Skip to main content
The Globe and Mail
Support Quality Journalism.
The Globe and Mail
First Access to Latest
Investment News
Collection of curated
e-books and guides
Inform your decisions via
Globe Investor Tools
Just$1.99
per week
for first 24 weeks

Enjoy unlimited digital access
Cancel Anytime
Enjoy Unlimited Digital Access
Get full access to globeandmail.com
Just $1.99per week for the first 24weeks
Just $1.99per week for the first 24weeks
var select={root:".js-sub-pencil",control:".js-sub-pencil-control",open:"o-sub-pencil--open",closed:"o-sub-pencil--closed"},dom={},allowExpand=!0;function pencilInit(o){var e=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1];select.root=o,dom.root=document.querySelector(select.root),dom.root&&(dom.control=document.querySelector(select.control),dom.control.addEventListener("click",onToggleClicked),setPanelState(e),window.addEventListener("scroll",onWindowScroll),dom.root.removeAttribute("hidden"))}function isPanelOpen(){return dom.root.classList.contains(select.open)}function setPanelState(o){dom.root.classList[o?"add":"remove"](select.open),dom.root.classList[o?"remove":"add"](select.closed),dom.control.setAttribute("aria-expanded",o)}function onToggleClicked(){var l=!isPanelOpen();setPanelState(l)}function onWindowScroll(){window.requestAnimationFrame(function() {var l=isPanelOpen(),n=0===(document.body.scrollTop||document.documentElement.scrollTop);n||l||!allowExpand?n&&l&&(allowExpand=!0,setPanelState(!1)):(allowExpand=!1,setPanelState(!0))});}pencilInit(".js-sub-pencil",!1); // via darwin-bg var slideIndex = 0; carousel(); function carousel() { var i; var x = document.getElementsByClassName("subs_valueprop"); for (i = 0; i < x.length; i++) { x[i].style.display = "none"; } slideIndex++; if (slideIndex> x.length) { slideIndex = 1; } x[slideIndex - 1].style.display = "block"; setTimeout(carousel, 2500); } //

Parliamentary budget officer Yves Giroux on Parliament Hill, in Ottawa, on March 10, 2020.

Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press

Parliament’s budget watchdog is predicting another multibillion-dollar increase in the cost of a new fleet of warships for the Royal Canadian Navy, pegging the price for what was already the largest military procurement in Canada’s history at more than $77-billion.

Parliamentary budget officer Yves Giroux’s latest estimate is $17 billion more than the government’s stated price for the 15 warships, which are to be built in Halifax over the next two decades and form the navy’s backbone for most of the century.

Mr. Giroux’s estimate is in a highly anticipated report released Wednesday that is likely to set the stage for some tough discussions – and heavy industry lobbying – on whether Canada should push ahead on the project or change tack.

Story continues below advertisement

To that end, the budget officer’s report includes a number of potential scenarios designed to provide a clearer picture of what options are available to the government should it decide to go in a different direction – and how much each would cost.

That includes scrapping the existing plan to base the 15 warships on the British-designed model called the Type-26, which Canadian defence officials have repeatedly described as the right ship for Canada, and choosing a different design for the fleet.

Mr. Giroux and his team also looked at the idea of a hybrid fleet, in which Canada builds three Type-26 ships and supplements them with 12 other vessels. That would mimic how the navy was previously built, with three Iroquois-class destroyers and 12 Halifax-class frigates.

The Type-26 frigate is also being built by Britain and Australia, but Canadian officials have been making numerous changes to the design to meet Canada’s unique military and industrial requirements.

Those changes have been made more complicated by the government’s attempts to pack all the capabilities from the navy’s now-retired destroyers and existing frigates into one type of ship.

The destroyers provided air defence while the frigates specialize in hunting submarines.

The PBO found that the government could save $40-billion if it built only three Type-26 frigates and supplemented them with 12 smaller, less capable Type-31s, which is similar to what Britain has decided to do.

Story continues below advertisement

Canada could also save $50-billion if it scrapped plans to build any Type-26s and went with an entire fleet of Type-31s, according to the report, though the PBO notes that the Type-31 was “designed to operate alongside the `higher-end’ Type-26.”

Restarting the entire project could result in a four-year delay to the start of construction.

Mr. Giroux acknowledged during a media briefing that building a “hybrid fleet” would incur added costs over the long term owing to the need for more training and spare parts for different types of ships, among other things, which were not figured into his calculations.

“It also means that you don’t put all your eggs in the same basket,” he added. “So if you find a major defect in one class of ship, you have a fallback option. You’re not bound by 15 ships.”

The PBO also looked at the potential cost to switch to a type of warship called the FREMM that is currently being built for the United States and which Mr. Giroux described as on par with the Type-26 in its capabilities.

The budget officer found a revised project would cost around $71-billion whether the government decided to build an entire fleet of FREMMs or three Type-26s and 12 FREMMs.

Story continues below advertisement

The Defence Department stood by its $60-billion cost estimate on Wednesday, arguing Mr. Giroux put too much emphasis on the ship’s weight in his calculations, and noting his figure included tax. It also called the Type-26 “the right ship” for the navy, suggesting the other designs would not meet Canada’ needs.

While it said selecting a new design “is not an option we will be pursuing,” the department did not specifically address the idea of a hybrid fleet.

“As a taxpayer, I really hope they’re right on the $60-billion – and even lower if they can,” Mr. Giroux said. “But we’re confident that our cost estimate is the most likely scenario: $77-billion. I’m confident we have an accurate cost estimate.”

The warship project was launched in earnest nearly a decade ago when Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax was selected in October, 2011, to build the fleet, with the total cost estimated at around $26-billion and the first ship to be delivered in the mid-2020s.

That vague schedule remained largely unchanged, at least on paper, even as the estimated price tag ballooned to $60-billion and Ottawa ordered several smaller ships so Irving would have work until the surface combatants were ready for construction.

But defence officials revealed to The Canadian Press earlier this month while that construction on the first Type-26 is set to begin in 2023-24, the ship won’t be delivered until 2030-31. Officials nonetheless insisted that the $60-billion budget would be sufficient despite the new delays.

Story continues below advertisement

Mr. Giroux said his team’s analysis found a one-year delay in the project would add $2.3-billion to the overall cost, while a two-year delay would result in the fleet costing $4.8-billion more.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan and chief of the defence staff Admiral Art McDonald also appeared in a promotional video this month for a new design facility for the Type-26 that was organized by BAE Systems, which designed the warship, suggesting the government is doubling down on the warship.

Wednesday’s report is the result of a request from a parliamentary committee for the PBO to look into the warship project, and had been highly anticipated given the amount of money involved and the relative lack of information about the project from the government.

It also comes as the federal auditor general prepares to release her own report Thursday on the federal government’s entire shipbuilding strategy, which includes not only the 15 new warships but dozens of other vessels for the Navy and Canadian Coast Guard.

The Naval Association of Canada, which represents current and retired naval officers, sent a commentary to members of Parliament last month warning them to exercise caution when it came to Wednesday’s PBO report.

Mr. Giroux acknowledged that naval officials are in a better position to determine what the navy needs in its new fleet, and that each of the different designs provide pros and cons. However, he said MPs asked his office to look at the costs, “and that’s what we did.”

Story continues below advertisement

“Ultimately, it’s up to decision-makers to make these trade-offs as to what the navy needs and what Canada can afford,” he said. “And by providing them with these cost estimates, we’re allowing them to have better information to make these important decisions.”

Know what is happening in the halls of power with the day’s top political headlines and commentary as selected by Globe editors (subscribers only). Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies