The member across says that is not true. That could be his opinion. I am looking forward to his speech, which he seems to be wanting to make simultaneously with other hon. members. Perhaps he is in a hurry and cannot wait the extra 10 minutes to speak. Perhaps then he had nothing substantial to say to start with. Either way, we will find out in 10 minutes what the hon. member wants to say.
The point I am making here is that we are trying to amend the tax treaty between two countries. Under the terms of this treaty, gifts by Canadians to American colleges and universities will qualify for charitable donation tax credits, as has been said. However, half of the sentence was not said. That is the fact that gifts made by Americans to Canadian post-secondary education institutions will also qualify as charitable donations for the purpose of computing the donor's U.S. tax liability. In other words, it will permit people to donate money to a university-which we all recognize, I would hope, as being something legitimate and worth doing. It will enable us to continue doing that, and for a Canadian to donate to a U.S. institution should there be such people, and I am sure there are. Given that the U.S. population is at least 10 times the size of ours, I would say there is at least a fair chance that the reverse will also be true.
That was not said by the hon. member for Kamloops. Why? Because the member for Kamloops did not feel it injected part of the partisan debate he was trying to portray in the House. We should remember what the bill does. Perhaps we should go beyond the rhetoric of the hon. member for Kamloops.
I ask the hon. member from the New Democratic Party, who a minute ago could not wait for 10 minutes to make his contribution, to speak to us about that and to admit to this House that in fact Americans will be able to donate to Canadian universities. Inject that into the debate so that all of us can understand. Maybe he can tell us if he is against that, particularly at a time when we are seeking assistance for our post-secondary education institutions.
I believe these tax protocols are for the benefit of residents of both countries. The protocol has to be ratified by both countries before it takes effect. Some people have withholdings right now that have been there for years, and they cannot get their money back because this ratification process is not yet complete.
Let us get on with it and pass this bill. Let these people have their funds and allow for the kind of investment that I brought to the attention of the House a moment ago.
Let us look at other changes that are included in this treaty: bilateral reduction of withholding taxes on dividends, interest, royalties, reflecting the rates now accepted in force between most industrialized countries-is that so terrible; complete withholding tax exemptions for payment for the use of technology-I hope we are not against that; relief for Canadian residents from the application of U.S. estate taxes-that is the issue I raised earlier; and expansion of the exemption from U.S. tax for income earned by RRSPs, RRIFs, and Canadian pension plan-are we against that too? I would hope not. That is in the bill. Should we not be supporting that? I suspect we should.
The bill also provides for authority to impose withholding on CPP and OAS payments made to American residents. Is the NDP against that too? I am still awaiting the speech from the hon. member across the way, the speech he could not wait to give us 10 minutes ago.
In addition, the bill provides for mutual assistance in the collection of taxes owed. Are we not in favour of collecting taxes that have not been paid? That is part of the protocol as well. That is what we are trying to do today. Are the NDP members against that too? Presumably they are, otherwise they would be supporting this bill. I cannot wait to see how they vote on the final outcome. I cannot wait for the third reading debate.
Finally, the bill provides for authority to enter into arbitration to resolve disputes where the two countries' revenue authorities cannot agree. In other words, there is even a mechanism in here for dispute resolution in the whole process. In my book that makes this a good bill, notwithstanding the rhetoric. It makes it a bill that we should be supporting and passing. I cannot wait to see what the NDP will do particularly after the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops.