Your Name
Address
City, Province
Postal Code
Phone Number
(Current Date)
Dear Honourable (___MP/MLA First and Last Name___),
I would be grateful if you could raise the issue that the time has come for the government to honor its promise to review and modernize the exemptions in the Veterinary Profession Act (VPA). Modernization of the exemptions is needed so Alberta Animal Owners and non-vet animal health practitioners are not adversely affected by future changes to the Veterinary Profession Act (VPA).
“The VPA governs the professional activities of Alberta veterinarians and grants them an exclusive scope of practice… Minister Cardinal advises me that the prosed amendment will in no way affect those veterinary activities that the VPA currently allows to be performed by non-veterinarians. He also advises that, together with the AVMA, his department is reviewing the VPA’s current exemptions to ensure that these individuals are not adversely affected by the proposed definition. I also understand that his department will be developing a regulatory exemption, specifically excluding persons who currently provide “equine dental” services in Alberta, once the proposed definition receives royal assent.”
Fred Lindsay, MLA --November 29, 2005
Of grave concern to Alberta Animal Owners is the sentence “…once the proposed definition receives royal assent.” Modernization of the exemptions needs to be done BEFORE any changes are made to the VPA, even changes considered “housekeeping”.
I am concerned because “housekeeping” changes to the VPA are planned for 2015. These changes are not yet “communicable to the public”. We don’t know if the changes will benefit animal owners, or be our worst nightmare. It is no secret the ABVMA’s intentions are to have a monopoly over animal health. ABVMA currently states on their website in their Council Guidelines, “performing alternative and complementary veterinary treatments, therapies and/or modalities on animals constitutes the practice of veterinary medicine such that these procedures may only be performed by a veterinarian or potentially by a non-veterinarian who is directed and supervised by the veterinarian, within the context of a valid veterinarian-client-patient relationship”. The precedent setting case of AVMA v. Pequin where the ABVMA lost all the way to the Supreme Court, clearly states the above position held by the ABVMA is incorrect and has no legal grounds. Currently, all complementary animal health practitioners are practicing legally and animal owners can freely choose the practitioner of their choice.
If money and a monopoly are truly not at the heart of the current VPA changes pursued by the ABVMA, then there should be no resistance to modernize VPA exemptions for the rights of animal owners to freely choose complementary wellness and preventive options for their animals, just like the government currently allows us to do for our own children.
I would really appreciate a reply confirming you support modernization of the VPA exemptions BEFORE any changes to the VPA are made by the ABVMA.
Sincerely,
Your Printed Name
Your Signature