Monday, January 05, 2009

Cyclones: You can't point the finger at the Liberals forever, damn it!

Further to this outraged post of mine, an excellent post by David Pugliese of the Ottawa Citizen [links added]:
Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Public Works Minister Christian Paradis are still withholding details about the amendments to the Cyclone helicopter contract and what exactly taxpayers will get for the $117 million extra that is going to be paid to Sikorsky.

But the two have a letter in today’s Citizen responding to my article Dec. 29 about the lack of information on the deal and the fact the Harper government decided not to fine helicopter manufacturer Sikorsky $36 million for late penalties. Under the contract the government would have been well within its right to levy that fine.

Don’t think, however, you’re going to get more details about the deal from the letter written by Mr. MacKay and Mr. Paradis (well actually, it was probably a combined effort of the offices of these two gentlemen plus the staff of PCO and the Prime Minister’s Office). The letter is mostly about blaming the Liberals for the 1993 cancellation of the EH-101 helicopter deal. It also repeats almost word for word some of the same lines from the government’s press release from the night of Dec. 23 announcing that the first Cyclone will now be delivered in late 2010, two years after the delivery date stated in the original contract.

At the time I asked Mr. MacKay’s office for details on why there was no $36 million fine for such a two year delay and exactly what the amendment to the Sikorsky contact would provide.

I was told by his communications director Dan Dugas that DND would not be answering those questions. And Mr. MacKay’s letter (reprinted below) still doesn’t answer some key questions:

-- It doesn’t answer why Mr. MacKay and Mr. Paradis decided to waive the $36 million fine that could have been levied against Sikorsky.

-- It doesn’t answer what taxpayers are getting for the $117 million extra they will be paying to Sikorsky.

Here is what the ministers write: “We have introduced a number of improvements including changes in the design solution for the communications system as well as growth potential for the engine, which adds flexibility to address new requirements during the life of the helicopter. When combined with technological improvements, available in the next few years, capabilities could be enhanced to carry another 300 kilos of payload.”

Okay….what design solution? What growth potential? Will new engines be installed or not? What technological improvements are coming in the “next few years” that make it necessary to spend another $117 million? Notice that the ministers’ letter says “capabilities could be enhanced.” It doesn’t state that capabilities WILL be enhanced.

-- This letter also doesn’t answer why Mr. MacKay and Mr. Paradis announced the new deal with Sikorsky on the night of Dec. 23 when the deal was reached much earlier in the month. Sources say it was to ensure that there was no negative news coverage of the fact that the Harper government decided that Sikorsky didn’t have to pay the $36 million fine.

-- The letter doesn’t answer why Mr. MacKay claimed in January, 2008 that the delay in the Cyclone delivery would only be nine months to a year, when in reality the delay is at least two years (if not more).

--It doesn’t answer why Mr. MacKay claimed that Sikorsky faced large financial penalties for late delivery ………..and then decided to waive those fines.

I don’t have the answers to these questions (obviously). Mr. MacKay’s office and DND are not speaking about the Cyclone deal…..the letter to the editor is the explaination. Mr. Paradis did not comment but his department answered with a brief email which didn’t answer any of these questions or provide other details about what the amendment to the contract would entail.

There’s been a lot of secrecy regarding this deal; however the emails have been flowing to me regarding major problems in the Maritime Helicopter Project office. We’ll see where those take us.

BELOW IS THE LETTER FROM MR. MACKAY AND MR. PARADIS:

Re: Conservatives won't collect $36M late fine for helicopter supplier, Dec. 29.

After years of neglect, Canadians finally have a government willing to do what is necessary to provide the men and women of the Canadian Forces with the tools they need to protect us at home and abroad. Past governments watched our maritime helicopter fleet deteriorate with no clear plan for its replacement.

The previous Liberal Government moved backwards by cancelling an important contract which left us with no helicopters, cost Canadians $478 million, and delayed the much-needed replacement of 1960s vintage Sea King helicopters by over a decade.

This government is moving forward and replacing the aging Sea Kings with 28 new, state-of-the-art, enhanced capability cyclone helicopters. We have amended the contract to ensure that, once and for all, we can settle this problem that was allowed to linger by former governments.

This decision ensures that we will not only provide significant long-term savings for Canadians but also new, leading-edge helicopters for the Canadian Forces. We have introduced a number of improvements including changes in the design solution for the communications system as well as growth potential for the engine, which adds flexibility to address new requirements during the life of the helicopter.

When combined with technological improvements, available in the next few years, capabilities could be enhanced to carry another 300 kilos of payload.

Be it perilous maritime rescues at home or the safe evacuation of people in need abroad, this government is making sure our forces have the tools they need to get the job done.

Christian Paradis, Ottawa Minister of Public Works and Government Services Peter Gordon Mackay, Ottawa Minster of National Defence
More from Defense Industry Daily:
Canada’s Maritime Helicopter Replacement Program has been a textbook military procurement program over its long history. Unfortunately, it has been a textbook example of what not to do...
Er, quite.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home