A new federal provincial agreement to advance a major Alberta to Pacific pipeline has shaken national politics and triggered swift resistance across the North Coast, where leaders say the plan would put vital ecosystems, fisheries and coastal economies at risk.
Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith signed the Canada Alberta Memorandum of Understanding in Calgary on November 27. The document calls for one or more privately financed bitumen pipelines capable of moving at least one million barrels each day to Asian markets. It also commits the federal government to support exports through what it calls a strategic deep water port, including, if necessary, by adjusting the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act that protects the waters around Haida Gwaii. The agreement sets a two year target for environmental and regulatory approvals and ties any future pipeline to the expansion of the Pathways Alliance carbon capture project in Alberta. The MOU states that the two are mutually dependent, meaning neither is expected to proceed without the other.
No port location has been named. The language in the MOU remains broad and there is no route, community or facility identified along the North Coast.
The announcement triggered a political chain reaction. Steven Guilbeault, who served in cabinet as Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry and is a former federal environment minister, resigned within hours. In his formal resignation statement, he said he strongly opposes the agreement, arguing that any northern pipeline corridor risks spills through ecologically sensitive regions and increases tanker traffic in waters already protected for safety and cultural reasons. He said he would continue sitting as a Liberal MP to push for stronger national climate policy.
While Alberta’s premier framed the project as an international economic opportunity, her numbers remain speculative. Smith said the pipeline could carry more than one million barrels per day to Asian markets so the country is no longer dependent on a single customer. The MOU uses similar language, but without a proponent, route or port, the volume is still a political target rather than a confirmed engineering plan.
On the North Coast, opposition was immediate. The Coastal First Nations alliance, which represents Rights and Title holders from the Central Coast, North Coast and Haida Gwaii, released an official statement on November 26, one day before the MOU was signed. In it, CFN president and Heiltsuk Chief Marilyn Slett said member nations will never allow oil tankers on their coast and described the proposed project as something that cannot proceed without violating inherent and constitutional rights. She added that CFN has zero interest in co ownership or economic benefits tied to a project that carries the potential to destroy the marine environment and coastal way of life. She repeated that position in an interview with the Associated Press the following day.
On December 2, at the Assembly of First Nations Special Chiefs Assembly in Ottawa, Old Massett Village Council Chief Donald “Duffy” Edgars introduced a resolution calling on First Nations to reaffirm support for the federal tanker moratorium and to reject the pipeline MOU signed by Ottawa and Alberta. Chiefs from across the country voted unanimously in favour. The resolution states that any attempt to weaken the tanker ban threatens the North Coast and Haida Gwaii, and that the proposed pipeline cannot proceed without the consent of coastal nations.
B.C. Premier David Eby also rejected the pipeline plan outright. Speaking to reporters at the B.C. legislature shortly after the announcement, he said the provincial government will not support the pipeline pact. Eby warned that the project risks becoming what he called an energy vampire that draws resources away from B.C. projects already permitted and under construction. He said the proposal has no proponent, no route, no money and no support from affected First Nations. He also warned that weakening or repealing the tanker moratorium would put major coastal investments at risk and could mean generations of harm if a spill were to occur. He has repeatedly described the moratorium as foundational to the North Coast economy, not an obstacle to it.
Skeena Bulkley Valley MP Ellis Ross took a more measured approach. In a public Facebook post, Ross said he had read the MOU and that there is a lot to unpack. He wrote that the interviews he had been giving were meant to explain that an MOU is a general agreement to talk more in the future with very little detail and that this MOU fits that description. He added that he needs to read it again and will explain more in a later post. Ross wrote that there is no route or terminal destination or proponent yet, which suggests Alberta will continue to be the lead. He also wrote that after all the talk, Premier Eby seems to have given up and will focus on other projects.
At the federal level, Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson told reporters at his November 28 press briefing that there is no pipeline route today and no active project before regulators. He said Alberta would need to work directly with British Columbia and with all affected Indigenous Nations before anything could proceed. Wilkinson also said that even changing the tanker ban would not guarantee investor support. Private companies, he said, look for corridor certainty, predictable permitting, support from communities and competitive investment conditions before committing to a project of this scale.
Despite the political noise, the MOU does not create a pipeline company or a construction plan. Instead, it sets deadlines for governments. By April 1, 2026, Canada and Alberta must finalize agreements on industrial carbon pricing, methane reductions and updated impact assessment rules. Alberta must also develop policy frameworks for AI data centres and nuclear power by 2027. Both governments must negotiate a tripartite carbon capture agreement with the Pathways Alliance, which the MOU identifies as a prerequisite for the pipeline. Alberta is expected to submit a full application to the federal Major Projects Office by July 1, 2026. Only then would a formal environmental and regulatory review begin.
For Haida Gwaii and the rest of the North Coast, the stakes are significant. The tanker moratorium protects some of the most hazardous and culturally important waters in the country. Any effort to weaken or revise it would redraw the risk landscape for coastal communities, fisheries and marine life. The MOU signals that the federal and Alberta governments want to test that boundary. Local leaders, provincial officials and coastal nations say they will fight to ensure tanker traffic does not return to northern waters.
Whether the plan becomes a real project remains uncertain. For now, the MOU sits at the intersection of national energy policy, Indigenous rights, coastal protection and interprovincial politics. The next moves belong to Alberta, Ottawa and any company willing to test whether a northern oil export corridor is feasible in a region where opposition has already been made clear.
