library where the current and acceptable versions of all standards reside would help. This will cost money and take a lot of time.