One of the functions of law is to protect the public. Professional bodies such as the Law Society of Ontario function to protect the public by regulating who may practice and provide legal services to the public. Only those licensed members in good standing can provide those services to the public. FP Canada is continually working toward the formal professionalization of financial planning. In most Canadian provinces there is no legislated standard in place for the estimated 100,000 people who claim to offer financial advice. With the exception of Qubec, people who call themselves financial planners are not required to obtain any credentials whatsoever. FP Canada believes that everyone who claims to be a financial planner should be required to meet stringent proficiency and ethics requirements, including high levels of education and experience. These rigorous requirements are met by all FP Canada certificants. If there is no mandatory standards for financial planners, then why should one become a Certified Financial Planner or Qualified Associate Financial Planner with the Financial Planning Standards Council . . . now FPCanada? What does it mean to be formerly recognized as a "profession" and why would this be needed or not needed within the financial planning industry? Do you agree that the financial planning industry should be regulated as profession? What potential conflicts if any may arise within the industry if CFP/QAFP becomes a "professional" designation?" Do you think that professionals should be allowed to govern themselves? Do you have any concerns with their abilities to protect the public interest