Billions for Canadian Warships, Billions for a Politically Connected Family Empire
(Image: navylookout.com)
The federal government awarded an $8 billion contract to Irving Shipbuilding for three new River-class destroyers, a project expected to cost at least $22 billion by the time the ships are operational. The announcement on March 8—a weekend when Parliament was not in session—coincided with the Liberal leadership race, raising concerns about transparency and timing.
The deal has also drawn attention for reasons beyond its cost and timing, with questions emerging about the conditions for the very workers expected to build these warships.
The contract, part of the National Shipbuilding Strategy, is being presented by the government as a significant investment in Canada’s defence capabilities and domestic shipbuilding industry. Defence Minister Bill Blair described it as the “largest and most complex shipbuilding effort undertaken in Canada since the Second World War,” with the promise of creating more than 5,000 jobs. However, questions have been raised about the cost, necessity, and broader implications of the deal.
A Questionable Price Tag
According to government estimates, the initial $8 billion contract will cover the first six years of construction, but the full cost to complete and outfit the three destroyers is projected at $22.2 billion.
Scott Taylor, a former infantryman in the Canadian military and military analyst, described the contract as “obscenely excessive.”
And it seems particularly extravagant when compared to similar projects abroad. For example, the United Kingdom recently built two 80,000-tonne aircraft carriers for approximately $6 billion per vessel. In contrast, Canada’s warships, significantly smaller in size, are expected to cost over $7 billion each. While the government has not provided Coastal Front a detailed breakdown explaining this price difference, procurement experts argue that limited competition and the structure of Canada’s defence contracting process contribute to higher costs.
Other allied nations like the US and Australia are more transparent about warship construction costs, with publicly accessible data.
Lobbying and Corporate Influence
The Irving family, one of Canada’s wealthiest and most politically influential corporate dynasties, has long been a dominant player in Canadian shipbuilding contracts. In the past year alone, Irving Shipbuilding executives and lobbyists met with federal officials 76 times—more than once a week on average.
While the government maintains that the contract is in Canada’s best interest, it is worth noting that Canada has a history of sole-source contracting that limits oversight and competition in major procurement deals.
Concerns over Irving Shipbuilding’s relationship with the federal government intensified in 2019 when veteran defence journalist David Pugliese experienced an alarming breach of press confidentiality. After submitting questions to the Department of National Defence and Public Services and Procurement Canada about potential welding issues on navy ships, he received an unexpected call—not from government officials, but from Irving Shipbuilding’s president. Shortly afterward, the company sent him a legal threat. It was later revealed that government officials had forwarded Pugliese’s identity and inquiry to Irving, raising serious concerns about privacy and the level of coordination between the government and private entities.
Public Interest vs. Corporate Gain
The government says that the warship contract will strengthen the economy and create jobs, but some have questioned whether the money could be better allocated elsewhere. With ongoing crises in healthcare, infrastructure, and housing, critics argue that Canada’s spending priorities should be more focused on immediate social challenges.
There is no public record of significant consultation or debate before the contract was awarded, which is common for large “defence” procurements. Still, the size of this investment and its long-term financial impact have led to calls for greater accountability and transparency—calls that, so far, have fallen on deaf ears.
(Image: Irving Shipbuilding)
Labour and Environmental Concerns
Irving Shipbuilding’s workplace safety record has also come under scrutiny. The company has faced multiple serious workplace incidents, including two fatalities in the past decade. Labour advocates argue that while the contract may create jobs, greater attention should be paid to worker protections and safety regulations in shipyard operations.
Moreover, the warships will use a Combined Diesel-Electric or Gas propulsion system, relying on both diesel and gas turbines. This highlights yet another inconsistency in the government’s climate commitments, as it claims to pursue net-zero emissions targets while continuing to invest in fossil fuel-powered military vessels—assets that are not subject to global climate agreements. If deployed in Arctic waters, these destroyers could pose additional ecological risks, including increased fuel consumption and sonar emissions that may disrupt marine life.
This is not to suggest that Canada should abandon diesel-powered ships, but rather to point out the gap between the federal Liberal Party’s rhetoric on limiting fossil fuel use and pollution, and its continued investments in those same industries when politically convenient.
The federal government’s decision to award a multi-billion-dollar contract for new warships has reignited concerns about cost, transparency, and national priorities. While framed as an investment in Canadian industry and defence, the contract disproportionately benefits Irving Shipbuilding and the billionaire family behind it—one with deep political connections, a long history of securing lucrative government deals, and a troubling worker safety record, including deaths and serious injuries. Despite the staggering price tag shouldered by taxpayers, there was no meaningful public consultation, and the process was shaped by extensive lobbying rather than open debate.
While investing in national defence is necessary, the way this contract was secured reflects a pattern in which corporate interests continue to take priority over public needs—assuming, of course, that “defence” is truly the right word for how these ships will be used.
The government says the destroyers will support a “broad range of missions,” including operations overseas with Five Eyes allies and NATO.
