Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do want to get to the Chinook acquisition, but before I do I want to make a general statement, similar to Mr. Kramp's, that the Canadian Forces obviously deserve to have the equipment they need to do the job. The experience, actually, we've seen in Afghanistan is that they get it. When they needed Chinooks because we needed medium- to heavy-lift helicopters, we got them. And they used them. We needed the LAV IVs, and we got them. There were some issues and problems, but we got them. They were put in use and they were made available. When we needed the Mi-17s, even though nobody knew about it, we got them.
I don't think there's an issue, from the Canadian public's point of view, of being concerned about our forces being able to get the equipment they need, particularly in a war zone such as Afghanistan. We're talking here about procurement processes, something the Canadian public has a particular interest in because they're paying the bills. We have a right to criticize it, and that criticism deserves to be considered on its merits. This is no reflection on anybody's job, particularly those who are here in uniform or who are fighting in uniform, but Canadians who are paying the bills deserve to know.
When we look at the Chinooks, then, let me ask this question. I'm not going to get into a factual debate—you folks apparently have accepted all the facts that Ms. Fraser has laid on the line—but it seems clear from Ms. Fraser's report that a decision was made sometime in 2005 on the acquisition of the Chinooks. It was “...concluded very early in this acquisition process that the Chinook helicopter was the only one capable of meeting its needs”. That's in paragraph 6.78. In “...the fall of 2005, National Defence was considering a sole-source procurement with Boeing”. By June 2006, there was a formal conclusion that Boeing was the only project that complied.
We're dealing with a helicopter that seems to cost—and I'm looking at the per item cost, not the other matters that are added in terms of project management...modifications are probably included, but there's a lot of other costs—about $83 million each to buy. We do know from recent information stories that, for example, the Russian helicopter, the Mi-17, which is a little less capable—it can't lift as much, it's a little bit smaller, and you can probably buy four for the cost of one Chinook—has a figure of $17 million.
Mr. Ross is shrugging here. I'm basing it on information from the U.S. government--some figures as low as $10 million. The Americans are buying them. We've obviously leased them. The American congressmen don't like the idea of buying Russian aircraft because of Buy American policies, etc.
Was there any serious consideration given to options other than Chinook? I'm not saying the Chinook is a bad plane. I was on them in Afghanistan, as I'm sure some of you have been, and they're very capable aircraft. But, for example, the Mi-17s are already capable of flying in ice conditions, which we had to modify the Chinooks to get for their long-term projects. Why weren't other options considered that might be cheaper but could do the job required?
I mean, let me guess, someone decided they liked the Chinook and the specifications may have been aimed towards that aircraft so we could actually acquire it. That's a criticism that's been made by others, not me, but it seems to me that the onus is on you folks to say that ain't so and to tell us why.