Hi there CS...
Yes, I can see why having it spelled out in a perscriptive code, such as the CEC, would be expected.
Personally I like the BC amendment, but I would remove the phrase "current-carrying" from the BC amendment so it would cover all conductors and not just current-carrying ones. If you are going to add a jurisdictional amendment, it had better address all possible scenarios.
My boss, the Chief Inspector for this jurisdiction is the chair of the CEC Part I Section 2 technical committe and he has explained this issue to me this way...
The thought of the CEC code body is that if an installation issue is made unacceptable via a Part II certification standard, then there is no reason to add additional rules to a Part I section as the complete CAN/CSA C22.1-06 code really consists of all three parts and they need to be applied together to an installation in harmony.
The point is valid and I support it. Having said that, given the lack of emphasis the Part II section sees on a regular basis, perhaps the BC approach is wise.