Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm really only looking at subparagraph (e)(i). I think the wording for the revised paragraph (e), which is the requirement to obtain a second assessment, is identical to what's currently in the Criminal Code, so I think that is fine.
If I look at the proposed new subparagraph (e)(i), it appears to be saying that the “they” would normally be referring to the MAID provider. All of the safeguards are directed at the MAID provider personally, so where we see “they”, we would read that as the MAID provider.
It appears to be saying that if neither “they”, who is the MAID provider, nor the second assessor has the expertise, “they”—being the MAID provider—or the other provider would consult with a medical practitioner who has that expertise.
Then there is an alternative to that, which is that “they”, the MAID provider, would consult and then share the results with the practitioner referred to in paragraph (e), who is the second assessor, so I'm not sure there is....
It appears as though the first part of proposed subparagraph (e)(i) is saying that either of the two assessors could consult with the expert. Then as an alternative, the MAID provider can consult with the expert and then share the results. There's perhaps a little bit of a duplication.
If it is the second MAID assessor who does the consulting, it's not clear whether they would have the obligation to share the results with the MAID provider with this wording.
If the first “or” were converted into an “and”, then it would be alternative requirements that either the two providers together would consult with the practitioner, or the MAID provider could consult and share the results with the second assessor. If it's an “and” at the beginning, there's a bit of repetition, and not a 100% clarity as to when there would be an obligation to share the results.