Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I've had the occasion to speak with Mr. Garrison about this proposed amendment. I believe it derives from some of the evidence that we heard about the accessibility of track two when someone is living in rural or more remote communities. I think the intent is sound. We had to think about this on our side of the House and we identified a few concerns, such as the notion of the term “person who has that expertise”. We would endeavour to have that person be named as a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner. It is specifically providing some clarity in that regard.
Apropos of that, I have suggested some altered language, which I believe Mr. Garrison has seen and approves of. I sent that language in advance to the clerk. I believe he is circulating it to everyone in the group.
I can read what we are suggesting, to sort of get at what Mr. Garrison is suggesting. This would be a friendly amendment to NDP-2.
The paragraph (e) would read:
(e) ensure that another medical practitioner or nurse practitioner has provided a written opinion confirming that the person meets all of the criteria set out in subsection (1);
Then a new subparagraph (e)(i) would be inserted:
(e.1) if neither they nor the other medical practitioner or nurse practitioner referred to in paragraph (e) has expertise in the condition that is causing the person’s suffering, ensure that they or the other medical practitioner or nurse practitioner consult with a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner who has that expertise or consult with such a practitioner and share the results of that consultation with the other practitioner referred to in paragraph (e);
I appreciate that the language is a bit wordy, but it has been sent to the clerk and I believe he has circulated it to the members of the committee.
That would be the proposed friendly amendment to NDP-2.
Thank you.