Coastal First Nations Fight to Preserve Tanker Ban Amid Pipeline Push
Canada’s delicate balance between economic growth and environmental protection is being tested as Prime Minister Mark Carney considers lifting a 53-year tanker ban along British Columbia’s north coast, a move linked to support for a new pipeline project. the debate has ignited fierce opposition from Indigenous communities and environmental groups, who point to the lasting scars of past spills and the inherent risks of shipping oil thru a treacherous and ecologically sensitive region.
The urgency of the situation was brought into sharp focus on an October night nearly a decade ago. Shortly after midnight in 2016, the Canadian coast guard received a distress call: the Nathan E Stewart, an American-flagged tugboat, had run aground on a reef along the central British columbia coast. Despite the captain’s attempts to maneuver the vessel, the tug repeatedly struck the seabed, ultimately leading to a leak of 110,000 litres of diesel fuel near the entrance to Seaforth Channel.
The spill’s impact reverberated far beyond the immediate environmental damage. “I remember being in my office later that day getting calls from elders in the community. Some were crying and very upset.they talked as though we had lost someone in our community. People were devastated,” recalled Marilynn Slett, chief councillor of the heiltsuk Nation, whose community of Bella Bella is located just 10 nautical miles from the grounding site. The contamination of traditional harvesting sites resulted in immediate and ongoing economic losses for the Heiltsuk, and the destruction of clam gardens cultivated for centuries represents an irreplaceable cultural loss.
Coastal First Nations, representing nine nations along the central coast, have unequivocally declared the project unacceptable, asserting that the tanker ban is non-negotiable. A unified vote by chiefs representing over 600 First Nations affirmed their commitment to upholding the ban and withdrawing from any agreements that could facilitate the pipeline’s construction.
Green Party leader Elizabeth May echoed these concerns, stating there is “no chance on god’s green Earth” an oil tanker will navigate the waters between Haida Gwaii and the BC north coast, adding that “governments cannot wish away science” or ignore the likelihood of a tanker breaking apart in such challenging conditions.
The potential for another oil spill looms large in the minds of First nations communities along the coast. Even relatively small incidents, like the Nathan E Stewart grounding, can have long-lasting consequences. Traditional harvesting sites remain closed, and the damaged ecosystem has allowed invasive species, such as the European green crab, to flourish.
λáλíyasila Frank Brown, a Heiltsuk hereditary chief, articulated his community’s position: they are open to responsible industrial development, but only when risks are demonstrably manageable and with the full consent of the community. British Columbia’s premier, David Eby, has signaled a similar stance, expressing openness to pipeline proposals but firmly opposing any project requiring the lifting of the tanker ban, warning that such a move would be a “grave mistake” given the meaningful risk of economic harm from a spill.
For Slett and the Heiltsuk, the potential harms extend far beyond economic considerations, encompassing profound cultural losses. Current maritime law prevents the Heiltsuk from receiving compensation for these cultural damages, including the loss of access to culturally significant sites. Last year, a delegation traveled to London to lobby the UN’s international marine organization for changes to address this inequity. “We’ve been fighting for justice through this colonial legal system and it’s really a process of ‘show me your receipts’. But how do you show a receipt for the loss of our ability to transmit our knowledge and our cultural practices between generations?” she asked.
The cleanup following the Nathan E Stewart spill required 40 days, with work suspended for 11 days due to inclement weather. The operation involved 45 vessels and over 200 personnel. “That was a spill of fewer than 700 barrels and yet it polluted over 1,500 acres of our territory,” slett emphasized, adding that large oil tankers can carry over 2 million barrels. “We just cannot accept this risk to our community after seeing what can happen. We can’t. And we won’t.”
