Proposition 50K0502

Projet de loi modifiant l'article 13 de la loi du 19 décembre 1950 créant l'Ordre des médecins vétérinaires.

General information ¶

Author

LE Luc Paque

Submission date

March 13, 2000

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

professional society veterinarian veterinary medicine

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR FN VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

July 13, 2000 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, since every work of a member of parliament is important, I have stayed here to report on the discussion of this bill. This bill was submitted by Mr. Paque and relates to Article 13 of the law of 19 December 1950 establishing the Order of Veterinary Physicians. This article provides, in the context of a disciplinary procedure, in case of a complaint and at the request of the Bureau of the Council of the Order, the possibility of reconciliation. The applicant of this bill, Mr. Paque, however, considers that a reconciliation should also be possible if there is no complaint or to prevent a complaint. In addition, the question of reconciliation should also be able to come from the parties. Consequently, Mr Paque proposes that the aforementioned article be amended in that sense. It follows that the member or members of the Board of the Order who have carried out the investigation assignment shall no longer participate in the continuation of the discussions. However, the applicant considers that, due to the impartiality of that contract, that limitation no longer has a reason to exist and proposes its removal. The Minister of Agriculture and Medium State agreed with this bill and it was unanimously approved in the committee meeting.

Miss, you managed to read the whole report, so extensive it was!

I want to correct what went wrong this morning.

I understood that.

Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to the excellent report of Mrs. Pieters, which I also thank for being so late to present it. I would also like to thank the chairman of the committee who has diligently ensured that this proposal is quickly put on the agenda, and of course all the colleagues members of the committee who unanimously supported the proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. We approved this text in the committee because it improves the existing text. That does not exclude the fact that sooner or later – and for us, preferably sooner – the existence of this corporatist order will have to be considered, and with this I mean the Order of Doctors, of Lawyers, of Veterinary Doctors, and so on. Is the existence of these organisations still compatible with the current form and vision of the profession? However, we are forced to shift this consideration to a later stage. Our approval of this amendment does not prejudice our intention to submit these Orders – we will, by the way, have to do so very quickly with the Order of Lawyers – to an examination.