Thank you, Madam Chair.
First, yesterday in the House, we saw the government party's use of its newly acquired majority. It was a denial of democracy to impose in this manner a topic that could have been explored through constructive discussions. This government has boasted of wanting to work constructively and collaboratively with the opposition parties. However, yesterday, we saw the opposite.
Today, our committee has new members as a result of yesterday's vote in the House. The Liberals' first move when we table a motion is to adjourn the debate. Adjourning the debate is also a denial of democracy. It prevents parliamentarians from debating a topic that, in my opinion, is in no way divisive. It falls completely in line with the committee's work. I'm referring to the previous motion tabled by Mrs. Thomas. It would have been perfectly reasonable to discuss this matter. Mrs. Thomas would have had time to explain that we weren't in a hurry and that her motion could have been studied in the fall, for example. There wasn't any time frame set out in the motion. Yet the Liberals' first response was to adjourn the debate on the motion.
If this is what the future holds with the committee's new composition, I'm extremely disappointed. I've been on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for seven years. It has been extremely tense. Mrs. Thomas can attest to this. We've been on opposite sides of many issues. However, for quite some time now, we've been working well together. This is helping to move things forward. When it comes to media and culture, we often have extremely different opinions. Yet we always find a way to hear from people who want to share their views with the committee.
It saddens me greatly now to see that the Liberals plan to take this path. They want to control the narrative, control the debate and control the topics. If this is where we're headed, the opposition members won't be alone in their disappointment. The sectors that we advocate for and represent will also be disappointed. We're already starting to hear this. I'm already having conversations with people who wonder whether things will be like this all the time. They aren't necessarily satisfied with all the government's efforts. They want the opposition parties to have their voices heard.
Colleagues, I think that it's fine for you to enjoy your new monarchy in parliamentary committees. However, remember that we serve the public. The conversations proposed by the opposition parties often come from a place of goodwill and relevance. I would hate to see the tone change here.
With regard to the first motion, I completely agreed with Mrs. Thomas.
The motion before us is indeed related to today's topic. The high‑speed rail project will affect the cultural sectors of the regions concerned. I think that it's entirely appropriate to discuss this motion and to consider carrying out a study on the matter. Not only is it timely and relevant, but some people in these sectors are extremely concerned. I'm talking in particular about cultural sector workers, arts presenters and cultural venue owners. They feel threatened. They want us to hear their voices and listen to their concerns.
I would like to ask my colleague, Mr. Myles, to reconsider this strategy of adjourning the debate on motions tabled by the opposition. He should consider the fact that the committee could carry out this study a bit later in the fall, for example, or as soon as we have the opportunity.
I needed to put this on the table and point out that we're used to working together, especially in this committee.
Thank you.