Hi Everyone,
I do not want us all to lose our momentum. I am encouraging everyone to re-address their letters of opposition and send them to their MLA. I would also suggest that you CC Premier, David Alward.
Below you will find a link to the MLA contact list.
We cannot afford to lose our momentum while we wait. We don’t want this to go to Second Reading without us informing our MLAs and the Premier of our opposition to Bill 22.
Gareth
Hi Everyone,
Yesterday’s meeting of the Standing Committee on Private Bills was an extraordinary event. Thanks to those who could make it. For those who could not make it I will try and summarize the key events.
First and foremost, it was clear to me that the MLAs that asked questions (about half of them) were obviously concerned and informed. This can only be the result of all of our correspondence over the last 10 days. I want to congratulate all of us for having the motivation and bravery to speak out against Bill 22. I was greatly impressed with ALL of the letters I read. They were all professional, clear, concise, and reasonable. I am so proud of the strength and integrity of forestry practitioners in this province.
I was very relieved that there were pointed and intelligent questions coming equally from both Conservative and Liberal MLAs. I think that we can be re-assured that there is no political agenda coming from Cabinet that would push Bill 22 through.
The proponents of Bill 22 appeared to be incapable or unwilling to answer any of the questions or concerns of both the Members of the Standing Committee and the opposition. Their lawyer dominated a lot of their presentation. Other presenters in support of Bill 22 were members of the ARPFNB executive. They supported Bill 22 by claiming it would ensure “good forestry” practice by preventing unqualified people from practicing forestry. They openly revealed their desire to control both the training and education of forestry professionals, as well as the practice of forestry throughout the NB forest sector. They openly revealed that they intend to determine the scope of training and competence for all forestry practitioners in the NB forest sector. They openly stated that they are unwilling and incapable of editing Bill 22 so that it only applies to their membership. In general they spent most of their time repeating the same propaganda, telling personal life stories, and personally accusing me of spreading misinformation with regards to Bill 22.
Other than representatives of the ARPFNB, there were NO other parties that presented in support of Bill 22.
The audience was filled with people opposed to Bill 22. Myself and Todd MacPherson spoke on behalf of the NBFTA. Robert Whitney spoke on behalf of MCFT. Hugh Hambly spoke on behalf of his forestry consulting business. Ken Hardie spoke on behalf of the Federation of Woodlot Owners. I believe that we all did a very good job of presenting our opposition to Bill 22. We were more than capable of answering the questions raised by the Members of the SCPB.
Now, unfortunately, we must wait. But it is clear that we have convinced the SCPB that Bill 22 in its current form is inappropriate as a Private Bill.
Thanks again for all your hard work on this.
Gareth
The President of the NBFTA, Gareth Davies, has an announcement to make. This has been done in collaboration with some members of the Executive who have been available this long weekend. Late on Thursday afternoon some members of the NBFTA and select few other individuals received correspondence from Ed Czerwinski, Executive Director of the ARPFNB (posted below Gareth’s message).
At the conclusion of this posting I, Todd MacPherson, have added a brief editorial on this latest development.
To the NBFTA membership:
Mr. Ed Czerwinski sent the NBFTA another letter on April 5, 2012, stating that the ARPFNB intends to insert, in Bill 22, an exclusion for forest techs. Please read his letters below. Mr. Czerwinski sent the NBFTA a letter on March, 22, 2012 claiming that they had already inserted this exclusion in the legislation. This was discussed by our membership at the NBFTA AGM on March 29, 2012. At the AGM, our membership agreed to continue opposing the legislation with or without the exclusion. Bill 22 did not contain this exclusion when it had First Reading in the NB Legislature on March 30, 2012. Bill 22 may or may not contain this exclusion when it is examined by the Standing Committee on Private Bills on April 12, 2012.
The NBFTA cannot stop opposing this. Our AGM on March 29, 2012 was publicly advertised. If the ARPFNB wished to convince our membership that Bill 22 excludes forest techs, then they could have been on the agenda of our AGM.
REMEMBER this: the ARPFNB is not offering to change the definition of “Right to Practice”. They are only offering an “Exclusion” for forest techs.
Under section 25, “Right to Practice” Bill 22 states:
“25 No person shall practise professional forestry in New
Brunswick, either privately or employed by another, unless
registered to practise under the provisions of this Act
and the by-laws.”
The NBFTA cannot stop opposing this unless under “Right to Practice” it clearly only applies to university-graduate “foresters”.
If, and only if, the ARPFNB shows us a draft of Bill 22 with a fundamentally changed definition of “Right to Practice”, then we would put it on the agenda of our next Executive Meeting, and next year’s AGM.
We MUST stay focused.
This is not about forest techs vs. foresters vs. forestry practitioners vs. whoever.
This is about a PRIVATE BILL (meaning private interest) that states that all those that practice forestry must be registered members of the ARPFNB.
The NBFTA has a mandate and a duty to oppose this legislation on behalf of all forest techs.
The practice of forestry relies on all forestry practitioners, not just “foresters” and “forest techs”.
We cannot stop opposing this until this so-called private bill actually becomes private, meaning their “Right to Practice” definition only applies to their membership.
Gareth Davies
President, NBFTA
This is one of two emails received from Ed Czerwinski, Executive Director ARPFNB
To whom it may concern,
An explicit exclusion for all forest technicians and forest technologists was prepared and sent to the ARPFNB lawyer on March 20. Clearly, it did not make it into Bill 22 before it received first reading on March 30.
I assured all of you that it would be done, so I have to accept responsibility. The lawyers office feels they have significant responsibility in this regard as well.
Once again, I stress to you, members of the NBFTA, MCFT, or other forest technicians or technologists working in New Brunswick, that there was never any intent to make you, “illegal”.
The amendment to Bill 22 has been prepared, and will be presented on April 12, by the ARPFNB lawyer.
Please see the official amendment attached.
Thank you.
Ed Czerwinski, RPF
*****************************************************
To All ARPFNB Members and the Forest Community..
The Association of Registered Professional Foresters of New Brunswick (ARPFNB) presented to our Legislative Assembly a revised version of “An Act to Incorporate the Association of Registered Professional Foresters of New Brunswick“. The main objective of this new Act is to move from Right to Title as Registered Professional Foresters (RPF) to Right to Practice (RTP), for our members. This initiative provides protection to the public by ensuring competent, independent, professional conduct and integrity of registered professional foresters who manage private and publicly-owned forest resources. It is important that all foresters be accountable for their actions.
The proposed Act as amended does not impose any requirements, restrictions or limitations on forest technicians or forest technologists who may be working within the practice of professional forestry as defined in the Act, and who are competent to do so by virtue of their education and training. That exclusion reads:
“Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent persons from performing work within the definition of the practice of professional forestry provided they are graduates of a forest technician or forest technology program acting within the scope of their training and competence,”
Additionally, the proposed Act does allow for those individuals/employees without a forest technician/technology diploma, but are competent through their experience to obtain a “special permit”, to continue working in the area of their expertise, should that work fall within the definition of the “practice of professional forestry”.
It is our sincere belief that Right to Practice will achieve the high standards required in the practice of professional forestry for New Brunswick. The professional forestry associations in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec have had similar legislation for many years. In addition, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador as well as Saskatchewan are currently pursuing legislation with mandatory registration for foresters in their respective provinces.
Members of the ARPFNB place tremendous value on the great working relationship that foresters, forest technicians, forest technologists, and other forest community members have always enjoyed. Members of the ARPFNB look forward to continue working together as a team for the best management of our forest resources.
Sincerely,
Ed Czerwinski, R.P.F.
Executive Director
Association of Registered Professional Foresters of New Brunswick
1350 Regent Street, Suite 221
Fredericton, NB
E3C 2G6
Website: www.arpfnb.ca
Email: arpf@nbnet.nb.ca
At the end of this posting I will embed the document that he attached.
Here is the content of another email sent directly to the NBFTA President, Gareth Davies (note the time and date please) :
From: Ed Czerwinski [email address removed for privacy as it was his work email]
Sent: April-05-12 2:56 PM
To: Davies, Gareth; ‘Gareth Davies’
Subject: FW: Amended s. 52 of “Exclusion” Wording for ARPFNB ActGareth,
Please share with the NBFTA members.
An explicit exclusion for all forest technicians and forest technologists was prepared and sent to the lawyer on March 20. Clearly, it did not make it into Bill 22 before it received first reading on March 30.
I assured you that it would be done, so I have to accept responsibility, the lawyers office feels they have significant responsibility as well.
Once again, I stress to you, the members of the NBFTA, MCFT, or other forest technicians or technologists working in New Brunswick, that there was never any intent to make them, “illegal”.
The amendment to Bill 22 has been prepared, and will be presented on April 12, by the lawyer.
Please see the attachment.
Sincerely,
Ed
Ed Czerwinski, R.P.F.
Executive Director
Association of Registered Professional Foresters of New Brunswick
1350 Regent Street, Suite 221
Fredericton, NB
E3C 2G6
Website: www.arpfnb.ca
Subject: RE: Amended s. 52 of “Exclusion” Wording for ARPFNB Act
Matt,
As per your instructions below, attached is the amendment to be presented by Mr. Norman at the Committee hearing. You cannot renumber the paragraphs, so I simply added a new (b.1).
Any concerns let me know,
Shayne
Subject: RE: Amended s. 52 of “Exclusion” Wording for ARPFNB Act
I’ll prepare the amendment and send to you and Mr. Norman. As I stated, it will be up to Mr. Norman to present the amendment to the Committee for its consideration.
Subject: Amended s. 52 of “Exclusion” Wording for ARPFNB Act
Hi Shayne,
Thank you again for drafting the necessary amendment form. I know you are busy, so it’s much appreciated.
The only amendment will be to section 52 by adding a new subsection (c). I’ve included the entire section in both languages below.
52 Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent persons from
(a) carrying out functions on their own land and for their own purposes that may include the practice of professional forestry,
(b) performing the work of a forester-in-training or student, provided such work is performed under the direct supervision of a registered member who takes responsibility for the work,
(c) performing work within the definition of the practice of professional forestry provided they are graduates of a forest technician or forest technology program acting within the scope of their training and competence,
(d) practising engineering or geoscience under the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act,
(e) practising land surveying under the New Brunswick Land Surveyors Act, 1986,
(f) practising agrology under the Agrologists’ Profession Act, 2004,
(g) carrying on any profession or occupation authorized by an Act of the Province of New Brunswick,
or requires such persons to become registered under this Act to perform such functions.
52 La présente loi n’empêche pas d’exercer les fonctions suivantes ni n’oblige personne à se faire immatriculer sous le régime de la présente loi pour exercer ces fonctions :
a) des travaux effectués sur ses propres terres et pour ses propres besoins, même dans l’exercice de la foresterie professionnelle;
b) des travaux effectués par un forestier stagiaire ou un étudiant, pourvu qu’ils se fassent sous la surveillance directe et la responsabilité d’un membre immatriculé;
c) des travaux visés par la définition de l’exercice de la foresterie professionnelle, s’ils sont effectués par un diplômé d’un programme en techniques de foresterie ou en technologie forestière exerçant dans son champ de formation et de compétence;
d) l’exercice de la profession d’ingénieur ou de géoscientifique sous le régime de la Loi sur les professions d’ingénieur et de géoscientifique;
e) l’exercice de l’activité d’arpentage sous le régime de la Loi de 1986 sur les arpenteurs-géomètres du Nouveau-Brunswick;
f) l’exercice de la profession d’agronome sous le régime de la Loi de 2004 sur la profession d’agronome;
g) l’exercice de toute profession ou de tout métier sous le régime d’une loi du Nouveau-Brunswick.
The NBFTA has been open and transparent with its members throughout this process. Members of the Executive and General Membership have been working on this all weekend as best as possible. Thank you for your continued support.
I am personally aware of letters written to Ed Czerwinski, at least one RPF included, questioning this action. I suggest that you also express your personal feeling directly to him through the email address given above. This came out mid-afternoon on the beginning of a long weekend.The finished document had been in the hands of the ARPFNB and their lawyer for approximately 10 days before being presented at first reading in the legislature. Please note that this exemption had been in a previous draft of the bill and then removed. During the 10-day window our AGM was held. If this exemption had been there then, we could have properly addressed it with the membership at our AGM on March 29, 2012.
It is impossible for us, as an Executive, to address this properly with our members prior to the Standing Committee on April 12th. NBFTA members were made aware of the exemption possibility at the AGM, yet no motion was made to overturn our opposition to Bill 22. As the NBFTA has said since at least 2009, the overall process has been flawed and continues to be flawed.
The ARPFNB has stated that they want a good working relationship with technicians and technologists. We agree and withdrawing Bill 22 would be a good start in that direction.
We continue to oppose Bill 22. Please send your letters of opposition to the Standing Committee ASAP.