Shelley Luce is the Green Party of Canada candidate in the North Vancouver—Capilano federal by-election where the Greens are hoping for a major breakthrough. Despite running a campaign that has so far offered relatively few substantive policy declarations, Luce has chosen to make federal shipbuilding investment—including the construction of military vessels in her own district one of the main issues of her campaign.
Following a visit to Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards, Luce praised the company’s construction of polar icebreakers for the Canadian Coast Guard and Joint Support Ships for the Royal Canadian Navy.
Civilian icebreakers and military ships
There is nothing inherently militaristic about icebreakers. Coast Guard vessels perform essential civilian functions including search and rescue, scientific research and environmental response.
But Luce chose to frame the icebreakers partly in terms of national defence:
“Seaspan is using [advanced shipbuilding technology] to build polar icebreakers for the Canadian Coast Guard to defend our Arctic sovereignty and joint support ships for the Royal Canadian Navy.”
The Joint Support Ships are another matter. Seaspan says Protecteur and Preserver increase the “range and endurance” of naval task groups, allowing warships to remain at sea for extended periods. The company says they will support operations in “high-threat environments,” including as part of “Canadian, NATO, Allied, or coalition task groups.”
The vessels can carry food, water and fuel as well as ammunition, while supporting operations ashore and helicopter operations.
These are therefore not simply civilian supply ships. They are designed to extend the operational reach and endurance of Canadian naval forces.
The science ships she didn’t praise
The contrast is particularly striking given Luce’s own background. In the same post, she invokes her credentials:
“As an environmental scientist with a background in marine biology, it was incredible to see the advanced shipbuilding technology and industry-leading techniques Seaspan is using to build polar icebreakers for the Canadian Coast Guard to defend our Arctic sovereignty and joint support ships for the Royal Canadian Navy..”
Yet she doesn’t use those qualifications to highlight Seaspan’s scientific vessels or its contribution to oceanographic research. Instead, the sentence culminates in praise for an Arctic-sovereignty icebreaker and Royal Canadian Navy support ships.
Her conclusion makes the political choice even clearer:
“It’s an example of how we can build big things in this country without giving away taxpayer money to build fossil fuel pipelines for multinational corporations making record profits.”
For a Green candidate, that raises an obvious question: if governments are prepared to make major public investments, why hold up military procurement rather than scientific research, public transit, renewable energy, housing or other climate infrastructure as the model?
Avi Lewis moves in the opposite direction
Meanwhile, federal NDP leader Avi Lewis has been staking out increasingly explicit opposition to Canada’s military-spending trajectory.
Lewis has opposed the proposed NATO Defence, Security and Resilience Bank, describing it as an “international war bank” that would further militarize Canada’s economy and subsidize weapons contractors. Contrary to the Greens Lewis has also rejected the idea that Canada needs to devote 2% of GDP to military spending, arguing that those resources are needed for priorities including the climate emergency.
His opposition to major military expenditures, including the submarine procurement debate, points toward an interesting reversal in Canadian progressive politics.
Non-violence is one of the Green movement’s traditional core values. Yet while a Green candidate is celebrating naval procurement and ships intended to sustain Canadian and NATO operations, the new NDP leader is positioning himself against escalating military expenditures.
Whether this is a deliberate electoral strategy remains to be seen. But politically, the opportunity is obvious: Lewis could increasingly compete for the anti-war, pacifist and non-violent voters who once saw the Green Party as their natural political home.
