denise mullen Says Yes
Business Council of BC, director of environment
In 2019 the federal government enacted the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, prohibiting ships carrying more than 12,500 tonnes of crude oil, certain heavy fuel oils or bitumen blend from loading, unloading or anchoring at ports along the BC coastline from northern Vancouver Island to Alaska. The Act was framed as a measure to protect coastal communities and sensitive ecosystems from the risk of a spill.
People on the west coast still remember the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster. But the west coast’s actual spill record tells a very different story. At the national, regional and international levels, little evidence suggests a ban was ever necessary in BC or that it has prevented the outcomes it claims to address. In fact, most marine incidents in BC involve tugboats, barges carrying diesel, or leaking and abandoned fishing vessels, not tankers laden with heavy crude. Conflating ordinary maritime risks with large-scale tanker shipments is both logically incoherent and inconsistent with sound risk-management practice.
Supporters of the Act often point to a decline in spill incidents since 2019. Conveniently, Canada’s publicly available marine spill data only begins that year, making it easy to draw false conclusions. A broader review of regional and international records shows that oil spills have in fact been falling for decades, with the sharpest declines beginning in the 1990s after double-hulled tankers became the international standard. Since then, the global volume of crude shipments has grown significantly yet major spill incidents have been exceedingly rare.
Blocking northern tidewater access for BC and Alberta oil producers also carries significant consequences for economic prosperity in the West and, by extension, for Canada as a whole. The ban functions as a geographically selective trade barrier that uniquely limits one sector: western Canadian energy exports. Notably no comparable restrictions apply to tanker shipments serving Atlantic Canada or Quebec.
Canada’s tanker ban doesn’t reduce risk; it simply adds costs and eliminates opportunities for trade. The real drivers of spill-reduction have been international rules mandating double-hulled vessels and improved navigation systems, not region-specific prohibitions that single out one coastline while tankers operate safely elsewhere.
By shutting off potential routes to Asia, the Act entrenches Canada’s dependence on the US market, where our crude sells at a discount. This results in lost government revenues, lower private investment and less infrastructure development at a time when Canada can least afford it. By arbitrarily closing infrastructure corridors, the federal government has signalled to global investors that Canada is closed for business. Far from creating certainty, the Act undermines confidence in one of the country’s most important industrial sectors.
The tanker ban is unnecessary, discriminatory and damaging to Canada’s long-term prosperity. It closes doors at a time when we need to open them—to strengthen national unity, diversify our trading partners and ensure that future generations inherit a stronger and more resilient economy.
anna barford Says No
Stand.earth, oceans campaigner
Fast-forward to the year 2070 in the Great Bear Sea off the north coast of British Columbia. Massive oil tankers are everywhere. The waters that once were home to whales, otters and Indigenous communities have become a fossil-fuel-export highway with vessels criss-crossing the sea to bring harbour pilots on board, load cargo and deal with incidents ranging from small onboard fires to major collisions. Fishing vessels need to navigate carefully around these hulking ocean-going vessels and are forced farther out, to rougher waters, to make their catch. Cruise ships now avoid the inside passage because of the risk of collision as oil tankers leave port with their heavy loads. The devastation from a previous spill near Prince Rupert (workers are still trying in vain to clean up the shoreline) isn’t exactly what cruise passengers sail to Alaska to see anyway.
So, how did we get here?
The good news is that the dystopian future described above is currently impossible, because of the protections of the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, which received royal assent in 2019. The law enshrined a voluntary tanker exclusion policy that had been in place since 1985. Advocated for by Indigenous people in the region, the moratorium protects the Great Bear Sea, including Haida Gwaii, by banning tankers of over 12,500 metric tonnes and commodities such as partially upgraded bitumen and synthetic crude oil from the area.
With good reason. From near-misses to sleepy captains grounding their ships, the list of incidents in recent years off the BC coast is already long and varied. It proves that things go wrong even under the best conditions. Ship parts can arrive defective, fall into disrepair, or simply be used inappropriately, all of which can cause a spill. A frequent cause of accidents—human error—is impossible to eliminate completely.
If the ban is lifted, it will only be a matter of time before a catastrophe occurs and the ecosystem and the communities living along shipping routes pay the price. The Great Bear Sea is far from an empty seascape. It is home to a thriving group of communities, to marine wildlife and to a sustainable economy that includes harvesting wild salmon. All of this is at risk of being lost if a captain even slightly misreads a chart.
Oil spills are all but impossible to clean up in the wild. In the same way that asphalt sticks, tar sands oil coats or sinks and doesn’t go away. And a spill in an especially remote location? Forget about recovery.
The Great Bear Sea has an economy based on its incredible natural location. In contrast, the value that Canadians receive from oil pipelines and oil tanker traffic is low, especially compared to what’s lost in the inevitable spills.
Indigenous people have been clear: Canada must respect that they have a say about what happens in their traditional lands and waters. Indigenous people in the area continue to support the moratorium. The people who live where the impacts will be felt most should get to help make that decision, and they already did—they were instrumental to bringing in the oil tanker moratorium. We should respect it.
denise mullen responds to anna barford
It is true. The stretch of coastline from the tip of Vancouver Island to the border with Alaska at the Portland Channel is one of the most stunning places on earth, a rugged expanse of fjords, islands and rich biodiversity. It is also home to communities who depend on these waters. It deserves respect and care.
But the tanker ban in this region is rooted not in modern evidence, but in catastrophizing a possibility from the past. It is a blunt, one-size-fits-all instrument that ignores today’s world-leading marine safety systems and denies communities along the full supply chain—including Indigenous communities who support responsible development—the opportunity to participate in the economic benefits of Canada’s resource sector.
The moratorium was not born from balanced risk assessment. It was born from fear, amplified by availability bias: a vivid event like the Exxon Valdez disaster imprints so deeply that we assume it will repeat, even when technology, regulation and industry standards have fundamentally changed. Fear is understandable. But when emotion becomes the foundation for public policy, we stop evaluating real-world evidence and weighing risks and benefits. Instead, we default to “better safe than sorry,” even when the cost is lost opportunity for families, communities, the province and the country.
And that is what we have done.
If we project forward based on this mindset, the alternative vision of 2070 is not a pristine coastal utopia, but a Canada that traded away opportunity and economic security because it allowed fear to outweigh facts. In this future, small coastal communities that could have thrived as hubs of responsibly managed energy exports are left dependent on seasonal tourism and government transfers. Inland towns that once supported resource development see their children leave, services shrink and their standard of living fall to historic lows.
This isn’t some far-off cautionary tale. Today Canada has the second-worst economic performance in the OECD and is forecast to have the weakest GDP-per-capita growth through 2060. We already feel the pressure: long ER waits, infrastructure funding strains, tight budgets for schools and social programs. Responsible, well-regulated energy development, including safe tanker traffic, supports the revenues and investment that keep those systems strong. We don’t strengthen Canada by shutting down opportunity. We strengthen it by leading the world in safe, responsible development that protects both our coast and our economic future.
The tanker ban and pipeline opposition more broadly are part of the same story. In 2019 we effectively cut off northern tidewater access for one of Canada’s most productive sectors because fears carried more weight than facts. That decision didn’t cut global demand for fossil fuels or reduce GHG emissions. It only shifted supply to other countries with weaker environmental standards and fewer protections for workers and communities.
The ban was born not from balanced risk assessment but fear, amplified by the Exxon Valdez disaster.
Meanwhile, global energy demand continues to grow as populations rise and as aviation, shipping, petrochemicals and heavy industry expand. The world needs responsibly produced oil, and instead of stepping up to supply it, we have been standing in our own way. Our allies are seeking secure, democratic energy partners, and Canada should be their first choice.
And this isn’t just about oil. As a country built on responsible resource development and trade, Canada is at risk of shutting down what we have done responsibly for generations. Instead of leading with innovation, strong regulation and genuine partnership with Indigenous people, we are undermining the very strengths that once defined us.
Canada can protect the Great Bear Sea while participating in the world. We can uphold the highest environmental and marine safety standards, because we already do. Spill incidents have declined for over 30 years thanks to double-hulled tankers, modern navigation and emergency preparedness. Protecting our coast and protecting our prosperity are not competing goals. They are interconnected. Canada has everything it needs to become a safe solution for a world that needs secure, responsibly produced energy during the transition.
The tanker ban has not made Canada stronger. It has made us poorer, and without improving global environmental outcomes. It is time to choose confidence over fear, excellence over prohibition, and leadership over withdrawal. The Great Bear Sea can remain one of the most cherished places on earth, not because we turned away from opportunity but because we led responsibly while safeguarding it.
anna barford responds to denise mullen
Denise Mullen raises some interesting points but excludes some important facts and perspectives.
The story of the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act is one of Indigenous advocacy, organized local communities and businesses already operating in the area. The legislation prevents the destruction of a region too precious to lose. When heavy crude from tar sands spills, there is no recovery. The legacy of even one major spill off the coast of northern BC would be a scar carved through species, the shore and anyone that’s been touched by this region.
We haven’t had a catastrophic tanker accident in the region because we don’t allow tankers to operate there. And we haven’t been so lucky on the BC coast when it comes to other vessels. In 2016 the tugboat Nathan E. Stewart spilled 110,000 litres of diesel near Bella Bella, with huge impacts. In 2021 the massive MV Zim Kingston caught fire, and the coast to this day is dotted with its spilled cargo. Increased traffic on the BC coast has seen more ships strike whales and more underwater pollution.
We must work to avoid further disasters, not pretend they’re impossible. Double-hulled tankers are still subject to human error in manufacture and operation, vulnerable to extreme weather and waves, and at risk from other boats also controlled by humans. And they are primarily designed to cruise the open ocean, not the network of channels and islands in the Great Bear Sea, which requires sharp turns and is known for its rough waters. Even with an additional layer of protection, if something does leak or spill, the damage would be costly and irreversible.
The energy sector has abundant access to tidewater, and already an oil pipeline and terminal operates on the west coast: the Trans Mountain system. There is capacity to export more tar sands across the Salish Sea, and the Port of Vancouver facilitates other energy exports too, including coal. The energy sector is also barrelling ahead with exports via the Great Bear Sea through Prince Rupert and with a liquid natural gas (LNG) facility at Kitimat, with expansion plans in other locations.
The fossil fuel component of the energy sector contributes relatively few jobs, relatively little GDP and keeps very little value in Canada. Dominated by multinationals and oligarchs associated with crumbling democracies and human rights violations around the world, fossil fuels are building an economy that doesn’t serve Canadians or contribute to peace or prosperity globally. LNG Canada’s owners, for example, include a multinational, three state-owned oil companies and an investor group backed by Saudi Aramco. Energy does more for the MAGA crew than for Canadians, because major projects demand taxpayer subsidies and spew pollution. More tankers put at risk existing interests such as those of fisheries, tourism and local food security.
We can’t pretend further disasters are impossible. Even double-hulled tankers are subject to human error.
The Great Bear Sea is a wondrous place teeming with wildlife and communities supported by the ecosystem, and it is special partially because of the policy protections in place. The incredible vision already displayed in the region positions Canada as a leader in Marine Protected Areas created and managed by Indigenous people.
Meanwhile, investors look for a consistent policy landscape to assess strategy and potential market growth. Flip-flopping on the BC coast tanker ban would send a message that Canadians are governed by “vibes” and can’t discern what’s worth holding on to. Consider too the potential for investment in other industries, the innovation that could be sparked with the billions of dollars that Canadians currently funnel to fossil fuels.
What happens if we leave the ban in place? Tar sands products will continue to be exported via the Trans Mountain pipeline, and the Great Bear Sea will continue to export LNG while also supporting fishing, tourism and healthy communities. An oil tanker rupture in the Great Bear Sea will be avoided because we see the importance of a diversified, resilient and sustainable economy.
What happens if we rip up the ban? In the worst case scenario, oil spills will foul the Great Bear Sea. Fishing could become a memory, along with the jobs and dreams of small-scale fishermen who own their own boats. No BC wild fish in local restaurants; no exporting BC fish. Ghost towns spring up where once tourism invigorated locals and visitors alike.
A catastrophic spill in the Great Bear Sea would only need to happen once to eliminate economic opportunities grown over generations. Forcing BC to allow more tar sands to pour across the province—via land and sea—is the opposite of unity; it is the pitting of westerners against each other. Indigenous people are clear. Local communities are clear. Private companies are clear. The BC tanker ban must be maintained.
____________________________________________
Read more from the archive “Freedom Gas?” April 2023.
