The message board is a place for suggestions and discussions. If you have a time sensitive question related to the association, please contact either the Executive Director ( or the president of the association. Thank you.

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • Author
  • #2152

    Just wondering if this would be a good place to have some discussion around the potential CVBC title for AHT/VTs?
    I received the survey this AM in my email and don’t feel I can answer yes or no to the options without some further information.
    For example: I like the idea of having just one title RVT as I think that would be less confusing for the public and my understanding is a primary mandate of the CVBC is transparency with the public? I also think it is a title that best clarifies our role in the veterinary practice. BUT by relinquishing our RVT name to the CVBC, if they decide that ‘on the job trained’ staff will have the same title, I would oppose this option. (feels like it diminishes the hard work grads from accredited programs have put in and the incredible knowledge and skill sets they have acquired).

    Also – other provinces use the title RVT (ex. Ontario) so it doesn’t seem to be that it is currently ONLY permissible by the BCVTA? Or am I misinterpreting the information presented in the survey?

    Thank you for any clarity around this.


    Robina, I had similar thoughts and feelings when reading the survey. Granted, I have not been paying close attention to all the bylaw details that we have been informed of… however, with the information provided within the survey I do not feel like I can make a decision for one option or the other.

    I certainly disagree with OTJ trained techs having the title of RVT – it absolutely does diminish the education, skill and knowledge that I – and all other grads of accredited programs – worked so very hard to achieve, not to mention all the CE we do to maintain our registration with the association. And I don’t like the idea of RVTs “relinquishing control” over what being an RVT requires and means. It feels like we will be losing our independence or sense of self, if that makes sense.

    But option 2 leaves me wondering about being required to be “certified” under the CVBC and also “registered” with the BCVTA? This seems like a redundancy to me. Because although the survey states maintaining the title of RVT is optional, why would I give up this title that I am proud to have and the sense of community that being a member of this association provides? CVT isn’t a title that I am asking for, and it is one that is apparently going to be controlled by the CVBC. I don’t mean any offense to any OTJ trained techs – I’m sure there are a number of them out there who do have skill in the field – but I worked really hard to achieve the title of RVT (or actually, when I was working so hard I was working toward RAHT) and I feel like sharing a title and certification with an OTJ trained tech diminishes all that work.

    I feel a bit like a whiny kid by saying this, but I don’t want to be a CVT. I want to remain an RVT. I don’t need two titles. I like the one I have.

    Perhaps I do need to do some further research to fully grasp the changes that are being considered with the CVBC bylaws, but I will post this here and then do some more reading.

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 11 months ago by KristynSharkey. Reason: spelling/grammar

    Has the NAVTA Veterinary Nurse Initiative been taken into consideration by both organizations?
    I feel like this is the direction our profession is moving and I know logos, marketing, trademarks etc are expensive. I also think (ducks for cover) a National Standard (national meaning minimally Canada, ideally North America) would be in the best interest of our profession.
    …..please refrain from turning this thread into “techs do more than nurses” – that conversation always gets heated and that is not what this is about.
    I am also struggling with the survey. Not able to make an informed vote.
    Sorry to add another complex topic to the discussion but I really do think the Veterinary Nurse Initiative needs to be part of this.
    I am currently on a VTS Organizing Committee and this stuff is a hot topic and I am sure RVN is going to become a reality in the near future.

    Heather Shannon

    Perhaps I can clear this up a bit.

    The Ministry of Agriculture has mandated us to work WITH the CVBC to create bylaws, there is no other option. The CVBC will be the regulators of techs in British Columbia, it will be mandatory to be certified/registered with them, if you wish to work as a Veterinary Technologist in British Columbia.

    The BCVTA will be an optional registration, like the SVBC is for veterinarians. The CVBC is trying to model their new Tech bylaws after the bylaws they created for their vets and the SVBC.

    The rest of Canada is trying to change their veterinary bylaws for each province to state that “in order for someone to use the title RVT, they MUST be a member of their provincial TECH association.” This has passed in 5 provinces. The BCVTA was hoping that the CVBC would do this as well and BC techs would have similar legislation as Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

    The issue is that in BC – the CVBC will not recognize the BCVTA and will not therefore endorse our association in their new bylaws. The CVBC’s reason for being different than the rest of Canada – “they are a Veterinary College” – which is a regulating body. The BCVTA is an Association – which looks after the membership body. Therefore it could possibly be a conflict of interest should any disciplinary action be required towards a tech.

    Now we have the title RVT trademarked (title protection) for lack of a better term with the BCVTA – so the only people in BC who may call themselves a Registered Veterinary Technologist MUST be a member of our BCVTA association and MUST have passed all our protocol (VTNE, accredited program etc.) – which is similar to across Canada for other tech associations.

    So the two questions are, should we:
    1) give the CVBC our title RVT and allow them to create the laws around whoever they wish to call an RVT and yes they are talking about allowing “on the job trained” as well as limited one species on the job trained techs out there this title as well. The Pro is then we will only have RVT after our names, the Con – we have no control over who they allow to use it


    2) should we keep hold of our title and therefore use 2 sets of initials, whatever the CVBC comes up with and if you choose to be a member of the BCVTA – then you use RVT as well. Pro’s – we can control who uses the RVT initials and the reciprocity with Canadian Tech Associations will remain, the Con – we will have 2 sets of initials and the RVT initial will not be mandatory in British Columbia.


    You sold me on option #2 Heather Shannon.
    Option #1 is too risky and puts too much trust in others.
    Thanks for clarifying. CVT seems redundant.
    I wonder if we could use
    VT (CVBC)
    I know it’s extra letters but gosh darn it, our organization deserves as much recognition as possible and losing reciprocity with other provinces and our National Organization would be a huge step backwards.
    Thanks Heather!

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 11 months ago by JenniferPanko.

    Hi everyone,
    Heather, thank you for clarifying.

    Jenn, I think the use of VT is too generic, especially as the CVBC is going to push for OTJs and limited classes. I will be fighting for whatever title the membership chooses for those who are eligible to be members of the BCVTA. But I will also be pushing for a different title for the OTJs and limited (Certified Veterinary Assistant?) to distinguish those who have worked so hard for the RVT title. I agree, that many are very skilled in what they do, but I too do not feel that they should not be afforded the same title.

    Regarding the Veterinary Nurse title: this has been attempted in Canada, and RNs have blocked it. I am not sure it could every happen here.

    Kirsten Wilson
    Liaison to the CVBC



    I thought you might chime in and shed some light on the issue. Thank you.

    Heather Shannon

    You are most welcome. Thanks for asking!


    I’ve been reflecting on this, and keeping our title as our own, feels like an important thing to do for all the reasons stated above.

    I am very proud to be a RVT and all of the schooling and CE that has been committed to this title and this work (along wight he blood, sweat and tears). I’m equally proud of the commitment and training that I have seen some dedicated on-the-job trained techs learn. Now they can be recognized through their own title – CVT.

    If there is concern about confusion between the two titles of RVT and CVT, and as it is the CVBC’s job to ‘protect the public’, then I believe it may be their responsibility to provide clear and accurate definitions of the two titles and how they are different. They can educate the public. Which is something we’ve wanted for a long time, without the proper ability to do. Maybe this will help with that.


    As far as I’m concerned, I am proud as heck of my RVT status and will keep this no matter what the CVBC decides in the way of a title. I graduated as an AHT, therefore I would ultimately end up with 3 designations after my name, AHT, RVT and then the 3rd designation from the CVBC. In my mind, I see no issue with having 2 sets of initials (or 3) after my name.

    Cathy Hall-Patch, AHT, RVT, CVT?
    Senior Instructor, (Retired)
    Thompson Rivers University


    I would be concerned that if they choose to call us CVTs, and can include anyone they want in that title, then they are implying that there is some form of formal education. Anyone that calls themselves registered or certified should have formal eduction. I think this is misleading the public if they choose to add certified etc to the title of vet tech.


    I voted no to relinquishing our RVT title because I thought our main reason for driving this bylaw change was to ensure patient safety/job security by allowing only RVTs to perform certain tasks?? Things like anesthesia and controlled drug handling and some other laboratory procedures, is this approved tasks list no longer being proposed? If we shared the RVT title I do not see how there could be any separation between trained technicians through a recognized program and on the job trained technicans??

    Are the on the job trained technicians still required to pass the VTNE or is that only a BCVTA requirement? If they have to write the VTNE I would perhaps be more willing to relinquish the term technician. If this role is just on the job trained should they not be CVAs? Or RVAS? Certified/Registered Vet Assistants, since they will be trained and in theory supervised by a Veterinarian it seems appropriate. Where as a technician has learned certain technical skills to be responsible for tasks on their own. I don’t know how much control we have over the choice of CVBC terminology apart from the RVT lock though.

    I want a unified national term but only for those that have met certain unified requirements… that is not met by on the job training alone. I would rather have a separate term whatever it may be if we have to allow on the job training. I just don’t see how we are gaining anything from these proposed by law changes without seperation. I am actually still partial to delaying changes for the long haul hang to become our own college.

    I was keeping up to date on where we stood but it has gone back and forth so many times my apologies if some of my questions are not based on the most current proposed bylaws. Thank you for starting this discussion.

    Concerned and slightly overwhelmed RVT


    Just wanted to revisit this conversation… my DVM asked me about this CVT/CVBC designation this morning. Sounds like there was an email today from the CVBC mentioning it. I looked for the AGM minutes from the spring conference on the site hoping for some info, but it doens’t look like they’ve been posted yet.

    Has there been any progress with this? Where do we stand at this time?


    Hi Kristyn,

    I am including my report from the Spring AGM on this below. I can’t attach the letters referenced therein, but they will be posted to the website, along with the minutes, early next week. If you have any questions, please post here, or email me at

    CVBC Liaison Report
    July 2018 – Luisa (CVBC registrar) said there would be no progress on bylaws until after January 2019.
    BCVTA emailed the MoA and did not hear back until we emailed three more times.

    In February we did hear back, and set a meeting at the end of February.
    At the meeting, Heather and Kirsten expressed concerns regarding working with CVBC
    Discussed creating a College of Veterinary Technologist, this is not viable on our end –we do not have a large enough membership or the finances to support this
    MoA recommended contacting CVBC and stating exactly what we want to happen & noted that we do not have to accept whatever the reply may be.
    In Late February we received an email from Luisa CVBC stating she had begun working on by-laws and the CVBC had come up with a “fee schedule” for application and annual certification fees for techs. She stated CVBC registrants would be voting on it at their May 2019 meeting.

    Fee structure was not terribly concerning to us, however the fact the CVBC wanted this in place before the bylaws was, so we sent a letter March 11th as a reply, which Kirsten read to those in attendance. (attached as addendum). CVBC’s reply to our letter also attached as addendum.
    We didn’t get the answer we were looking for regarding bylaws, so we set a meeting with our lawyer to discuss what was in the best interest of our members. He is currently drafting a letter on our behalf stating we would like to see bylaws before we discuss a fee structure (*Note that this letter has now been sent and received, but no reply yet).

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • The forum ‘BCVTA Members Forum’ is closed to new topics and replies.