Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to move the low carbon fuel standard motion.

WHEREAS the production and burning of fossil fuels used to power our vehicles, generate electricity and heat our buildings contributes to increased carbon dioxide emissions that are responsible for global climate change;

AND WHEREAS the health of the Northwest Territories ecosystems, including its lakes, rivers, forests, tundra, birds and animals, face increasing threats from climate change and our continued dependence on fossil fuels;

AND WHEREAS the production of fossil fuels derived from the Alberta tar sands emits approximately three times the carbon dioxide pollution per barrel as does conventional oil production and poses significant environmental and

health threats to all downstream communities in the Mackenzie Basin;

AND WHEREAS the Government of the Northwest Territories purchases over eighteen million litres of fuel on behalf of NWT communities, as well as millions of litres of fuel for its own use on an annual basis, making the government one of the largest purchasers of fuel products in the Territory;

AND WHEREAS the Government of the Northwest Territories has established green procurement guidelines that encourage the purchase of goods and services that are environmentally responsible or less environmentally harmful than those currently used;

AND WHEREAS the Government of the Northwest Territories, through the Greenhouse Gas Strategy and Northwest Territories Energy Strategy, has committed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and the NWT’s dependence on imported fossil fuels by investing in more clean, renewable energy sources;

AND WHEREAS the continued reliance on higher-carbon or “dirty” oil slows the Northwest Territories’ progress toward clean, renewable energy sources and in meeting our reductions to greenhouse gas emissions;

AND WHEREAS the Dene Nation has recognized the grave environmental and public health threat the Alberta tar sands poses to the Athabasca River and Mackenzie River Basin and has passed a motion calling on all governments in the Northwest Territories and governments across North America to implement a low carbon fuel standard;

NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Great Slave, that this Legislative Assembly strongly recommends that the Government of the Northwest Territories undertake the necessary research and cost-benefit analysis and consider implementing a low carbon fuel standard that decreases the Government of the Northwest Territories’ reliance on, or eliminates, the use of unconventional higher-carbon oil by the end of the term of this Assembly;

AND FURTHER that this Legislative Assembly supports the establishment of guidelines for the use of lifecycle analyses that evaluate the greenhouse gas emissions from the production, including the extraction, refining and transportation, of any fuels that are imported into the Northwest Territories by the Government of the Northwest Territories.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This motion asks the government to review our fuel purchasing practices, to look at the carbon intensity of the fuel that we buy and become a discerning customer who selects sources of fuel that have the lowest carbon emissions associated with their extraction, production and transportation. It asks that we change from simply buying fuel blindly, to intelligently seeking out the low carbon fuel. Conventional fuel made from oil extracted from traditional oil wells uses relatively little energy in its production. This causes relatively few carbon emissions. Unconventional fuel or synthetic fuel is manufactured from unconventional sources like tar sands and uses three times the energy, causing three times the emissions of conventional oil. It is also the fastest rising source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.

As clearly stated in the Dene leadership meeting two weeks ago, extraction and production of tar sands oil is causing major environmental damage and the huge and toxic tailing ponds perched on the shore and in the area of the Athabasca River are threatening our water and the health of our ecosystem from Fort Smith to the Beaufort Sea.

This motion does not ask the government to change to different products, to buyout fuels or to fuels that do not meet Canadian standards for use under conditions of extreme cold. This motion does ask this government to take a leadership position, one that will help us in our work to negotiate meaningful transboundary water agreements and that contributes to our leadership on climate change through further reductions on emissions. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of this motion. In discussing this motion with colleagues and members of the public, it has become quite clear that there is some confusion about what we are proposing by way of this motion. To be clear, this is not a motion to implement the carbon tax on fuel purchase in the Northwest Territories. It is also not a motion that will result in different grade or quality of fuel being utilized in the Northwest Territories. What this motion is, is an encouragement for the government and residents of the Northwest Territories to purchase fuel, gasoline, automotive diesel, home heating fuel, et cetera, from sources where production of the fuel is less threatening to our continued existence.

For the past five years there has been much talk in the NWT about water quality and water quantity. There are few issues that people are more concerned about.

In September 2006, there was a Keepers of the Waters Conference in Liidlii Kue which declared that water is a sacred gift and an essential element that sustains and connects life. In 2007, the 15th Assembly passed a resolution declaring that water is essential to life and constitutes a fundamental human right. In 2007, the Akaitcho Territory had held their Water is Life Conference. Last October I had the privilege of watching the premiere of a compelling and powerful video Tu Beta Ts’ena: Water is Life, based on this conference. Last November the Dene Nation also had a water conference. This conference passed a resolution calling for an indigenous peoples commission on water.

In 2008, the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources released a discussion paper on developing an NWT Water Strategy. This Water Strategy was a joint effort of the GNWT and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. The Minister and Cabinet should be commended for this good piece of work.

Despite all this interest, all this concern and hard work, our water, both in terms of quality and quantity, is still under threat. We as legislators, we as leaders, must do more, while critically important strategies, meetings and commissions alone will not get us the changes we need to protect our waters.

The biggest single threat to water quality in the Northwest Territories, in my opinion, is the Alberta tar sands. The close second is the impact of climate change.

In January I attended a slide show with Andrew Nikiforuk on the tar sands. The size and scope of the tar sands is truly breathtaking. The tar sands is one of the largest, if not the largest, energy developments in the world. At its full potential, the tar sands would cover an area the size of Florida. I have no doubt that, if Alberta and the federal government get their way, they will mine the tar sands to every last drop. If they do that the way they have been doing it so far, the NWT and the people of northern Alberta are in big trouble, to say nothing of the environment. I encourage all Members of this Assembly to check out the latest edition of the National Geographic which begins to show the true size and scale of this project.

What people often don’t realize, and what oil companies and the Alberta government don’t want you to think about, is that the tar sands are utterly dependent on the Athabasca River. No Athabasca River, no tar sands. The tar sands use enormous amounts of water to produce oil. The tar sands use the same amount of water as a city of two million people. The production of each barrel of tar sands oil requires three barrels of water from the

Athabasca River. In theory, most of the water is never supposed to return to the river because once it has been used to help them process the raw bitumen, it’s far too toxic to return to the environment. This water is instead stored in giant tailings ponds that now cover 130 square kilometres. The oldest tailings pond, the Tar Island Dyke, is right beside the river itself. We know that these tailings ponds leak. There is no question. This was well-documented recently by environmental groups. Despite this, the Alberta government claims that pollutants such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heavy metals found in the water are natural, l almost got that out. This position defies good science and good common sense.

The fact of the matter is that the Alberta government has historically never wanted to do the science, the comprehensive baseline studies, that would have established the cold, hard truth. They didn’t want to risk it proving that they were wrong. The nightmare scenario is of one that these dykes will breach and thousands of cubic metres of polluted water will spill into the Athabasca and eventually flow to the Slave River and the rest of the Mackenzie Basin, our home.

A second major concern, Mr. Speaker, is the impact of climate change on water quantity. The Athabasca River is fed by Athabascan Glacier. The melting of this glacier and the doubling, tripling and quadrupling of tar sands production would put a downward pressure on water quantity. Climate change may cause the B.C. government to retain more water for its dams along the Peace River. Note, the Peace River provides roughly 75 percent of the water in the Slave River while the Athabasca provides roughly 25 percent. Alberta always points this out, along with the fact that their total withdrawals from the Athabasca are around 2 to 3 percent of the total flow.

Last but not least, the tar sands are Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions. Compared to a barrel of conventional oil, three times as many greenhouse gases are emitted in the production of one barrel of tar sands oil. If we, as a country, want others to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to help slow down climate change, we better be prepared to reduce our own emissions.

Neither the Alberta government nor the federal government have been prepared to tackle the greenhouse gas emissions stemming from the tar sands. Do not be fooled by Alberta government’s efforts toward carbon sequestration. While the billions that they promise for carbon sequestration sounds impressive, there’s little evidence that it will be cost-effective or even work for the huge volume of greenhouse gases coming out of the tar sands.

The Premier of Alberta has stated that he does not want to touch the brakes or slow down when it comes to the tar sands. Despite recent announcements from the Alberta government on such matters as land reclamation, limiting water use...(inaudible)...of greenhouse gases, environmental groups such as the Pembina Institute have determined no dramatic change in policies. The Alberta government mistakenly believes it’s a communication problem and not an environmental problem.

I think that as this Assembly, we know that Alberta has an environmental problem and that their environmental problem is our environmental problem. If you believe for a minute that somehow our water is not being affected or that the people of Fort Chipewyan are not really dying from cancer induced by the tar sands, then what about the future? If the tar sands remain unchecked it will be a growing risk to our water, the land, people and animals of both northern Alberta and the Northwest Territories. The sooner that we and our friends and allies can bring some sanity to the tar sands, the better off we’ll be.

As I’ve done more research and learned more about the tar sands, the more concerned I get. Yes, the oil companies and the Alberta government and the federal government have started to take some steps to improve or mitigate the impacts of the tar sands; unfortunately, they are minimal and it’s not clear that any of them will make any difference. In my opinion, it’s insane for the GNWT or our residents of the NWT to buy fuel from the tar sands supplier who clearly disrespects the land, the water, the lifeblood of this Territory. Buying from them is like giving bullets to a crazed gunman who has a rifle pointed at your head and telling him to do as he pleases -- go ahead and shoot.

What can we, as a small jurisdiction, do? I believe that we can actually do an awful lot. Every year the Government of the Northwest Territories buys approximately 18 million litres of fuel for communities. Let’s make sure that as little of this fuel comes from the tar sands as possible. Larger jurisdictions such as California, Florida and here in Canada, B.C. and Ontario, have adopted low carbon fuel standards already. A low carbon fuel standard focuses not just on greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fuel itself, but on how many greenhouse gases are produced to refine the fuel and transport it. A good low carbon standard takes what is called lifecycle approach. That is, it will look at fuel’s emissions from the wells to the wheels. It should also look at how changes in the land, such as cutting down trees, contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. In California they have committed to a 10 percent reduction in greenhouse gas intensity of fuel used for transportation by 2020. Enforcing this standard would involve setting yearly

targets and penalizing companies that don’t meet that target.

The United States government has taken a different approach. A law is now on the books that states the U.S. government will not buy any non-conventional oil that has higher than average greenhouse gas emissions. Canada and Alberta are lobbying furiously to make sure that that law is interpreted so that it excludes the tar sands. If a low carbon fuel standard is good enough for California, Florida, Ontario, British Columbia and the United States government, then why is it not good enough for the Northwest Territories? Commitment to a low carbon standard will send a real message to the Government of Alberta in a language that they will understand. By adopting this standard we will also be sending a message to the world that we do not accept or condone what Alberta is doing to our water or the environment in general. While our standard will have to be consistent with other larger jurisdictions, I think that in some ways it should be more ambitious. I think that this standard, at a minimum, should apply to all fuels bought by the GNWT. We may not be able to avoid any tar sands oil, but I think we should minimize it as much as possible.

Currently when we, as residents of the NWT, buy fuel that comes from the tar sands, we are actually supporting our potential demise. We are contributing to companies whose current practices undermine our potential existence here in the Mackenzie Basin. As a Territory, we must send a message to the Alberta government and the oil companies extracting bitumen that their current practices are unacceptable and that unless they change how they produce oil, we are unwilling to buy from them. They must protect our water. A low carbon fuel standard goes a long way to sending a clear message to these companies, the Government of Alberta and the federal government. It also ensures that we, as residents of the Northwest Territories, are not contributing to this potential disaster and are doing our part to protect this incredibly important watershed and the lifeblood of this Territory.

I’ve had some people suggest that a low carbon fuel standard will affect some of our more expensive communities; communities where fuel has to be shipped during specific seasons such as Tuktoyaktuk, Sachs Harbour, and Paulatuk. Currently the fuel for these communities comes from Korea, British Columbia and California and is shipped by barge over the top. As a result, they would not be affected in any way by the GNWT implementing a low carbon fuel standard and the products that they are buying from that already meet low carbon fuel standards of other jurisdictions. It is safe to assume that they’ll meet ours as well.

Some Members, Mr. Speaker, may be wondering will this cost more. I believe that we can set a standard that will be meaningful and not cost us more money. As a note, if a cap and trade system were introduced in North America, then everyone will be paying more for tar sands oil anyway. There is a chance that we may have to pay a premium for low carbon fuel standards, but if we truly believe that the water is sacred, if we truly believe that water is a human right, surely, then, we should be prepared to pay a small premium that will protect our water and the environment.

Two weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, the Pembina Institute released a paper on the impact of the tar sands on the water of the Northwest Territories. It called for a moratorium on the new tar sands leases until the tar sands cleaned up their act. The week before, the Dene Nation passed a motion calling for basically the same thing. They also called for a low carbon fuel standard for NWT communities.

Here in the NWT and across North America there is a growing desire to get the Alberta government and the tar sands companies to clean up their act. The message from the people of the Northwest Territories is clear: that people want this government to act and act effectively. We need to ratchet up our pressure on the Alberta government and I say adopting a low carbon fuel standard for the Northwest Territories is the first step in this direction.

Does supporting this motion mean that we’ll never buy fuel originally from the tar sands? No. It means once companies producing oil from the tar sands and the Alberta government implement production practices that don’t jeopardize our water and reduce the amount of carbon consumed to produce the end product, they, too, can meet our low carbon fuel standards. Once they do that, we’ll be able to purchase from them again.

In 1947, a research engineer, Mr. Karl A. Clark, said, after studying the tar sands, “I don’t think there is any use trying to make out that the tar sands are other than a second line of defence against dwindling oil supplies.” Oil supplies are clearly dwindling around the world. Do the tar sands offer a reprieve as the world moves in a more responsible direction with clean energy? The tar sands are good for the Canadian economy. The tar sands will continue to be developed. However, just because they can and should be produced doesn’t mean that it should be done irresponsibly and threaten other potentially more valuable resources such as water. Mankind has put man on the moon. Certainly mankind can find a responsible way to turn bitumen into oil that does not jeopardize the existence and health of the Mackenzie Basin, our home.

Let’s pass this motion and encourage the oil companies and the Alberta government to take our continued existence in our Territory seriously. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I support the motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.

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.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am in support of this motion and that should be no surprise as I have supported other initiatives associated with greening the government previously. I believe that we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and that we all have to do our part. By we, I mean the Government of the Northwest Territories, other Canadian governments, each of us in this room, each of our residents. The Government of Canada, to me, in my estimation, are not doing their part and it seems that we have to show them the way. This is one of the ways that we can do that.

I think that the GNWT is actively working to lessen the impacts of climate change on the North. I think that going to a low carbon fuel standard is another opportunity for us as a government to put our money where our mouth is. It’s been said that the per person greenhouse gas emissions in the NWT are the highest in the country or pretty close to it. There are lots of valid reasons for that, but that does not excuse us from taking steps to lessen the impact that the greenhouse gas emissions will have on all of us. We’re the first to see and feel the effects of climate change and anything that we can do to reverse that trend, even a little bit, is a step in the right direction.

It’s widely acknowledged that oil produced from the northern Alberta tar sands creates three times the carbon dioxide pollution as does conventional oil production. They need machines for mining which are not needed in conventional oil production. They need natural gas to heat the bitumen underground that is not needed in conventional oil production. They have a need for hydrogen which they have to add to the bitumen, and the hydrogen has to come from natural gas. All those three things are extra additions to the production of carbon dioxide which are not necessary in conventional production.

The GNWT purchases millions of litres of fuel each year and we have the opportunity to influence the production of the carbon dioxide in our world through our fuel purchase. By buying low carbon fuel we’re forcing the oil producers to reduce their C02 emissions or chance not selling their product.

The end products of both conventional and unconventional oil are the same, it’s just how it got there that is different. This is not a different product that we’re talking about. We’re talking about whether it is fuel that creates a high amount of carbon dioxide in its production or conventional oil production which creates fewer greenhouse gas emissions and carbon dioxide emissions. To me, it’s unlikely that our processes and our procedures will have to change very much. We already get most of our fuel from Asia and from the west coast, so I believe that we’re already using a minimal amount of dirty oil. I don’t think we’re going to have to change things much at all in our purchasing practices.

I fully support the actions that are called for in the motion: to do the necessary research, to consider the implementation of a low carbon fuel standard, to establish guidelines to evaluate greenhouse gas emissions associated with the fuels that we import. These are all rational, sensible actions and I fully support the motion and encourage all Members to support it as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I, too, will be supporting the motion because it does call for a study from this government. I think that from our communities where we do have a high dependency on fossil fuels from running our power generation to heating our homes, that’s just the reality of a small, isolated community.

I think, Mr. Speaker, we do have to show our part to the rest of the world that we are being impacted by global warming, but more important questions to us is what are we doing to reduce our footprint and the impact on climate change. Mr. Speaker, I think we do have to show the rest of the world that we are facing this challenge head on. We are the ones that are realizing the most impact from climate change in regard to the effect it’s having on the Arctic and the Northwest Territories. I believe, Mr. Speaker, we do have to, as a government and as Canadians, realize that, next to the United States, we have a very high dependency on fossil fuels and the affect it’s having on global warming.

On that, Mr. Speaker, I do have to point out, like Mr. Menicoche, that we, from small communities, realize that this motion could have a very detrimental effect on the style of power we generate, the way we heat our homes by using these different types of fuels. Again, as the motion states, this government will be directing the government to do our research and analyze the problem and look at alternative fuels that we can come forward. I believe that the technology and basically looking at our energy strategies, looking at the greenhouse gas emissions and stuff that we’re trying in the Northwest Territories like hydro or looking at more dependency on natural gas is stuff that we have to come forward with.

Mr. Speaker, I’d also like to point out that, yes, the Government of the Northwest Territories purchases some 18 million litres of fuel, but the diamond mines use more fuel than that. I think, if anything, in the Northwest Territories we have to also approach the industry and let them know that we’d like them to consider these changes along with the Government of the Northwest Territories so that it is a real made-in-the-North solution in regard to finding ways to reduce our effects in regard to global warming and the use of fossil fuels which are affecting greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I, for one, feel that through this study and this research that we’re directing the government to do, and hopefully come forward before the end of the term of this government, that

we can use that information that’s presently being compiled. But again, I believe because this is a global challenge, especially with what’s happening worldwide, that we do have to do our part.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting the motion and realizing that we are doing our part to set the example for the rest of the world and the rest of the people in Canada. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I’d like to begin by thanking Mr. Bromley for moving the motion. I’ve been working with Mr. Bromley now for over a year and a half and I’ve become much more cognizant of the environment and the issues surrounding the environment -- alternative energy sources and how we can become greener. I’d like to thank Mr. Bromley and other Members, too, who have brought a green focus. I know the Minister of ENR, Mr. Miltenberger, also brings that green focus. I think if anything is going to turn around the slumping economy on a global scale, it’s going to be this shift to alternative energy sources and government around the world looking at different ways of doing things. I think that’s going to help turn things around globally.

Here in the Northwest Territories I think we need to, as other Members have said, do our part when it comes to addressing issues of climate change. We don’t have to look very far in our own territory for examples of climate change. Last summer I was up in Sachs Harbour and Banks Island and we were out with some community leaders in a boat. You could actually see the island falling into the Arctic Ocean or the Beaufort Sea. It was really something that stuck in my mind. This is happening not only on Banks Island, but in other parts.

In Tuktoyaktuk there’s a lot of shoreline erosion there as well. We have much more prevalence of species that aren’t native to the Northwest Territories: the white-tailed deer and there’s coyotes in Yellowknife. When I was a little boy growing up in Yellowknife, there were never coyotes here. They’re here now in big numbers.

Also, I think I’ve mentioned this before, but last summer at the golf course there were frogs. As a little boy, too, we’d always look for frogs. There were the little wood frogs that you’d find on occasion, but now we have these aquatic green frogs that are taking up residence here in Yellowknife. That’s because of climate change and the effect that climate change is having on the environment.

I certainly do support the motion. I don’t think the motion is about changing the fuel that we use. It’s

about looking at where we purchase that fuel from and making sure it’s from an operation that is environmentally friendly. I think there’s nothing wrong with looking at this and doing our part.

Again, I want to thank the mover for the motion. I think it’s very important that we all understand our role in trying to make the world a better place and doing our part for the environment. I thank the Member and I thank the other Members who have spoken in favour of the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This motion speaks to a number of issues and the biggest one I guess we have, as people of the Northwest Territories, is our dependency on fossil fuels. We have created a dependency over a number of years, ever since the Norman Wells oilfield started up in the 1920s. We have created the dependency. Before, many of my people lived off the land on the natural ability of what the land has given to them. Since the oil has come into the Northwest Territories and since we started to introduce the furnaces and all the other things that we need to heat our homes and power our communities, we have created a real dependency on fossil fuels.

Just recently we started to create a new way of thinking, a new attitude in the Northwest Territories more so because of the southern news that we get and the amount of pollution and the way that things are looking in the southern parts of the United States and even in Canada in terms of global economics, global change, and the attitudes of people now are starting to differ in terms of the fuel that’s being produced from the ground here. It’s noted that even in the Alberta tar sands, for one barrel, 45 gallons of fuel, it takes about three to six barrels of water to produce that one barrel.

The breaking of the fossil fuel will take some time here, so I think this motion speaks to having our government seriously look at this type of dependency. The burning of fossil fuels in our communities certainly is used for our own power, for our own vehicles, even our power plants to generate electricity and heat our homes.

Again, I point to the issue of climate change. We’re seeing more and more of how prevalent this issue is and how different regions, countries, nations are forming conferences and forums to talk about climate change. You see it every so often on the news in terms of the global warming.

I believe this government here has initiated frontier money in terms of hydro, clean energy, wind energy, other energy that is going to be cleaner,

cheaper for our communities. I see that as an initiative that I fully support.

The Alberta tar sands is a real threat for the people of the Northwest Territories. This year, the Alberta tar sands is a live-and-die issue for us in the Northwest Territories. I think now that National Geographic, the Minister of ENR has met with the Alberta counterparts, the people in the Northwest Territories are starting to see if even the federal government is jumping on board. The Alberta tar sands, as much as it’s producing the economics and the dollars, in the future I think it’s going to be live and die for us in the Northwest Territories. That water somehow gets contaminated to a point where we have to start maybe even importing bottled water for ourselves. I’m thinking about 20, 30, 50 years in the future. I’m thinking about this threat here and how it’s going to affect us all along the Mackenzie River.

In 50 years, God willing I’ll still be standing, maybe sitting, but I know this issue here is a real threat, because my elders have talked about this threat. I didn’t know what they meant about the Mackenzie River being poisoned or drying up. In 1979, ’78, I didn’t know what Chief Paul Wright and Chief George Kodakin were speaking about in our communities, until I started reading about the tar sands, the leakage and what they’re putting in the rivers and how it’s coming down. Maybe we won’t see it today, maybe not in 10 years, but we’re going to see it. This threat is real and it’s alive and if I don’t speak up for it and other Members speak up for it, mark my words, in 30 to 40 years you might see something. I hope they can read the Hansard and say that’s what they’re talking about.

I think we, as a government, have to really look at this here and really protect our people. Every spring we go in the bush and fall time we go in the bush and we live on water. Animals live on water. People down the Great Slave Lake live on water. That’s our life. That’s our land. I think this government here has to stand up and say this is more important than economics.

The government purchased over 18 million litres of fuel for our communities. That’s not counting the government. We depend on the fuel from the government because we have that dependency. This is what they brought into our communities. We have gone green. There is a new initiative on green. I believe that we are going through a transition phase right now.

My question will be to the government. How are we going to implement these new low carbon fuel standards? How is it going to be implemented? There’s a cost for implementing these new low carbon fuel standards to our people. There’s going to be a cost to us. I believe that. I believe in our

communities we pay high enough on our fuel for our vehicles and our energy. My question is, until I see real clean, reliable energy in my communities in the Sahtu for hydro, wind, solar panels, geothermal or whatever, we are depending on fossil fuel. We are depending on it because we haven’t seen any initiatives yet to really see results. We have talked about some programs. We talked about some initiatives. It’s going to cost us additional dollars to raise the cost of fossil fuel in my communities with the prices all too high right now.

I think there are bigger issues that need to be looked at. Until I see that there’s energy initiatives like wood boiler furnaces in the communities in my region, like hydro initiatives that can start up construction next year or this year, until I see that in my region, I have to say that because the price of fuel is costing lots…Elders have talked to me about the global changes. They know. They say even today it’s hard for them to read the weather. It’s so difficult in terms of that.

This year I’m going to not support this motion until I really see some initiatives on what the real cost of the carbon fuel is. I know what Mr. Bromley’s talking about; the greenhouse. I know that’s an issue for me. Right now this motion, I think it’s going to be somewhat detrimental to my communities so I’m not going to support the motion. But I’m going to have other issues that I’d like to embark on further in terms of some of the points here. There are some real good points in this motion, but I think we need to really look seriously at this before we go ahead with it.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. The honourable Member for Deh Cho, Mr. Michael McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to make a couple of comments on this motion. First of all, the 16th Legislative

Assembly has made a commitment to action that will help ensure our environment sustains present and future generations. That will be done through the implementation of alternate energy substitutes for diesel fuel, such as wood pellet boilers, natural gas turbines, wood turbines, hydroelectric power. We’re working to ensure that the Northwest Territories continues to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.

The State of California recently introduced low carbon fuel standards, a policy similar to what the Member has proposed here today. The policy is meant to reduce the reliance on petroleum-based fuels for transportation use and also to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by increasing the use of ethanol-based blended gasoline and biodiesel fuels. While this product can work well in the larger, warmer climates such as California, it has been

demonstrated that these biofuels are not suitable for use in the extremely cold weather. Their use in the Northwest Territories is not recommended by our suppliers at this time.

Our fuel supplied to the PPD must adhere to the Canadian General Standards Board’s cold climate specifications. And in addition to that, there is only a limited amount of ultra low sulphur diesel fuel and winter grade gasoline produced to these specifications for our own use here in the Northwest Territories. If we were to choose to limit or totally cut ourselves off entirely from the supply, we would run the risk of being unable to obtain fuel that meets our needs. We’re talking about 18 communities that are serviced by PPD. We’re also talking about 20 of our NTPC sites and also for our own use in different areas of our departments.

A large portion of our fuel is purchased by PPD and that is sourced from the west coast of North America and Asia and then shipped to the Western Arctic for distribution to NWT communities. In 2008 nearly half of PPDs fuel supply was purchased outside of Canada and it is planned that this will continue in 2009 and also into the future years.

The feedstock for this fuel is not extracted from the oil sands but rather from conventional means. For the 2008 summer marine resupply, most of the diesel fuel was supplied by a refinery located in the State of California and Jet A-1 aviation fuel was supplied by a South Korean refinery. The rest of the diesel, gasoline, and Jet A-1 aviation fuel that was delivered by tug and barge was obtained from Imperial Oil’s refinery in Alberta.

Imperial Oil refines crude oil for western Canada at its Strathcona refinery near Edmonton and obtains crude oil from unconventional sources -- oil sands and deep heavy oil sources -- as well as conventional crude oil from Norman Wells and other locations. Shell Canada refines crude oil for western Canada at its Godford, Alberta, refinery. This fuel is refined entirely from oil sands products. Bluewave Energy, a Shell Canada branded reseller, was the only compliant bidder for the PPD supply contract to provide fuel to communities served by the winter road.

Fuel purchased by PPD for communities served by winter road is shipped through the Hay River Imperial Oil terminal. During the winter months, the petroleum products that are originally from Shell and from Imperial Oil are combined in the tanks at Hay River; diesel fuel with diesel fuel and gasoline with gasoline according to specification, not segregated according to the manufacturer.

About half the oil produced in Canada now originates from the oil sands. There’s a limited conventional crude available. So virtually all

petroleum refined in western Canada contains some oil sands product. A policy that would prohibit or limit the ability of PPD or any other NWT supplier or distributor from obtaining fuel that is originating in the oil sands or was only produced by conventional means would likely mean and likely result in higher costs of such non oil sands fuel and, more importantly, result in an increased cost of living for Northwest Territories residents and businesses.

The Government of the Northwest Territories is investing in alternative energy substitutes such as wood pellet boilers, natural gas turbines, wind turbines, hydroelectric power, the proposed $60 million investment in energy initiatives announced in the 2009 budget speech. The GNWT will do more to reduce the NWT’s reliance on fossil fuels than will developing procurement policies or prohibit and limit the purchase of petroleum fuel that comes from the oil sands.

A number of biomass heating projects funded under the Capital Asset Retrofit Program are planned for implementation in 2009-2010. Energy saving initiatives include the use of cold weather air-to-air heat pumps and conversion of three GNWT buildings in Fort Smith to electric heat using surplus from the Taltson Dam. Projects funded under the Canada Eco Trust in 2008-2009 include the wood pellet boiler in Behchoko, the electric heat conversion of the DOT garage in Fort Smith, wood pellet boilers in Kalemi Dene School in Ndilo. These projects are estimated to result in a total cost savings of approximately $1.1 million a year, reduce greenhouse gas emission reductions by more than 4,100 tonnes per year, and displace nearly 1.4 million litres of diesel fuel annually.

Potential future projects will result in further permanent reductions in petroleum consumption. In addition to initiatives, Public Works is also performing asset renovations and upgrades to reduce energy use in buildings, including: improved insulation; the retrofit of lighting; the replacement of windows, doors, heating systems and installation of solar domestic hot water systems. The Good Building Practices for Northern Facilities guidebook is now being updated with the focus on the design and construction of energy-efficient buildings for the Northwest Territories. These efforts will all serve to effectively reduce our consumption of fossil fuels and provide measurable results and cost savings and a significant reduction of greenhouse gas.

It is more constructive and better for the environment to continue to invest in new technology to actually reduce the consumption of diesel fuel than to develop a policy that would limit the ability of PPD or any other NWT supplier or distributor from obtaining fuel that originated in the oil sands or was only produced by conventional means. Such a policy will not result in less diesel fuel being

consumed, but will mostly likely result in higher costs of such non oil sands fuel and, more importantly, result in increasing the cost of living for NWT residents and businesses.

Such a policy if applied to the non-government sector would also adversely impact resource development, such as a policy means only increasing the cost of exploration and exploration development.

As with our practice, this motion is a recommendation to the government and Cabinet will not be voting on this motion.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Yellowknife South, Mr. Bob McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Greenhouse gas emissions are additive and any effort to reduce them is indeed necessary. We must first look at what we can do in the communities and, more broadly, in the Northwest Territories.

The Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment has been working toward reducing the reliance on diesel and other forms of gasoline to keep our communities warm, whether it is in heating homes or generating electricity. We are researching ways to replace the use of diesel with environmentally friendly fuels. The Ministerial Energy Coordinating Committee, or MECC, has developed a multi-year Energy Priorities and Investment Plan designed to make a number of investments aimed at displacing the use of imported diesel and reducing the cost of living in Northwest Territories communities.

Many of the initiatives included within the EPI Plan have the goal of reducing the use of imported diesel for energy generation, including development of hydro resources, expand the use of biomass, a commitment to develop wind energy in Beaufort communities, a commitment to support the investigation of geothermal potential, a commitment to pursue the use of Northwest Territories natural gas.

One of the five pillars of the Northwest Territories Energy Plan which was released in March 2007, is to reduce our own dependence on fossil fuels. As stated in the Energy Plan, the Government of the Northwest Territories has a tremendous investment in physical assets amounting to over $1.6 billion utilizing more than 18 million litres of fuel. The Government of the Northwest Territories is leading by example and making additional efforts to reduce the economic and environmental costs associated with Government of the Northwest Territories assets.

Through the normal course of operations, the Government of the Northwest Territories department undertakes a variety of energy efficiencies and conservation measures. One of the specific initiatives in the EPI Plan is to reduce the Government of the Northwest Territories reliance on fossil fuels and includes $2.5 million in 2009 to fund the purchase and installation of biomass wood pellet heating systems in facilities in Hay River, Harry Camsell, Princess Alexandra, Ecole Boreale and Diamond Jenness schools and the highways maintenance garage in Fort Smith and they help to reduce operating costs and GHG emissions. The results of this initiative could include the following: reduction in fuel consumption of more than a million litres per year, annual cost savings of more than $700,000 for the payback of three and a half years, greenhouse gas emission reductions of approximately of 3,000 tonnes per year.

We will continue to work with our colleague in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to look for ways that business can reduce energy waste in the workplace. We must also look at what we can do on a larger scale or continental level. The demand for energy is rising, but so too is the ever increasing output of greenhouse gas emissions. We must find solutions. The Mackenzie Gas Project, one source of natural gas from the Arctic, will provide a solution. Arctic natural gas can play a key role in addressing the rising demand for electricity. Arctic natural gas includes gas from the Mackenzie Gas Project, liquefied natural gas from both Russia and Norway and Alaskan natural gas.

Two years ago, the Government of the Northwest Territories asked Virginia-based Energy and Environmental Analysis to consider the implications of continental carbon emissions of northern gas could not be developed as currently anticipated. The findings were dramatic. Their analysis showed that in the absence of northern natural gas, carbon emissions associated with the use of coal for electricity generation in United States and Canada would increase by 258 million tonnes from 2014 to 2025. In the absence of Arctic natural gas, the analysis undertaken by the department has shown that carbon emissions associated with the use of coal for electricity generation in the United States and Canada would increase by 258 million tonnes from 2014 to 2025. Simply put, the combustion of coal releases far more greenhouse gas emissions than natural gas. Replace coal with clean burning natural gas and emissions will go down. So what is the outrage against coal? Carbon emissions from the oil sands are dwarfed by the thermal coal plants in the United States and Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the National Geographic story recognizes that oil sands count for less than one-tenth of 1 percent of global carbon emissions. What the oil sands need is a plan to protect the

environment. Without the oil sands, foreign oil would make up the much greater percentage of Canada supply; nearly one-quarter more. Prices for everything from electricity to home heating fuel to gasoline would be undoubtedly much higher and there would be concerns about where the energy would come from.

Every development has some environmental issues. The same is true with alternative energy. Alternative energy needs backup which will be fuelled by fossil fuels.

In conclusion, we are looking at every possible opportunity, both short term and long term to replace burning fossil fuels with energy solutions that will work in our climate. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. To the motion. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am reminded of a saying that goes: careful about what you ask for. In this particular case, I am going to provide the most cautious support possible for this motion. The reason I say this is because I am a big fan of doing business better. I certainly see that in the expectation and certainly the hopes of Mr. Bromley as he brings this forward, but my pragmatic side wants to go forward but cautiously. I am interested but I want to be sure what we are getting into. Mr. Speaker, the costs are unknown. I know my good colleague will say the costs are real and well understood. He may say the costs are too high if we don’t do it. That may be his perspective as well. But, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned and I think the honourable Minister Michael McLeod said it well. Concerns about costs and quality of fuel weigh heavily on my mind. Yet again I say, careful what we ask for. Mr. Speaker, the reason I will, again, I stress very cautiously support this motion because Mr. Bromley was willing to make accommodation for me that reflect my major concern, which is about consider implementing this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I think that was a willing compromise to me that is a big deal. What it does is emphasizes that it is okay to go look at this issue. It is okay to study this issue a little bit and perhaps maybe even experiment through a pilot project, in my view. When we say consider, in my view that is how I see this, as this is a chance to take a look at this issue. Even ideas I don’t necessarily like or fully support, I will support the fact that let’s give something a try and take a good look at it. Every idea deserves its chance to be able to stand on its own.

Mr. Speaker, I have to emphasize, as well, that I think this government is setting a hallmark for one

thing and its certain attention to the way it views environment issues as a whole going forward. I have not seen in my time and watching government -- and believe me, I have been watching since I was a young teen because I have been interested as a kid -- I have never seen a government so concerned about its impact on the world. I would define that as one of our defining hallmarks of any Assembly that has ever come forward. I certainly hope that type of consideration will go forward on future Assemblies, if not forever on a permanent basis.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I am just going to stress that, as I started off by saying, be careful what we ask for, Mr. Speaker, without knowing the fullness of the results. I am very cautious and concerned about where this will take us, but I do support the analysis of this. I do support a full consideration on this. That is how I see this motion being drawn up, is to look into this venture and, if at the time, it is worthy of standing on its own merits, perhaps I will be supporting it. I may be the loudest trumpeter here for this initiative if those results prove to be as they are. Mr. Speaker, I will support it, but I exercise my caution as we go forward. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Very briefly, I just feel that this motion is good for the economy. However, I will not support the motion. I think that this time with current state of economy and not knowing the full cost analysis of this and not knowing the impacts upon the cost that would be passed on to the communities…I do have a PPD community in Lutselk’e and also not knowing the impacts it would have on a private entrepreneur in a place like Fort Resolution to be able to purchase fuel if we were to have this type of restriction imposed upon the government and the government being a big purchaser of fuel. I don’t know what the impacts are is the bottom line. I know that it probably will be good for the economy, but at the same time I don’t want to see this as something that is a very immediate concern for our communities, the cost of living and so on. I don’t want to see the cost of living increase as a result of a motion that we make here in the House today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. To the motion. The honourable Member for Thebacha, Mr. Miltenberger.