In a move that has ignited fierce debate across Canada, Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith signed an agreement on Thursday that opens the door to potentially lifting a 53-year-old moratorium on oil tankers along British Columbia's North Coast. The deal, aimed at facilitating the export of Alberta's bitumen to Asian markets, includes provisions for adjusting the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act if a new pipeline proposal clears regulatory hurdles. This development has drawn sharp opposition from B.C. Premier David Eby, Coastal First Nations, and local communities who see the ban as a vital safeguard for their fishing and tourism-dependent economies.
The agreement specifies that Canada "will enable the export of bitumen from a strategic deep water port to Asian markets, including, if necessary, through an appropriate adjustment to the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act," according to details released following the signing. While no specific pipeline route or port was outlined, the pact signals a potential revival of long-stalled projects to transport heavy oil from Alberta's oil sands across B.C.'s rugged terrain to coastal terminals for overseas shipment. Premier Smith has championed such initiatives to bolster Alberta's energy sector, which has faced bottlenecks in getting crude to international buyers.
B.C. Premier David Eby has voiced strong reservations, ruling out a lawsuit over the deal but warning that it could jeopardize other infrastructure projects in the province. "This proposal puts other projects at risk," Eby said, highlighting concerns over environmental impacts and Indigenous rights. Coastal First Nations, whose territories line the North Coast, have long advocated for the moratorium, viewing it as essential protection against spills that could devastate salmon runs and marine habitats central to their cultures and livelihoods.
The roots of the moratorium trace back to 1971, when then-Esquimalt-Saanich Liberal MP David Anderson pushed for restrictions on oil tankers in B.C.'s northern waters. Anderson's primary target was the marine traffic from Alaska's Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, which ends at the port of Valdez. He sought to shield the delicate ecosystems of the Inside Passage— the network of sheltered channels east of Vancouver Island—from tankers heading south to refineries in Washington state's Puget Sound via the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau implemented the initial moratorium that year, which not only barred tanker traffic but also halted offshore oil exploration along B.C.'s coast, Anderson later recalled in a 2015 opinion piece in the Victoria Times Colonist. The policy endured for decades as an informal ban until Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government formalized it into law in 2019, following the federal rejection of Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline project. That proposed 1,140-kilometer line would have carried oil from Alberta to a terminal in Kitimat, B.C., but was scrapped amid protests over risks to wildlife and Indigenous lands.
"This is not some kind of newly conceived hurdle to somehow block Alberta oil, which is kind of how it’s been characterized," said Eugene Kung, a staff lawyer with B.C.'s West Coast Environmental Law. Kung emphasized that the moratorium predates modern pipeline dreams from Alberta, underscoring its original focus on protecting the region from external threats like Alaskan shipping.
Under the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, vessels carrying more than 12,500 metric tonnes—roughly 1,600 barrels—of crude oil or persistent oils like partly upgraded bitumen, synthetic crude, or Bunker C fuel are prohibited from stopping, loading, or unloading in the designated zone. Smaller tankers and barges under that threshold remain permitted, allowing remote North Coast communities such as those in Haida Gwaii to receive essential supplies of fuel and heating oil.
The moratorium area is expansive, stretching from the Canada-U.S. border north of Prince Rupert southward through the Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait, and Queen Charlotte Sound to the northern tip of Vancouver Island. It encompasses coastal inlets of the Central Coast and encircles Haida Gwaii, complementing a voluntary tanker exclusion zone established in 1985 that routes Alaskan vessels westward around Vancouver Island's outer coast to avoid the Inside Passage.
Environmental advocates warn that lifting the ban could expose the region to catastrophic risks, given the North Coast's notorious weather. Treacherous storms in areas like Hecate Strait and Dixon Entrance have historically challenged mariners, and while tanker safety has advanced with double-hulled designs, advanced navigation, and tug escorts, the sheer volume of potential spills remains a grave concern. A major incident could affect thousands of kilometers of shoreline and vital fish stocks, according to experts.
"Looking at what risk means, you look at probability, but you also look at the magnitude of harm," said Anna Johnston, another staff lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law. Johnston pointed to the collapsed Northern Gateway plan, which envisioned up to 250 tankers annually at Kitimat, each capable of holding two million barrels—half the capacity of the pipeline now under consideration by Smith. "A spill from such a large ship could drift potentially thousands of kilometres of shoreline and contaminate fish stocks," she added.
The 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, which released 224,000 barrels into Alaska's Prince William Sound, looms large in these discussions. That disaster coated over 1,300 miles of coastline in oil, with toxic effects lingering to this day, Johnston noted. "That toxicity persists today," she said, underscoring the long-term devastation to ecosystems and economies.
Kung highlighted the broader economic fallout, estimating billions in losses to fishing, ecotourism, and general tourism industries. "(That) is in the billions of dollars in that area, let alone the local economies of Nations, which happen to be constitutionally protected rights," he said, referring to Indigenous treaty obligations that could complicate any pipeline approval.
Potential tanker routes from a new terminal could mirror the Northern Gateway blueprint, navigating down the Douglas Channel, through the Inside Passage, and out to the Pacific via Queen Charlotte Sound to the south or Hecate Strait and Dixon Entrance to the north. Alternatively, a port at Prince Rupert might offer a shorter path to open ocean, reducing exposure time in confined waters.
Industry representatives argue that modern safeguards have dramatically lowered the odds of disaster. "Times have changed since the Exxon Valdez happened," said Rishi Luthra, director of marine operations for the B.C. Chamber of Shipping. He advocated for a Prince Rupert route as the lowest-risk option and stressed protocols like double hulls, dual pilots from the Pacific Pilotage Authority, and tug escorts. "The checks and balances are so robust that there’s very, very little possibility (of a spill)," Luthra said. "I won’t say zero, obviously, but there’s a very little possibility of that happening."
As the agreement moves forward, the pipeline proposal must navigate federal environmental assessments, Indigenous consultations, and provincial approvals—hurdles that derailed previous efforts. Proponents see it as a boon for Alberta's economy and national energy security, potentially unlocking exports to high-demand Asian markets. Critics, however, fear it could unravel decades of environmental protections and strain federal-provincial relations. With B.C.'s north-central Interior's remote territories at stake, the debate is poised to intensify, balancing resource development against the preservation of one of Canada's most pristine coastlines.