Thank you, Chair.
I have a couple of points. One is directly on the amendment.
Mr. Genuis is excited that I'm talking about the amendment. We've all been talking about the amendment, whether or not my Conservative friends on the other side recognize that. All of the points have related back to that amendment, as you've seen, Mr. Chair.
Regarding the amendment, there's an unintended consequence here, and that is something I pointed out before, but let me be more specific. This is taking us away, again, from the vital work of the committee. We are slated to study—I hope it's not going to be interrupted entirely—connectivity in rural and remote areas. It's something that I know Conservative colleagues have raised in the past, quite rightly. It is something that is impacting the country. I don't come from a rural area, Mr. Chair, but just outside London, Ontario, there is a huge agricultural region, very rural, and connectivity continues to be a challenge. The government has, I think, made very important steps in this direction in terms of ensuring greater connectivity. I think we're getting there, but I would like to work on that. I know that certainly colleagues on this side feel the same way. I hope colleagues on the other side feel that way as well.
In addition, I see that we're slated to look at access to safe drinking water in first nations communities. I think this is a moral obligation, in addition to being a parliamentary obligation.
Again, we've spent a lot of time on this amendment. I've made the point before that I don't see its value in terms of helping this motion become stronger or in line with an outcome that would ensure that public servants do not break the law. It is having another unintended effect, of course, and that is delaying us from our work.
That's the point I wanted to make, Mr. Chair, in general terms, again, on the unintended consequence of our colleague's amendment.
I do want a point of clarification, though, Mr. Chair. I'll ask Mr. Desjarlais if he wishes to go on the record again. I'd want more information on what exactly he's aiming at and what his concerns are. He mentioned the Fraser Institute, for example. It's an interesting point. Perhaps I've missed it, but what is the thinking behind what he's raising? Again, Mr. Genuis himself admitted that it's interesting. To me, that shows an openness to what Mr. Desjarlais is saying.
If Mr. Desjarlais could expand on the point that he raised earlier, Mr. Chair, that would be very appreciated.