This website is intended to support the proposed regulation amendments awaiting ratification by members of the Association of Ontario Land Surveyors. Although publicly accessible, all of the discussions contained herein are forward-looking and do not reflect the current regulations or policies of the Association of Ontario Land Surveyors.
Read the Questions and Answers
The lists of questions and answers unique to a regulation:
- Amendments to 1026 (General)
- Amendments to 525/91 (Monuments)
- New Regulation replacing 42/96 (Performance)
General questions and answers:
Q1. Will there be one ballot per regulation or will there be only 1 ballot for the new/amended Regs as a whole?
A1. There will be 3 ballots; one for each amendment, though they will appear together on a single printed page.
Q2. Will I need to meet the requirements of the regulations as soon as the membership ratifies the amendments?
A2. No. Legislation is only introduced semi-yearly so it won’t come to provincial parliament until June 2010. By then there will have been seminars that will set out what will be considered compliance as well as sufficient training to permit a member to integrate competently.
Q3. What are the ramifications if one or more are voted down?
A3. It might demonstrate to the government that the Association should no longer be given delegated powers to self-regulate itself and its members. Remember, the move toward legislative amendments was a result of the KPMG Report and the Syd Harris Report. Regulation amendments naturally followed and both statutory and regulatory changes are expected by the Government, based on the two Reports to Parliament cited above.
It also depends on which amendment(s) is/are voted down. CR members have waited a long time for equality and standards. A rejection by the membership could spur other bodies to make a home for our members! At the very least we should expect a further decline in CR membership.
Also recall that the first attempt to expand our member classes was voted down in the early 1970's. That decision was a critical failure, resulted in significant lost opportunity and should not be repeated.
Were your questions answered?
If not, please send email to the attention of the Public Integration Committee, here
