Thank you.
It's still very difficult for me to unpack the delays from the actual costing of the overall program, so I'll reference paragraph 2.41, which states, “All risks were part of the defined risk management process, and the team analyzed some risks in detail, using third-party experts. However, the team did not analyze some risks that had an impact on shipbuilding timeliness.”
We've now heard Mr. Matthews reference some of the early estimates as perhaps being ambitious, being fraught with some deficiencies that we're now seeing play out in this study. Section 2.42 states:
For example, one risk was not having enough staff within departments to implement the strategy in a timely manner. The team did not document whether this risk was affecting the pace of implementing the strategy. Other risks were not having enough workers [in] each shipyard, which could affect timely delivery of vessels. Again, the team did not document how these risks were affecting timely shipbuilding.
The report goes on to say that they noted instances such as staff shortages that caused shipbuilding delays.
My question, through you to Mr. Matthews, is this: How can you commit to a multi-billion dollar shipbuilding strategy without knowing if you have enough capacity at either the departmental level or at the shipyard level?