Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be here at this hour of the morning. We all know how important our cultural heritage is to me.
The government is actively engaged in the preservation of Canada's tangible and intangible cultural heritage in a way that delivers real and measurable results for taxpayers.
“Tangible heritage” refers to things like objects and buildings. What is covered by the term “intangible heritage” is much wider and much less well defined. It can include anything from languages and traditional craftsmanship to performing arts, social practices, rituals and festive events.
Our government directly supports both tangible and intangible heritage through our federal cultural institutions and agencies, such as the national museums and Parks Canada.
The government also supports the efforts of Canada's heritage community to preserve and present our heritage, both tangible and intangible. One example of support for the preservation of intangible heritage is funding we provide for aboriginal languages and for arts and heritage festivals.
Efforts to preserve and celebrate Canada's intangible cultural heritage are under way and growing from coast to coast to coast.
Our government will continue to safeguard our cultural heritage through initiatives that are working, while ensuring that taxpayer dollars are used in a responsible manner.
Instead of support measures that are delivering tangible results, the member opposite seems to be suggesting that we fund new and unnecessary infrastructure, as well as costly inventory-related tasks that will do nothing to preserve and promote Canada's rich cultural history.
Canada is a member of some but not all of the conventions that exist on various topics, including those related to heritage. Our government carefully analyzes each of them to determine whether they are the right fit for Canada and whether they will realize real benefits for Canadians that justify the cost of their implementation.
In the case of the 2003 UNESCO convention, Canada's position from the beginning was that approaches such as binding conventions that worked well for other types of heritage might not be as appropriate for intangible cultural heritage, which naturally evolves and changes over time.
Canada advocated for an approach that promoted best practices and enabling mechanisms for communities, tradition bearers and practitioners, rather than a binding convention. In the end, the convention that was adopted provided little flexibility for Canada to determine the approach best suited for our context.
Our government will continue to support a made-in-Canada approach that works best for us and our heritage. I can tell members that we have no plans to sign the 2003 UNESCO convention on intangible cultural heritage. This position has been well-known, and it has been clear since 2003.