Sir, I do not believe any mistakes were made in the planning of cost related to the mission. With regard to the exact details, I will try to obtain those facts. There are people taking notes behind me and they will make sure that I give you the most up to date information.
With regard to supplemental costs involved in sending additional types of equipment overseas, you mentioned tanks.
When I went to Afghanistan in 2003, there were threats of terrorists and insurgents, but the principal threat was warlords. The main intent was to ensure that President Karzai's government had a chance to carry on. The heavier equipment was not deployed.
Our soldiers deserve all the protection we can possibly give them. As the enemy changes tactics and procedures, we respond, just as they do. They are a thinking enemy. Some of them are extraordinarily courageous and willing to die for what they believe in. So are we. As they change, we respond with additional equipments or soldiers with different skill sets.
For example, on the decision to send tanks, yes, that's expensive; on the other hand, Canadian soldiers deserve that level of protection. It's the single heaviest and most protective vehicle we have. It has a better chance of surviving that awful moment when mines, improvised explosive devices, or rockets come their way.