Those are major questions that you're asking, sir.
One is concerning the ITAR and how we would handle employees who don't meet the requirements that need to be met in order for them to have access to the technical data being provided to us so that we can do our work. As you know, we cannot discriminate against employees in Canada. It's against the Constitution. On the other hand, if we try to protect the contracts, we are fined heavily or end up in litigation disputes with the employees, through the various recourses that they will have against the company.
It's a very difficult situation, and I only hope the government can be successful in going down the road along security clearances and areas like that, so that we can manage our businesses economically without having to discriminate against employees. But if we have to make a choice, I'm afraid we'll have to reject the contracts.
The second point is on technical data. We've always bought technical data—intellectual property, as you call it—sufficient for the successful contractor, since it's usually put out to competition among Canadian companies by the Canadian government. The successful contractor has a licence to use that technical data to maintain the aircraft.
Only in one instance in the last forty years have we not done so. That was for the search and rescue helicopters. They decided to buy the technical data incrementally instead of paying for it up front with the aircraft. There have been tremendous costs, delays, and difficulties for the ISS contractor managing that fleet without the full set of intellectual property. I think that has been a lesson to everyone, as an example.
They can buy the equipment and buy the sufficient technical data with it in order to maintain it. Then there's no reason why they can't continue to hold a competition in Canada, by the Government of Canada, with Canadian companies, to maintain it and have maximum control over those assets.
In any event, the Government of Canada may want the military to do something with that equipment, under our own foreign policy, that may be contrary to that of the country or countries we bought the equipment from—in this case, the Americans. On two occasions now, we've modified Sea King helicopters for the use of the army. One was for the Red Sea affair, and there was one recently for troop carriers. We could not have done that had we not had the technical data. If we had tried to get permission through perhaps a foreign government like that of the U.S., they might not have wanted us to do that. We would have then been restricted in our own security and sovereignty, in terms of decisions you people are tasked to make on behalf of the people of Canada.