Mr. Speaker, today is a very important day in the House. It happens to be my assistant Gelila's birthday, so I think all members would join me in wishing her a happy birthday.
As we talk about Motion No. 15, which is not legislation, as I will note later, and which deals with environmental issues, I want to comment briefly on the so-called MOU signed between the Government of Alberta and the federal government and what people are increasingly calling Schrödinger's pipeline.
Members will be familiar with the reference to Schrödinger's cat, the thought experiment that if a cat is in a box and subject to certain events or conditions, we can think of the cat as both existing and not existing at the same time. I think this is, in a way, a model for the Prime Minister when it comes to pipeline politics. He wants to deliver Schrödinger's pipeline, a pipeline that does not exist to some voters, maybe in British Columbia, or members of his British Columbia caucus, and that does exist to other voters in other regions.
Notwithstanding the good intentions and the best efforts of the Government of Alberta, we are still very much dealing with Schrödinger's pipeline: that is, with a process that, by design, has built-in veto points. We continue to have a government that is, I think, fundamentally dishonest about these issues, in terms of not offering the clear process that it very much could offer: that is, committing to approve national infrastructure projects that are in the jurisdiction of the national government.
I look forward to a time when we have a Conservative government in office and we are not merely talking about thought experiments for pipelines that might both exist and not exist at the same time, but we can actually have a real pipeline that is helping to deliver the economic development and the job opportunities that our country so desperately needs.
On Motion No. 15, this is a private member's motion put forward by a member of the government. Members know that there is a process here where there is a random draw. That random draw determines which members, and in what order, can put forward private members' bills or motions. That draw is very important for members. All of us work hard to get elected. It is quite a thing, as soon as we get here, to, as a result of random chance, be able to move forward a bill or not.
I have been unlucky for the previous few Parliaments. I have not had a chance to bring forward a bill to debate. I did a little better in this Parliament, so I will have an opportunity soon to table a bill. I will not tell members what it is yet, but I know that the member for Winnipeg North has already committed to voting for it.
Members have a choice of what they can do with their time slot. This member obviously did very well in the random draw. He has an opportunity to put forward a bill or a motion. He put forward a motion regarding the donation of ecological properties. The motion is, I think, in many respects, ambiguous. It does not call on the government to necessarily make specific changes. The nature of a motion does not require those changes. It asks the government to recognize the importance of an existing tax credit, to recognize the importance of granting a tax credit equivalent to monetary donations for the donation of land, and to consider amending the Income Tax Act to ensure tax fairness among different types of conservation donations.
This is fairly vague. It is non-binding, and it does not require the Government of Canada to do anything. Respectfully, I think that if the member has convictions regarding a particular issue, he could have at least put forward a motion that more precisely directs the government to take certain action. He could have put forward a bill that would effect the change he wants to see occur. He has chosen not to do that.
It is sort of curious to me, why these particular choices were made. Why would a member choose to put forward a vague motion? I think maybe it has a political audience. It is designed to signal that there is a certain practice that they consider praiseworthy, so they want to associate themselves with that practice, show general approval for that practice and associate themselves with the good feelings associated with that practice, but it is a missed opportunity, when we could actually change the law. An elected member of Parliament who does well in the draw has the power to actually change the law with what they put forward.
However, to be fair to the hon. member, I suspect that in many cases in the government caucus, the way this happens is that a member comes forward, and I have no proof of this, to cabinet and says, “Here is something I want to do”. Cabinet says, “We do not actually want to do that, but we want to make it look like we are sympathetic to people who think we should do that, so instead of actually making the change you want to make, we think you should just put forward a motion that presents these good feelings.”
Just as I spoke earlier about Schrödinger's pipeline that both exists and does not exist at the same time, Motion No. 15 sort of brings us Schrödinger's Income Tax Act changes; that is, they can be shown to exist in the sense of concern and interest expressed through the motion, but the change has not actually been made. I just note the obvious. If the government actually wanted to do this, it could have done it in the budget.
We just had a budget tabled. If the government was serious about the policy in Motion No. 15, if they actually wanted to do this and if the member had persuaded his own Liberal colleagues and those who sit in cabinet, then the policy of the government would already have been established and we would have seen the measures moving forward. They chose not to do that and to instead use this motion to signal an interest in something without actually doing it.
More fundamentally, the ambiguity around the measure is important to note, because as it stands right now, the ecological gifts program, generally speaking, provides equal treatment of land donations and cash donations. However, there are certain adjustments or modifications that are being made to reflect some of the costs that are associated with an in-kind donation, costs such as appraisal and legal fees. As such, there is an equal treatment subject to certain limitations or modifications that take into consideration the reality of the costs associated with that transaction.
Is the goal of the member to say that a person who donates in kind as opposed to cash should actually get a more generous credit for that donation, or is his goal equalization, with an argument that the current system is in some way not equal? Those actual, specific, important policy questions would not be resolved, because this is not legislation. The hard work of legislating would require answering those questions, but putting forward a motion does not.
Again, with great respect for the member, I do not think this is a problem unique to him or unique to any specific individual in the government. It is a problem across the government, which is a focus not on results but on sending signals. It is the continuation of a Trudeau-esque approach to politics, which is posturing out of concern or affinity for some set of ideas or affiliation with some group that wants some objective, but with no substance and no action in the direction that is described.
I can say that this is demonstrative of a mentality. The member could have put forward a bill, but he chose not to. I will leave it there.