What kind of "increased revenues" are you expecting ? In your plan, do you foresee any loss in revenues for the CFC ? If so, how do you suggest we get back the loss ?
My meaning was that FIDE might reasonably be able to expect increased revenues from the CFC. If it were to be made, I certainly don't anticipate the deal being free. If we were to make the conversion, of course, potential changes to our fee structure would need to be investigated. Be aware that I am not suggesting we make the change tomorrow, or even wholesale, as we might wish, for instance, to initially phase in a portion of the membership and analyze those results first.

Same question again, what kind of money do you think we're talking about here ? You'd really like to work on a case-by-case basis for every Canadian chess player with a CFC rating ? Going back until... ? Who would do that ? FIDE ?
Yes, FIDE. Again, I don't think that comes with a pricetag of $0, but, if the assembly of governors were to give me approval, I would follow up with FIDE regarding their expectations (cost, conversion method, etc.) and we could have a more informed discussion from there.

Can you give us links to those "serious discussions", please ? What happens to the juniors (or even adults for that matter) rated below 1000 ? What is supposed to be the benefit of any CFC player to have an INTERNATIONAL rating if they play in local events only ? Both Pierre and I have brought up the Myanmar case. Still, you seem to think the important point to make is the FIDE rating is "perceived to hold weight". What are the grounds for you to believe that ?
For an executive summary, see this link. For the full minutes of the meeting, I invite you to seek them out.

I believe it's healthy for a Federation to question the validity of its rating system. Goals from Executive to Executive may change over time and explain some of the changes made. Canada's rating is not better or worse than any other country maintaining a National Rating. You seem to think only FIDE invests in the study and modification of its rating system. I'm sure all the Rating Auditors the CFC had over the years, that I know for a fact have put MANY more hours to it than what you're probably ready to realize, will be very happy about that statement. In fact many Federations invest a lot in it. Too bad you decided not to join the discussion when, not so long ago, we talked about it right here. I invite you to take a look at what Dr Mark Glickman has done with his Glicko system (and Glicko2) at the USCF, for starters. In any case, I'm still waiting to see valid proof that our CFC rating system is so bad. Just to claim it is seem unsufficient to me. Regardless, even if it was, dropping it to a system that has not proven any better (which in fact is using the same Elo system in the first place) instead of adjusting it to better serve the needs of the CFC makes no sense to me.
Canada is not a Myanmar. Our players compete internationally and where I see FIDE ratings holding value is in providing a metric by which players might compare themselves with peers from around the world and, perhaps, provide themselves with extra incentive to improve. I refer to it as being "perceived to hold weight" because I fully realize that the system does not perfectly lend itself to 1-to-1 comparison, but I am not convinced that the average member necessarily cares about that. Whether the CFC rating scale is statistically superior or not, I think it's more important to ask whether the mere psychological value of an "international" measure of your skill is important to the average player. Though my evidence is anecdotal, I think this might be the case. If required, as the voice of the membership, I expect the governors will set me straight.