Once again, here we are. We've been down this road with respect to natural health products many times.
Sir, this is not directed to be specifically negative toward you, but what we hear are these thinly veiled ideas that say, “Yes, this has happened,” but not one person has been able to give specific evidence or table it with this committee, nor has there been a desire, sadly, among the other members of this committee to have that information tabled for consideration. I think that's irresponsible of everybody who's raised a concern here.
We heard another group that said it had 700 adverse events. One of the adverse events it named was somebody reading a label wrongly and being dissatisfied with the product they had. Is that an adverse event? I don't think so.
Again, as I've said previously, 13,000 Canadian seniors are hospitalized every year because of prescription products. Does that mean they're bad? No. Does that mean we need to gut the regulations related to prescription drugs? I don't think so, but it might.
Now, here we are again. We're left with somebody saying, “I think there's been a report, or maybe there has been, and I don't know what the report is.” Nobody's showing it to me. Do you have it with you? Can you bring it up on your phone? Can you distribute it to the committee?
If you have that, it's appropriate here because once again, Mr. Naqvi, in his lack of preparedness, has foisted upon the committee a substantive amendment, which might be important for the safety of Canadians, but it might not be.
How could we possibly be expected to make a decision? If this is that important an amendment—once again, Mr. Naqvi should have done his homework—he should have submitted an amendment like everybody else around this table did. What do we have once again? Oh, this is a subamendment.
Chair, there is another thing I would ask you to consider. If this is that substantive a subamendment that it changes the original intent of the amendment, is it really admissible? That's a very significant thing to consider here, because we have not had any evidence provided to the committee to make an appropriate decision with respect to pseudoephedrine.
There's a difficulty for us as good legislators sitting around the table, especially given the fact that we're in the midst of a study here at the health committee on drugs and drug use within this country. We understand the difficulties associated therein. Certainly, we want to be cautious. I understand that. We can't reduce the risk to zero. The difficulty here, though, is we have a substantive amendment that's unsubstantiated.
The other part we need to understand clearly is that if this amendment fails to pass, do you have the ability under the Food and Drugs Act to make amendments outside of this particular bill, Bill C-368? Is there an ability to make amendments outside of Bill C-368 to protect Canadians from the potential diversion of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, whether it be from prescription, over-the-counter or natural health products?
Do you have that ability? Answer yes or no, but you don't have to just answer yes or no; you can expand on it, if you so desire.