Health committee  I think we don't know what we don't know with respect to the products, because we have a reactive system. In the postmarket space, in the inspection space, and in the advertising complaint space, it's reactive, so it's based either on doing pilots or on something coming to our attention.

Health committee  You don't have to believe us when we say that; we've actually demonstrated it. When we look at the labelling initiative, there were consultations before the initiative went forward. We put a proposal out, got comments and changed the proposal. We put in a six-year phase-in period to account for the feedback we got from industry, and we got comments from consumers.

Health committee  Yes.

Health committee  Yes. It's available online, but, yes, we can do that.

Health committee  That's what we're in the process of doing now. The fee proposal is just that; it's a proposal. It went out for a 90-day consultation. We put that out. We got 4,700 comments. We are in the process of looking through those comments, and then we'll come back with any changes based on those comments.

Health committee  Again, this is a cost recovery proposal. It is activities that are done by the regulator to regulate these products. Right now Canadians are paying 100% of those costs, and there are gaps that we need to fill. We need additional resources to do that. There are only two ways of getting those resources: Either Canadian taxpayers pay for it or the industry pays for some of it.

Health committee  If we look at all of the increased costs, it works out to $1.60 per Canadian total for all of the costs, and that's if every cent of those costs is passed along to the consumer. Again, we have over 60% of these companies that are small and medium, but we have some very large companies as well.

Health committee  It will, if we take all of the increased fees and we pass those directly on to Canadians.

Health committee  Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to respond to the non-question and the question. Right now, it's a $44-million program. With the changes and the improvements, that will increase to a $100-million program, and we can go through all of those improvements. There are no billions; it's millions.

Health committee  It is part of it. Again, I don't want to misrepresent these products. They are generally low-risk, but we had a tragic case of a 19-month-old in Alberta who died because of being given natural health products instead of treatment for meningitis. Dr. Steve Flindall is an emergency physician in Toronto who had a patient who was stable on medications for seizures but was taken off those medications and put on zinc.

Health committee  It's available publicly, but we can table it, yes.

Health committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just on the first part very quickly, on the labelling, as part of the labelling proposal, a regulatory impact assessment was done. A cost-benefit assessment was done. Then there are also provisions for small packaging. All of that is part of the proposal.

Health committee  We would have to come back to you with the specific number for the adverse effects of non-prescription drugs. I wouldn't have that number right now.

Health committee  It's usually in the tens of thousands.

Health committee  I can give you the figure for non-prescription products, which are the comparable products to natural health products. In terms of the size of the industry on a dollar basis—