Thank you.
We have NDP-1 and we have NDP-1.1. They're basically dealing with the same clause or the same line. It's just that we had submitted an earlier version, which is NDP-1, but based on the testimony that we heard from Ms. Gibson very recently, we reworded it. I did have a brief discussion with Mr. Young this morning. We're actually happy with either version, so I would be happy to move either NDP-1 or NDP-1.1, if the government members are inclined to vote for whichever version they think is preferable.
The issue here is that we're concerned that the bill, as it's currently outlined, doesn't recognize the full scope of adverse drug reactions. Of course, the example that's being used is the issue of the birth control, where it was sort of characterized as a lifestyle choice. In fact, a number of witnesses did raise this. As for the language that we have proposed here, I'll actually read NDP-1.1. We would add in these lines: “injury to health” includes cases in which a drug does not have its intended effect due to mislabelling or mispackaging of the product. The issue it's related to is the example we heard about the birth control.
If there are suggestions about how to make that better, we're open to them, but we want to tackle that issue because we don't think it's properly covered in the bill.