Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I had many discussions with Mr. Bromley, the mover of the motion, and I’ll speak in favour, but softly. I’m not convinced it’s the best move for our smaller communities. I’ve got small communities that are dependent on the fuel that is transported by our government and whatever product they buy, our communities are locked into it. The low carbon fuel standard, I’m given to understand, is tested in the harsh conditions of California, but they really don’t test...Preliminary tests have shown that the low carbon fuel doesn’t work in our colder temperatures, at 30 below, and to have an insolvent product like that where our communities really have no alternative...The larger communities do, Mr. Speaker. Inuvik, Hay River, Yellowknife, they’ve got a free market. They’ve got somewhere else to get their fuel. But in the smaller communities that are isolated, like Nahanni Butte, Trout Lake and some of the other ridings have very isolated communities.
For me, I’m curious to know what’s out there. I’m supporting the motion because the motion speaks about doing the research. It’s speaking about doing a cost-benefit analysis of what impact it would have on government. I’m curious to know that. I believe we do it to ourselves to examine the new fuel de jours that are out there to see what’s beneficial, to see what can be helpful to greenhouse emissions, greenhouse gases. I believe it’s incumbent that we should look at the different products that are out there.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will be voting in favour of the motion. Mahsi cho.