Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the erroneous statements made by the hon. member tonight.
The government has had a competitive arrangement in place with Lancaster Aviation since 1997 for the disposal of surplus aerospace assets, not just spare parts as the hon. member has said.
The solicitation process was a rigorous one. It made sure that the successful bidder met three criteria: first, that it had the knowledge to sell such assets; second, that it could market the assets worldwide; and, third, that it could achieve the best return for taxpayers.
The contract was competed for in June 2000 and Lancaster Aviation was the successful bidder. How could the hon. member refer to it as an escape clause to help friends when it is the same company that won the competition?
Allegations that the contractor disposed of Twin Huey helicopters and the Challenger aircraft were sole sourced are false. It was a competitive process. The 1997 RFP contemplated special projects such as the sale of the planes. When such a need arises the process calls for an amendment to the contract to legally bind the parties. That is what we did with the sale of the Twin Huey helicopters and the Challenger aircraft.
I want to assure the House that the sale of the surplus aircraft was conducted to the letter of the law and in the interest of the Canadian taxpayers. Lancaster was paid a fair commission, as per the terms of its contract. It had an incentive to sell the aircraft at the highest possible selling price.
Lancaster Aviation has warehoused these assets in Florida and that is true. They are not owned by a convicted felon. They are owned by Air Spares Inc., a company in Florida. The member should know that the assets are in Florida because that is where the market is. Lancaster Aviation is using a facility in Florida strictly for warehouse purposes. It remains solely responsible for the marketing and sale of those assets.
The assets are not in danger. They are the property of DND. They are only in the custody of that contractor. No parties other than the crown have any right to those assets.
With those facts, clearly the member has presented to the House a set of erroneous statements and facts, which he should know better.