Thank you, Madam Fraser.
Lieutenant-General Deschamps, you said earlier that the Chinooks required some modifications or add-ons. In fact, you said that it was less expensive to add that equipment right at the start rather than retrofitting. There is an enormous contradiction between what the Auditor General found and what the departments have stated. If those helicopters were ready to be built and met the needs, how come the needs today are no longer the same? As you said, it is cheaper to add the platforms up front. And so we are no longer talking about the same thing.
As I have already said, someone is responsible. I do not know whether one of the witnesses here is able to tell us who that person is. They will all say they are not the ones responsible. We are still talking about a helicopter that is ready to be built, available, in production and certified. Mr. Ross said earlier that there was an endless number of certifications required. And yet, it was stated that the helicopter was certified.
It is as if there was an attempt to confuse us. Can someone here this morning tell us who is responsible for this bureaucratic mishmash? If none of you can, could you tell us who should be called before this committee in order to explain what this is all about? Earlier, someone said that this was not a certified helicopter, but then the Auditor General said that she agreed with what I had stated, i.e., that it was certified. Who is responsible? Give us their names so that they can provide the committee with a clear explanation as to why it was considered to be a good helicopter at the time, when it is not yet in production today. The technology does not exist and platforms have to be added, among other things.