Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member was taking advantage of my good nature a little bit, but that is okay.
I will acknowledge that there are a couple of paragraphs on pages 18 and 19 that do explain fairly specifically that the export review board has to judge an object to be of outstanding significance and national importance because of its close association with Canadian history or national life, aesthetic qualities and value in the study of the arts or sciences in order to be eligible to be designated for a tax deduction. The fact is that $60 million worth of those are designated every year. That is a tremendous amount of money, as the hon. parliamentary secretary would know.
The parliamentary secretary was asking me about Mr. McAvity and the museum association and was pointing out that the museums like the legislation. Of course they do. They have unfettered access to all kinds of things with no budget. They do not have a budget. The museums can basically say: "We would like that work of art or that artefact. We will take it to the review board and get it to tell us what it is worth and whether it is significant. When the board does that, then we get it". It is that easy.
The only one who pays is the taxpayer. It is certainly good for the artist or the person who is donating it because he or she gets that big tax credit. It is certainly good for the museums. Why would they have any problem with this? They probably love this stuff. It is profoundly not good for taxpayers who have to take it in the pocket every time one of these donations is made.