Summary#
Bill C-229 repeals the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act (OTMA), a 2019 law that bars large oil tankers from using ports on the north coast of British Columbia. Repeal would remove those regional restrictions. Other federal marine safety and environmental laws would remain in place (Bill Section 1).
- Ends the ban on tankers carrying more than 12,500 metric tons of crude or “persistent” oil from docking, mooring, or anchoring in the moratorium area (OTMA s.3; Schedules).
- Lifts limits specific to Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait, and Queen Charlotte Sound on B.C.’s north coast (OTMA Schedule).
- Eliminates OTMA-specific enforcement and penalties; compliance reverts to general laws (Bill Section 1; OTMA).
- Does not approve any project; ports and shippers would still need all other permits and approvals (Bill Section 1).
- Takes effect on Royal Assent; no transition clauses (Bill Section 1).
What it means for you#
- Households (B.C. north coast)
- No immediate change to daily life. If companies choose to route large oil tankers to local ports, you could see more marine traffic. Timing depends on separate approvals and market decisions (Bill Section 1).
- Workers
- Port, marine, and logistics jobs could rise if new oil shipments are developed in the moratorium area. This depends on future private investment and regulatory approvals. Data unavailable.
- Businesses
- Ports and shippers in the moratorium area could pursue contracts to load or unload crude or persistent oil from large tankers, which was barred under OTMA (OTMA s.3; Schedule).
- Insurance, spill-response, and marine services may see higher demand if traffic increases. Data unavailable.
- Local and Indigenous governments
- Repeal removes a federal tanker-size limit unique to the region. Planning, consultation, and emergency preparedness would rely on existing frameworks rather than OTMA (Bill Section 1; OTMA).
- Fishers and tourism operators
- Without the OTMA ban, the risk profile shifts to existing prevention and response rules. A major spill remains low-probability but high-consequence. Quantified risk change: Data unavailable.
Expenses#
Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.
- The bill makes no appropriations, creates no programs, and changes no taxes or fees (Bill Section 1).
- No official fiscal note identified as of October 27, 2025. Data unavailable.
- Any enforcement savings from not administering OTMA are unquantified. Data unavailable.
Proponents' View#
- Repeal ends a regional ban and treats the north coast like other Canadian coasts, while keeping all general marine safety and environmental laws in force (Bill Section 1).
- Allows large crude and persistent-oil tankers to call at ports within the former moratorium area, such as near Prince Rupert or Kitimat, creating potential jobs and investment if projects proceed (OTMA Schedule; Bill Section 1). Quantified impacts: Data unavailable.
- Does not automatically greenlight any project; each still needs permits and assessments under other statutes (Bill Section 1).
- Some argue that removing the ban could reduce oil-by-rail movements by enabling marine export options. Evidence of net safety or cost gains: Data unavailable.
Opponents' View#
- The OTMA was enacted to reduce the risk of large oil spills in a sensitive marine region used by Indigenous and coastal communities; repeal removes that preventive layer (OTMA Preamble; s.3; Schedule).
- Large spills, while rare, can cause long-term harm to fisheries, tourism, and traditional harvesting; opponents say existing measures cannot fully offset high-impact events. Quantified risk and damage estimates: Data unavailable.
- OTMA’s bright-line limit (over 12,500 metric tons) provided clear enforcement in a complex coastal area; repeal ends that tool (OTMA s.3).
- Local spill-response capacity and navigation constraints remain concerns if traffic grows; opponents see higher planning and preparedness burdens on local governments and communities. Documented cost estimates: Data unavailable.