Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank my colleague Mr. Drouin. He has given me the opportunity to clarify that the marine strategy is evolving.
When we realized that there was a problem with the timelines for the ships, we decided to increase production capacity, including a third shipyard, in order to meet the needs of National Defence, in this case. Urgent action is needed with respect to these two supply ships since we know that one of them was damaged by fire and the other one has a split hull.
Our fleet is an worrisome state. I invite you, dear members of the government, to act responsibly and to take the necessary steps to use the Canadian Coast Guard and the Royal Canadian Navy to protect our sovereignty in the Arctic.
So the marine strategy is evolving. That is exactly what we are hearing this afternoon. But the initial rules of the game still have to be followed. I would argue that your horizontal engineering plan and the management of the program created a bias in the strategy. So you weren't comparing apples with apples and the shipyards were not on an equal footing when the contract was awarded.
I would like to go back to the timeframes. Ms. Campbell, I would like to focus on non-combat vessels. I have here an impressive list of ships. It mentions the construction of three offshore fisheries science vessels. Can you tell me what progress has been made on the offshore fisheries science vessels?
In our jargon they are the OFSVs, if I'm correct.