What would have been wrong with the Blackhawk for SAR and MHP? The US military uses Blackhawk variants for SAR in the Coast Guard (Jayhawk), Combat SAR in the Air Force (Pavehawk), ship-board anti-submarine and combat support helicopters in the Navy (Seahawk & Knighthawk), medium combat support and attack helicopters in the Army (Blackhawk & Battlehawk) and by the Marines as Marine-1 VIP. Did we really need the SuperHawk for the MHP? Why woundn't the Seahawk/Knighthawk variant have done. Either way, why wouldn't the CF have purchased the same helicopter for SAR and MHP? Wouldn't this have been cheaper to purchase, operate and maintain? The Canadian Navy is often integrated into US Navy Carrier Battlegroups. Would it not have made sense to use the same ship-board helicopter as the US Navy. Even though the SuperHawk/Cyclone has something like 80% commonality with the Seahawk/Knighthawk versions. The CF might have someday been able to replace the useless Griffons with Blackhawks. This would mean a single airframe for the entire CF.
The Griffon replacements are a dream I realize. But why wouldn't the CF have purchased one helicopter for SAR and MHP, whether that was the EH-101, the SuperHawk, the Blackhawk, or the NH-9 it doesn't matter. One bird for two missions had to have been the cheaper option. And all choices are quite capable of both missions.