Derek Lee

[Questions On The Order Paper, March 28th, 2001]

I am informed by the Departments of National Defence and Public Works and Government Services as follows:

(a) According to market surveys conducted prior to the sale of the DND Challengers, the value of aircraft of this type ranged between $3 million U.S. to $8 million U.S. depending upon aircraft condition and interior configuration.

(b) Eight.

(c) The aircraft were sold as a lot. Consequently no prices were assigned to individual aircraft. The total selling price for the lot was $30 million U.S.

(d) Lancaster Aviation Inc. was paid a commission to cover its marketing services. The amount of the commission is not releasable under the Access to Information Act, section 20(1), as the disclosure of this information would compromise the competitive position of the company.

(e) Lancaster Aviation Inc. was compensated for services rendered through the payment of a commission. No expenses were separately chargeable under the terms of the contract.

(f) There is no record of this requirement having been published in Government Business Opportunities , GBO, magazine. However, the requirement was widely advertised by means of a Notice of Proposed Procurement, NPP, for a Letter of Interest which was published on the Open Bidding Service on October 30, 1996, and closed on November 20, 1996. The NPP stated that only firms which responded to the Letter of Interest would be invited to submit a proposal.

On February 19, 1997, a Request for Proposal, RFP was sent to 38 firms which had expressed an interest in the requirement. The RFP closed on April 16, 1997, and six bids were received. On June 27, 1997, a contract was awarded to Lancaster Aviation Inc.

(g) Bids were received from six of the thirty-eight companies that had responded to the Letter of Interest advertised on the Open Bidding Service and had been sent a RFP.

(h) Five out of the six bids received, including the bid from Lancaster Aviation Inc., were found to be compliant with the requirements of the RFP and were awarded full points for the technical component. The selection of Lancaster Aviation Inc. as a contractor was made on the basis of it having offered the lowest price from among these five firms. One of the six bids did not meet the requirements of the RFP and was disqualified.

(i) Lancaster's proposal met the mandatory experience, resource and financial requirements and they submitted the lowest responsive bid.

[Questions On The Order Paper, March 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest will be pleased to know that written Questions Nos. 1 and 2 will be answered today. .[Text]

Question No. 1—

[Government Response To Petitions, March 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.

[Questions On The Order Paper, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Government Response To Petitions, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to one petition.

[Questions On The Order Paper, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask that all questions be allowed to stand, I will indicate for the benefit of the member for New Brunswick Southwest that answers to Questions Nos. 1 and 2 are imminent.

I anticipate that those questions could be raised and introduced in the House tomorrow. I therefore ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Committees Of The House, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding its order of reference of Tuesday, February 27, 2001 in relation to Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

The committee has considered Bill C-9 and reports the bill without amendment.

[Privilege, March 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, none of us here have any doubt that the member's questions are important and that they raise important issues. I indicated to him last week and in fact shared a draft answer to one of the questions. I indicated it was my intention and the government's intention to improve on the answer in the draft. He seemed to have acquiesced.

I point out procedurally, and for the benefit of the hon. member if he is interested, that in the event a question of that nature is not answered within 45 days he is at liberty, and this is what procedure requires, to ask that it be transferred for debate. If he wishes to have it transferred for debate, that is his remedy and members of the House will acquiesce in that.

However he does not appear to want to transfer the question for debate. He appears to want an answer. I have indicated to the House that I am working with the hon. member to get an answer, and he has acknowledged that. It does not seem to be that pressing that we should have to take up more House time trying to convince the hon. member that his answers will be good answers on these important issues and that they will be forthcoming shortly.

[Questions On The Order Paper, March 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this is a routine proceeding. I think you have been overly generous with the hon. member. He has made his point. He is waiting for answers to his written questions and I have indicated that those answers will be forthcoming.

The hon. member suggests that there has been a year of a collection of time here. I just want to point out to the House that this parliament has been in existence for only a couple of months. This is a new parliament. The member may wish to look back into a previous parliament and at another procedure, but what we are dealing with here is a relatively new parliament. In good faith, I have indicated to the member that his answers will be coming in due course in the appropriate procedure.

[Questions On The Order Paper, March 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members will agree that we consider written questions very important. The member opposite's characterizations of what has gone on here are perhaps a little inaccurate, and I think he is being overly dramatic.

In any event, the procedure followed here is not materially different from the procedure ordinarily followed for written questions. I explained yesterday and on previous occasions that we are working to develop the answers that would be most suited to the hon. member. That customization and extra effort, which I have asked the government to put forward, will probably serve the member and all the members in the House if he could just allow the customary few days.