Basically, I'm just saying that all of this, including the amendment, belongs in HESA.
The point I'm trying to make is twofold.
The first point is that HESA has already demonstrated in the past that it has the ability to study contracts and the procurement process when it comes to purchasing medicine, vaccines and drugs. HESA can do that.
The added benefit of having this debate at HESA is that the folks at HESA have already done the legwork. They have done tremendous work. They have had 33 witnesses testify on this issue. They have had 18 briefs. They've developed an expertise. They have an institutional memory. They have a body of knowledge, research, work and of testimony from people who are on the front lines. HESA is the best-placed committee, to use my colleague's arguments and description, to do it justice. HESA is the best-placed committee to deal with this complex challenge that we are facing, the best place to do justice to this challenge that is costing lives.
I have all the faith that folks at HESA will be able to look at the production papers and the contracts and be able to understand them in the broader context of the opioid study they are presently conducting. That is my point. That is the point I'm trying to make.
When you look at what we're facing here, time is of the essence. This is not a time for us to posture. It is not a time for people to try to seek different platforms in order to score political points, manufacture their clips or raise their funds. This ain't the committee to do it. This ain't the time to do it. Certainly, this isn't the issue on which to do it.
That's what I see as the motivating factor and driver of what my colleagues across the way from the Conservative Party are trying to do here. This very motion is in front of the HESA committee. Again, they're looking for platforms, and I'm not going to stand for that. I'm not going to support that—