Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It has indeed been an interesting debate. I am very appreciative of all the thoughts and consideration that has been given to the comments today and sharing those.
Mr. Speaker, clearly doing something new can be scary. Being a leader can be challenging. I appreciate the consideration of this and what this is actually calling on this government to do. In my introductory remarks, apparently some people in the Cabinet missed that comment. I would like to repeat that. This motion does not ask the government to change to different products, to ethanol or biofuels or fuels that do not meet Canadian standards for use under conditions of extreme cold. I want to make that clear. I am not proposing a California low carbon fuel standards. I have said that repeatedly. I think some Members, at least on this side of the House, are clearly understanding that.
Somebody mentioned limited supply. Mr. Speaker, 25 percent of the fuel now in western Canada comes from unconventional sources. That could very well be increasing rapidly as we run out of conventional sources. This would require seeking
out those conventional sources and becoming a customer of those things.
Again, Mr. Michael McLeod mentioned that it calls for no unconventional fuel. It does not call for that. It calls for lowering of the average carbon content.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there have been a lot of comments here that pose this as a you will do this sort of approach. I would like to just briefly reiterate that it calls for undertaking the necessary research and cost-benefit analysis and consider implementing a low carbon fuel standard. It calls for support for the establishment of guidelines through the use of lifecycle analyses that evaluate the greenhouse gas emissions from the production of fuels imported into the Territories. So let’s be clear about what this is calling for, Mr. Speaker.
I have heard Mr. Miltenberger refer to California as a trend setter but I wonder about Ontario, if Ontario could be considered as a trend setter on climate change or indeed the U.S. government or the U.S. military. Would they be considered? Of course, they have adopted a much more stringent Low Carbon Fuel Policy.
Mr. Beaulieu, I appreciated his comments. He understandably doesn’t know what the impacts of this policy would be. Based on what this motion actually calls for, I hope he will change his mind and support the motion because, indeed, what this motion calls for is the answer to that question. What would be the impact of a low carbon fuel standard?
Mr. Speaker, what is the intent of the proposed motion? The proposed motion attempts to ensure that the fuel the GNWT purchases for community resupply and its own operations are not sourced from high carbon fuels such as the Alberta tar sands. Enforcing a low carbon fuel standard is an important addition to comprehensive efforts granted to reduce our overall greenhouse gas emissions. Tar sands production in Alberta represents a growing environmental threat to the NWT, as laid out by speakers today. Compared to conventional oil, it takes much more greenhouse gas emissions to produce tar sands oil and so on. Of course, we are speaking out in support of the Dene leadership resolution.
We have also learned what low carbon fuel is. There is no difference in the products that we are talking about bringing in. In fact, Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is supporting further those products that we have been using for the last five or eight decades in the Northwest Territories, in our communities. The new fuel is the unconventional stuff. That is the high fuel that is costly in terms of carbon. What we are saying, Mr. Speaker, is let’s go back to that tried and true stuff that actually has low carbon emissions. Again, I want to be clear
about that. Let’s not be baffled by the comments from the Minister of Transportation on this.
The production of tar sands oil that we have heard has many aspects to it that are costly both to our environment and to our pocketbook. The end products are both the same. To be clear, Mr. Speaker, the production of tar sands oil causes 86 kilograms of greenhouse gas emissions for each barrel of oil produced compared to 26 kilograms for conventional oil.
We have also heard that there are a number of other jurisdictions -- Ontario, British Columbia, a number of U.S. states -- that are moving to low carbon fuel standards and I suspect that more will be as time goes by.
In 2008 the GNWT sourced much of its community resupply from California and Korea, as we’ve heard, through the over-the-top resupply and these would be considered low carbon fuels. However, for resupply from Alberta, approximately one-third of our 2008 resupply, as we’ve heard, was purchased with high carbon fuel or tar sands fuel. This motion strongly recommends that with the necessary research and analysis, alternatives to that fuel should be sought so that the average carbon intensity of our fuel goes down over time. It may not be easy, but this is what we’re recommending.
In researching and preparing resupply contracts, government would have to seek and confirm those suppliers who can and will supply information on the origin or blended average of a given batch. As more jurisdictions demand this information, the easier it will become to get it. As proposed, the standard will only apply to fuel purchased by the GNWT. Given the size of the GNWT and the scope of this standard, the GNWT could enforce the low carbon fuel requirements through purchasing policies. As a starting point, the GNWT needs to get information from different sources on the carbon intensities of fuels from different refineries or suppliers likely to bid on the resupply contract.
The GNWT would then have to set some carbon intensity targets for the fuel it buys. Setting these targets will be critical. If it sets the target too low, the target will not be meaningful. If it sets it so high as to preclude any tar sands oil, it may greatly reduce the number of refineries capable of meeting the standard. The GNWT would then calculate the carbon intensity of the batch of fuel based on a particular lifecycle analysis. As a small jurisdiction, it will be important to use an approach that is consistent with ones used in other jurisdictions. To that end, it would make sense for the GNWT to work closely with other Canadian jurisdictions to develop a comprehensive lifecycle analysis and a strong standard.
Initially, it’s possible that the winning supplier will fully meet the carbon intensity target. In the future it is possible that the low carbon intensity supplier will come in at a higher price and, as a result, the GNWT would have to pay a bit more to meet its own standard, or the price will be the same but the distance transported will be greater. On the other hand, if the U.S. government and the federal government introduce carbon cap and trading as expected, tar sands oil will have higher pollution costs and, therefore, it could be more expensive compared to conventional oil. In this case, as an established customer for conventional low carbon fuel, the GNWT may well be positioned for ongoing purchasing opportunities without penalty or even with savings.
I recognize that Minister Michael McLeod played the cost of living card and I found that an interesting strategy. I’m sure it elicited some fear in some people out there, but I think people are becoming more and more knowledgeable about this and what the opportunities are out there.
On the bigger picture side of things, Mr. Speaker, this motion is about clean water, it’s about fighting climate change and it’s about leadership. About recognizing we must now act and take a new path, as my colleague from the Sahtu said. Currently, most of our communities are located in the Mackenzie River watershed downstream of the tar sands. We are, by now, all familiar with the vast and toxic tailings ponds perched on the banks and in the vicinity of the Athabasca River which feeds directly into the Slave and Mackenzie River systems. We know that these man-made reservoirs are leaking to an unknown but significant degree, and that with catastrophic weather or other unpredictable events, there is some degree of risk that one or more could suddenly fail. The results are unthinkable. Except that we have to think about this, about the consequences and about what power we have to influence management of such situations. We need to ask ourselves, Mr. Speaker, how much do we value our clean water and the vibrant land it supports.
We are currently developing an NWT Water Strategy and we hope to eventually negotiate transboundary water agreements to safeguard our water and associated ecosystems. I believe I saw $336,000 in the budget for this, Mr. Speaker. But, Mr. Speaker, Alberta has a reputation as a focused and hard-nosed neighbour. Alberta and B.C. might well respond to our attempts to negotiate but how much more likely would they be to negotiate if there were backup systems to ensure that we had their attention; systems such as leadership and purchasing practices that were tied to our principles and that were supported by all our communities and cultures. To negotiate with Alberta, the NWT will need to be strong, to be clear, and to be a
jurisdiction with a record of performance of leadership and of standards. Adoption and conformance to low carbon fuel is one such decision that can Indicate those standards. Let’s take it to the bank, Mr. Speaker.
On the issue of climate change, we now know that all governments must do everything in their power to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In the Northwest Territories we see our Beaufort shoreline receding at an accelerated pace, necessitating the eventual and expensive move of Tuktoyaktuk. We see our wildlife under stress, affecting our diets and our community economies, our highways and building foundations requiring costly rehabilitation, and our sea ice and associated cultures disappearing. Over the past decade Canada has fallen far behind on the issue of climate change mitigation and we’ve gained a sadly deserved and tarnished reputation. We now know what is needed and here in the Northwest Territories we can act decisively.
The low carbon fuel standard does not hold a candle to replacing our use of fossil fuel with renewable energy as it has been highlighted today. Those things we are beginning to do in a big way. It does not have nearly the potential that conservation and increasing energy efficiency can achieve in our communities. Rather, it is meant to be an additional part of our response, an indication that we are aware and acting with that awareness of the need to reduce emissions wherever we can and in a way that supports other goals like clean water and healthy ecosystems that support us from the border to the Beaufort-Delta. We know there are other active partners, such as British Columbia, Ontario and other jurisdictions in North America, and that we can learn from their experience. On this year of the 15th conference of the party to the United
Nations Framework on Climate Change, decisive and knowledgeable leadership and action is needed.
Mr. Speaker, we are not seeking to have the government replace necessary products with lesser quality ones or unacceptable substitutes, as the Minister of Transportation would have you believe. Rather, when purchasing the products needed, find a supplier that produces the products with fewer carbon emissions, typically conventional methods of production as we’ve used for many decades, than those that require high energy inputs and high carbon outputs like tar sands oil. This motion does not seek to reduce our security of supply, but asks that we seek out those reliable suppliers who can meet our needs with conventional low carbon products. In short, it asks that we actually implement the green procurement policy we profess to have.
While adopting a low carbon fuel standard or doing the research and analysis towards this is not the biggest thing we can do, it will be a clear indication that we are a participant on this fast-moving train of cooperative action in response to climate change and threats to our water. It will be making a substantial statement, an indication that we understand the issues and that we have the adaptive management capabilities to take decisive action. It will add to our progressive work to replace fossil needs with new renewable energy wherever we can.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the many comments made here during debate. I thank my colleagues for the consideration of and perspectives on this issue and the new way of thinking it demands. I look forward to supporting the motion. Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote. Mahsi.
