Ottawa Signed the Destroyer Contract at $8.01B. By March 2026 It Was $10.75B, and the Disclosure Gives No Reason.

An MP put a written question to the government, Q-417, on what National Defence has paid on these ships. The answer, tabled on 21 November 2025: “The financial details requested constitute commercially sensitive third-party information and therefore are not publicly releasable.”

The same answer reports $5.37B spent on the project from 2017-18 to 2025-26, and lists every expense over a million dollars by vendor. The lines naming Irving Shipbuilding add to $3.81B. That sum is a floor, because smaller lines are left out, and it is a sum of expenses, which the answer does not show to be payments to Irving. The payments themselves are what Defence withheld.

The stop-work orders on design went the same way. The answer confirms them and withholds their details, their delays and any replacement contracts as commercially sensitive.

From 17 December 2024 to 3 March 2025, Irving Shipbuilding filed 9 reports of meetings with ministers and ministers’ chiefs of staff. Each gives the same subject: “Input into the Federal Government's National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy as it relates to Irving Shipbuilding being selected on October 19, 2011 to build the Combat Vessel work package.”

So Irving registered meetings on the Combat Vessel work package, before the contract, with these offices, as filed: the procurement minister’s chief of staff, the Defence minister’s chief of staff, the associate Defence minister’s chief of staff, and the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It met the procurement minister’s chief of staff on 3 March 2025, the day the contract was signed, and again on 7 March, the day before it was announced. On 25 March 2025 it met the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney, on the same subject. These filings, registered with the Commissioner of Lobbying, record who met and what about. They do not record what was said.

Dominic LeBlanc was Finance Minister on the contract date. A compliance measure disclosed in the Ethics Commissioner’s registry on 10 February 2025 sets out his screen for matters touching James D. Irving, whom the card calls “my friend”, president and chief executive officer of J.D. Irving, Limited, covering that company’s subsidiaries, affiliates and divisions. J.D. Irving, Limited lists Irving Shipbuilding among its business divisions. The card says: “I also agree not to have any communication with government officials in relation to any matter or decision-making processes which I or my administrator know or reasonably should know to affect Mr. Irving’s interests.” It adds: “Moreover, all powers, duties and functions on matters that form part of this screen will be exercised by the Prime Minister as it relates to funding decisions and the President of the Treasury Board of Canada for all other matters.” Irving Shipbuilding’s filings from 17 December 2024 to 25 March 2025 record no meeting with Finance. The record shows the screen and the dates. It does not show he took any part.

The lobbying did not stop at the contract. From June 2025 to June 2026 Irving Shipbuilding filed 97 reports, 20 of them in March 2026. From June 2025 its consultant’s registration has listed, as a grant or contribution sought: “Funding to prepare the facility for construction of the future River Class Destroyer fleet and to support the ongoing maintenance of vessels.”

From 15 January 2026, filings give that yard funding as a subject: with the procurement department’s deputy minister on 15 January; with Stephen Fuhr, Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, on 5 February; with Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne on 10 March, where it is the only subject; and with deputy ministers of the procurement, Defence, Finance, Transport and Housing departments on 31 March. Other meetings that quarter are listed here by date and office as filed: on 9 March, Fuhr again, the Navy’s commander, the President of the Treasury Board, the Clerk of the Privy Council and Industry Minister Mélanie Joly; on 10 March, the procurement minister, Joël Lightbound.

Separately, the build contract’s amendment was reported for the same quarter. No filing or disclosure connects the two. The filings record the subject and who was there, not what was said, and none says what the amendment bought.

Their side first. The officials who sought a guarantee for the shipyards after the 2011 competition called it, as the Auditor General reports, “a prudent risk mitigation measure and fair and equitable to all parties, as all three shipyards had bid $0 cost to Canada.” The auditor’s own view: “When considered on their own, given the uniqueness of the NSPS procurement process, the backstop provisions can be viewed as a reasonable way to increase certainty.” Public Services and Procurement Canada’s case for the later money is that “The infrastructure enhancements were identified during the design phase,” and that it was “provided to Irving Shipbuilding to ensure that they have the capability to construct the Canadian Surface Combatant design.” In its words, “This investment will enhance the efficiency of ship construction while improving project costs.”

The record, in order. The 2011 request for proposals scored the yard’s cost to Canada: “By bidding $0 for the cost to Canada, a bidder would receive the full 20 points.” “The three companies that bid on the project did submit bids that included a $0 net cost to Canada for their infrastructure upgrades, electing to fund these upgrades from their own resources and expected profits from future contracts.” Irving’s bid, like the others, put the net cost to Canada at $0. “The bidders chose to assume the financial risk of any needed upgrades.”

After Irving was selected in October 2011, it asked for a backstop. In February 2012 the signed umbrella agreement included one, about $300M for Irving, an amount that shrinks as work is awarded: “the amount payable by Canada is reduced by the value of the contracts awarded to the shipyards to design and build ships.” “Canada was under no obligation to agree to such a provision,” the auditor wrote in 2013, though “according to officials it provided a benefit to Canada, because shipyards would upgrade their facilities to achieve target state earlier than required in the RFP.” And: “Irving Shipbuilding has confirmed that it will not in the future request any further increases to the backstop.”