Murray Wood: Is it really likely the Epstein files can make Trump look worse?
Murray Wood says there's nothing to indicate Trump is implicated in whatever passes for the Epstein files, so why was th...
Federal Energy and Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson says it’s “premature” for anyone to draw conclusions regarding the potential removal, or adjustment, of the West Coast tanker ban, since no pipeline route has been mapped out to bring oil from Alberta to the B.C. coastline.
In an interview with The Canadian Press, Hodgson said people are “jumping to conclusions” with regard to any discussions about adjusting or lifting the ban.
Read more:
- Alberta pipeline MOU has potential to benefit Sask., experts say
- Moe positive on Alberta pipeline deal and federal co-operation
- Steven Guilbeault quitting cabinet following pipeline deal
“I think it’s premature for people to have concluded things when there is no route yet, and there have been no conversations about that route at this point in time,” Hodgson said Thursday.
“What the MOU says is there will be a deepwater port with access to Asia. It does not say which port, on what part of the coast.”
Hodgson is in B.C. Friday to meet with Premier David Eby, fresh off the signing of a memorandum of understanding between Ottawa and Alberta to build a pipeline to the West Coast.
The agreement commits Ottawa to enabling the export of oil through a deepsea port to Asian markets and “if necessary” adjust the tanker ban to make that happen.
The commitment, however, is contingent on the pipeline being approved as a project of national interest, and on the project providing “opportunities for Indigenous co-ownership and shared economic benefits.”
The deal drew swift criticism, however, from the Coastal First Nations in B.C., who on Thursday said the tanker ban “is not up for negotiation” and that they would “never tolerate any exemptions or carveouts.”
Hodgson’s office said they’ve requested a meeting with Coastal First Nations, which represents nearly a dozen First Nations along the B.C. coast.
On Thursday, Eby signalled B.C. would put up a fight if the tanker ban was to be adjusted.
“I will always defend B.C.’s interests. And defending B.C.’s interests includes defending the oil tanker ban that has been there through multiple generations of politicians and political parties — for good reason,” Eby told reporters.
“An oil tanker spill would decimate a way of life for people in the northwest of our province.”
Officially called the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, the law prohibits tankers from carrying more than 12,500 metric tonnes of crude oil in areas along the northern coast of British Columbia.
Pressed on what — drawn from his expertise having served on the board of a Canadian oil company — he believes is the downside of instead building a pipeline to existing export ports in Vancouver rather than pushing it through the northern coast of B.C., Hodgson deferred to the Alberta government.
“Vancouver is a port on the West Coast that would have deepwater access to Asian markets,” Hodgson said, reiterating the language from the MOU.
“The proponent has to decide … there are multiple potential ports. I think they’re doing their work to figure out which is the right one. I can’t decide that for them.”
While the Trans Mountain pipeline already brings oil from Alberta to Vancouver, it isn’t the preferred route to supply Asia markets.
“If we’re selling energy products to Asia, (Prince Rupert) is your direct East-to-West. You’re not looking to go up the Hecate Strait, you’re not looking to go down to Vancouver Island,” said Matthew Holmes, the chief of public policy at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
He said Vancouver and Prince Rupert are the only deepsea ports in B.C. to be able to safely handle the sizes of oil tankers needed to move product overseas.
“We’re kind of tying one arm behind our back by not having the capacity to go to the Port of Prince Rupert.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 28, 2025.
