“There is no way that we see a new bitumen pipeline going through the north of the province.”
—David Eby
Prime Minister Mark Carney and B.C. Premier David Eby are selling their agreement as a deal for “prosperity” and as a grand bargain for the people of British Columbia. Under the arrangement, the federal North Coast tanker ban will be preserved, while Eby’s government pledges to act in good faith on a future pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific Coast.
If the pipeline goes ahead, it could resolve one of Canada’s most bitter interprovincial disputes between B.C. and Alberta over energy exports. However, the agreement also sacrifices the potential for future prosperity in the north and further shifts the economic centre of gravity to the Lower Mainland.
The fine print of the deal states that while the NDP government does not seek a new crude-oil pipeline, it recognizes federal jurisdiction and will act in good faith during routing and permitting for the project, so long as Ottawa honours its commitments.
Maintaining the North Coast tanker ban is paramount, and the agreement states that the ban must continue “without alteration, suspension, or narrowing of scope.” The same section recognizes that communities, coastlines, and ecosystems in B.C. will bear the brunt should there be an oil spill, which is why the deal opens the door to annual royalty payments and an environmental liability and emergency response fund.
“There is no way that we see a new bitumen pipeline going through the north of the province,” B.C. Premier David Eby said at a July 2 press conference announcing the agreement with the prime minister. “We have anxiety about the impact of any new pipeline project period on British Columbia’s coast, which is why in this agreement there are very clear safeguards in place around spill protection around British Columbia’s participation.”
The federal and provincial governments instead together pledged nearly C$4 billion to build the North Coast transmission line, on top of the $139 million federal infrastructure loan already approved to BC Hydro for pre-construction. The provincial government maintains the transmission line will reduce emissions and create thousands of jobs.
Meanwhile, the North Coast tanker ban delivers deep consequences across the geography of the provincial economy. Under the ban, oil tankers carrying more than 12,500 tonnes of crude oil or persistent oil products are prohibited from stopping, loading, or unloading at ports and marine installations along the northern coast.
Conservative Party of B.C. Leader Kerry-Lynne Findlay has criticized the ban, posting on social media: “It’s not a ‘tanker ban.’ It’s an NDP economic blockade. Foreign ships still sail freely along B.C.’s northern coast. The only thing being blocked is our prosperity, while doing absolutely nothing to protect the environment.”
“It’s not a ‘tanker ban.’ It’s an NDP economic blockade.”
Kerry Lynne Findlay
Shipments below the 12,500-tonne threshold remain permitted, and liquefied natural gas (LNG) is not covered by the moratorium. However, major northern crude-oil export projects remain a no-go. Ideal potential oil export hubs such as Kitimat, Prince Rupert, and Grassy Point will not handle export crude, nor the billions in investment and revenue that could come with it.
Once again, the Lower Mainland will reap a disproportionate share of the reward. The Canada-Alberta plan proposes moving one million barrels per day, primarily for export to Asia; its route would “largely follow the existing Trans Mountain corridor,” which currently runs from Edmonton to Burnaby.
Northern pipeline route had advantages
No construction has begun on the new project. The Alberta government has submitted the proposal to Ottawa’s Major Projects Office for potential fast-tracking, with federally owned Trans Mountain Corporation and Pembina Pipeline Corp attached as proponents.
While the existing Trans Mountain system terminates at Burnaby’s Westridge Marine Terminal on Burrard Inlet, the proposed new pipeline will continue to a new marine terminal at Roberts Bank in Delta, on the Salish Sea.
In effect, if built, B.C. would concentrate much of the terminal and tanker-related risk of new pipeline exports in the province’s densest and most congested terrestrial and marine regions.
The abandoned northern route had its advantages. Northern Gateway proposed a 1,178-kilometre project between Bruderheim, Alberta, and Kitimat, B.C. that would have carried an average of 525,000 barrels per day of oil products westbound and included a marine terminal at Kitimat.
A federal Joint Review Panel, after reviewing more than 175,000 pages of evidence, found that Northern Gateway was in the public interest, subject to conditions, after reviewing environmental, economic, Aboriginal, and community impacts.
Northern Gateway’s approvals were later quashed by the Federal Court of Appeal over inadequate Crown consultation, and the federal cabinet ultimately rejected the project.
The economic case for at least examining a northern route is stronger now than it was a decade ago. The Carney-Eby agreement itself admits that Prince Rupert and Stewart are among Canada’s most strategic and least-developed deep-water trade assets, offering shorter sailing distances to Asian markets than any other North American port.
Southern route is ‘ludicrous,’ says Opposition
Former BC Conservative leader John Rustad, a resident of Nechako, was critical of aspects of the deal.
“Keeping the moratorium on the pipeline while clearly favouring a southern route at likely twice the cost is once again ludicrous,” he wrote online. “We’re losing real opportunities. Most importantly, this shows the government doesn’t care about the regions hardest hit by forestry in the north, where a northern pipeline route would have created thousands of construction jobs and hundreds of long-term positions in communities devastated by NDP policies.”
Besides being a shorter route to Asia, Rustad said a northern pipeline “would be more profitable, and has strong First Nations support, including from a community interested in hosting an export terminal.”
Many communities that might have benefited from a northern pipeline desperately need a new industrial base. The North Coast and Nechako region had an 8.7 per cent unemployment rate in May 2026, the highest regional rate in B.C.; Northeast B.C. was close behind at 8.6 per cent.
Residents also rely disproportionately on forestry: North Coast and Nechako accounts for 9.0 percent of B.C.’s forestry, logging, and support employment despite having only 1.6 per cent of total provincial employment; in the Cariboo, the figures are 13.5 per cent and 2.9 per cent.
Forestry is in a long-simmering crisis, with mill closures, fibre shortages, and trade pressures compounded by weak investment. Young workers head elsewhere, as do the revenues that sustain public services. Building a pipeline could have helped stave off that decline, providing construction work, road and port upgrades, municipal revenues, and long-term operations jobs in regions that need every one of those benefits.
Instead, northern B.C. will have to settle for the taxpayer-funded North Coast Transmission Line, aimed at supporting mining and electrification in the northwest. But that is no substitute for the massive benefits that would have poured into northern communities from participating in Canada’s oil export industry. Much of the terminal-related capital from a new oil pipeline will now flow to Greater Vancouver, where economic power is already overconcentrated.
B.C.’s government keeps claiming to support regional prosperity and trade resilience, yet as the next generation of pipeline infrastructure emerges, the province is once again putting the needs of northerners second.