Just to be clear, I like that it was posted in its own thread; re the changes themselves, I like some things but not others (and some concerns relate to the current process also). Some quick thoughts:
1. Requiring passing the PPE before starting articles strikes me as a good way to cause problems, without a corresponding benefit. If there are things you feel students must know and be tested on before even starting articles, then allow students to write the exam before graduating law school (e.g. as 3Ls - I'm thinking of how e.g. in the US with the Fundamentals of Engineering Exam required by states to become an intern engineer, you can write it while still in school). But to require students to pass a self-study exam before they start articles (and can ask their principal for advice or assistance!) and without teaching them anything, just giving them the materials, not so great. At least the current system if someone fails they can still start or continue their articles and write again later.
2. Articling term shortened to 9 months and can be abridged up to 3 months so you only need 6 months articles, meh. At some point - and I think this reaches it - the articling term becomes so short that what's the point? If you're going to do this, why not just make the LPP the default requirement for everyone? Either have articles long enough to be a useful learning and working experience, or don't force students to do them.
3. The process must be completed within 3 years and if not you can't reapply, I don't like that. It's not you can't take the test more than X times, it's not you have to reapply if you take too long, it's 3 years and you're out forever. So I suppose someone who can't find articles for a year, then finds and then e.g. their articling position falls through (as does happen) and can't find another one, are they screwed for life? I hope it's not as absolute as they portray, with the underlining, and that there is discretion to extend or apply for a new admission or whatever.
4. Foreign lawyers from a common law jurisdiction can't get entire articling term abridged no matter what their experience. Okay, so John Smith who articles at a real estate firm and learns only real estate but passes the exams can then hold themselves out as a criminal and family lawyer, the only restriction being that ethically of course they can only act within their area of competence (and lawyers who do this may take extra CLE and do self-study etc., okay). Or if he articled in another province in real estate and then comes here and sets up as a family lawyer based on interprovincial mobility, that's okay? But Jane Smith with 20 years experience as an attorney and counsellor at law in New York, who's argued before SCOTUS and meets the NCA requirements and takes whatever subject exams are appropriate, is required to article for 6 months no matter what she wants to practice? Protectionism much?