As a heavily resource-dependent and -producing country, resource extraction is deeply embedded in the Canadian economy, and has been since early colonization. In fact, Canada is what political economist Harold Innis coined a “staple economy,” whereby the country becomes locked-in to the extraction of certain commodities (or staples), partly due to the high cost of long-term infrastructure needed to extract and produce them.[1]  This is especially true for bitumen, which is a distilled form of crude oil, and for which Canada is the world’s third-largest exporter.[2]  Bitumen is also notorious for its capital- and carbon-intensive extraction processes.[3] While development of bitumen extraction in the western province of Alberta has continued mostly unimpeded over the last several decades, the climate crisis has received substantial attention in the past few years. Indeed, across Canada, resistance to fossil fuel projects has become one of the most prominent discussions in contemporary politics.

As the closest port to the Alberta oil sands — a northern area of Alberta where the majority of the country’s bitumen is extracted — the Port of Vancouver, in Alberta’s neighbouring province of British Columbia, is responsible for approximately one fifth of Canada’s crude oil shipments by marine tanker.[4] Although 80% of crude oil is currently exported from Canada’s eastern coast,[5] the shipment of crude oil from the Port of Vancouver has recently become a more contentious issue, because of the highly politicized Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project, which also includes an expansion of the Port’s Westbridge Marine Terminal.[6] Marketing for the expansion boasts an increase in oil exports from 300,000 to 890,000 barrels of crude oil per day out of the Port of Vancouver, with an increase in oil tankers from the terminal rising to 34 per month.[7]

Although marine shipping alone is responsible for about 3% of CO² emissions, the bigger picture is that globally, 40% of contents shipped by sea are fossil fuels.[8] As such, the spaces that facilitate these shipments — ports — should be given greater attention in the discussion regarding the climate crisis. As Mina Akhavan notes, the role of ports in both local and global supply chains is not nearly as emphasized as it should be, given that 90% of world trade is carried through these spaces.[9] This essay seeks to answer the following question: What is the role of ports as actors in the climate crisis? Using the Port of Vancouver and the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project as a case study, the essay argues that port authorities are essential actors in the decision-making process surrounding resource extraction and transportation. However, their perceived depoliticized nature means they experience less accountability than other actors involved in the fossil fuel supply chain.

The organization that oversees operations at the Port of Vancouver is the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, which is a federal agency.[10] Agencies are established by the government and exist to assist the government, but they still remain somewhat autonomous.[11] The move towards establishing indirect or third-party mechanisms to conduct government business, such as agencies, has been a trend in Canada and elsewhere from the 1990s onwards, and has been argued as both an intentional and unintentional way of reducing government accountability.[12] As a federal agency, the Port Authority is regulated under the Canada Marine Act,  and is governed by a board of directors, whose primary obligation is a “fiduciary” one. Eight directors are appointed by the federal government, two are appointed by provincial governments, and one director is appointed by the 16 municipalities that border the Port zone.[13]  The Port of Vancouver’s website states that the Port Authority is mandated to “responsibly facilitate Canada’s trade through the Port of Vancouver.”[14]

The Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project has brought some increased attention to the Port of Vancouver in recent years. In July 2018, two months after the federal government controversially announced that they would buy the pipeline themselves, protestors from Greenpeace rappelled from a bridge to block the path of an oil tanker destined for the United States. They stayed suspended mid-air for over 36 hours before they were removed by police.[15]