Since we are talking about an airframe (CH-149) that's already in service, it seems the Canadians did make at least ONE correct choice, the fact that they've quickly squandered that good sense by outsourcing maintenance to a third party offsets those gains.
TC, let's stay focused on the fact that your pet aircraft has been offered by Sikorsky as an "easily adaptable" off-the-shelf platform and see where the costs and target in service times have ended up, while the 101 would have been a mature DEDICATED airframe in 2004 at a known cost and fairly reliable delivery and IOC dates.
Just to stay on course, what is the projected maintenance/flight hours for the Cyclones? Anyone?