Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, I want to set the record straight for both the members of the NDP and the government side regarding the closure of nine Veterans Affairs offices by the former Conservative government.

While it is true that nine offices were closed, all of the staff in those offices were transferred to Service Canada locations within the same ridings. In fact, because of that, all of the Service Canada outlets were then able to provide services to veterans without those veterans having to go to a regional office.

Here is a concrete example. In Saskatchewan, prior to the change that made veterans services part of the core responsibilities of Service Canada, there were only two regional Veterans Affairs offices, one in Saskatoon and one in Regina. That meant that anyone who wanted to go speak in person to an official in a Veterans Affairs office had to travel to one of those two centres. We are a rule-based economy. We are also a rule-based province. I spoke to several veterans who had to make the trek from Estevan to Regina or Saskatoon, which is sometimes two to two and a half hours to get to an office. When we made the change to incorporate veterans services into Service Canada that meant that in almost every mid-sized town in Saskatchewan, there was a Service Canada official prepared and trained—

Mr. Tom Lukiwski

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I heard, unless my ears are playing tricks on me, you recognize my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. The reason I rose on a point of order is because in the first intervention by my colleague, he said he would be splitting his time with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I was anticipating my colleague who sits directly behind me to stand and start speaking. Once I heard you recognize him, I also noticed that my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable started speaking. That is why I rose on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, you can check the audiotapes. I would not have risen in my place on a point of order, had I not, first, heard my colleague reference the fact that he would be splitting his time, and second, heard that the member was recognized by the Chair. I have been here nearly 15 years. I have been in the position as parliamentary secretary to the government House leader for nine of those years. I am very familiar with procedural matters. In fact, on this very question in procedures and practices, I have seen it employed and I have employed it myself on several occasions in the last 15 years.

In other words, I believe I know what I am doing from a procedural standpoint. I would not have stood in my place and made a point of order had I not heard you recognize my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. The only reason I stood on a point of order is because my other colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable started speaking and I heard him start speaking before my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to please consult with the audiotapes and the visual tapes and I think you will find that those two tapes support my intervention.

Mr. Tom Lukiwski

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you can see, I am positioned very close to both members in question. I distinctly heard the member for Mégantic—L'Érable start speaking before the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. Mr. Speaker, I think you know what happens in a situation like this, so without going into further detail, I would certainly say right now that I move on this point of order, seconded by my colleague, the member for Perth—Wellington that the member for Mégantic—L'Érable be now heard.

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, earlier today during statements by members, the member for Regina—Lewvan stood and was quite clearly displaying a delegate's badge from the most recent Saskatchewan NDP convention.

While I understand that there has traditionally been a prohibition on the use of props in the House, I also understand that on many occasions members, including me, have come in here wearing badges or buttons or ribbons signifying support for a particular charitable organization. I also understand that normally the Speaker rules on such matters, determining whether or not the badge or the prop in question caused disorder in the House.

In this particular case, I did not see any disorder in the House, although I suspect the member might have caused some disorder within the NDP caucus.

My question is whether you, Mr. Speaker, could clarify for all members of the House what you consider, in your opinion, an agreeable or approachable or appropriate badge or prop to be used by members during their statements?

Mr. Tom Lukiwski

The answer is yes, Madam Speaker. I said it in my remarks earlier, and I say it again here. I will be supporting Bill C-82, because I agree with the intent of the bill. However, as I pointed out in my remarks, the government has failed in its ability to follow through on that intent.

I have not seen any meaningful recovery of tax dollars yet by the government. There has been some minor recovery, but certainly not to the extent the government should be attacking the problem.

The problem is that currently between $20 and $60 billion a year is leaving this country through tax avoidance measures by multinational corporations. Think of what that $20 to $60 billion could do for our country. Think of the benefits for our country in terms of health care, as one example.

The government has shown decidedly no desire whatsoever to go after some of these multinational companies that continuously flout the tax system by avoiding taxes. Instead, and I have to point this out, since my hon. colleague raised the question, all the government has done over the past couple of years is try to label small business people as tax cheats. If there are tax cheats out there, they are on the large multinational scale.

The government has done absolutely nothing to try to recover that money but instead tries to turn hard-working, small business people in Canada into tax cheats themselves with its own legislation, and that is shameful.