Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First off, on the timing of this motion, it's entirely appropriate, Mr. Chair, to debate this motion at this point. This is our last scheduled meeting on this study concerning the Gazprom turbines. I think it's entirely appropriate for us to conclude these hearings with debate and either adoption or rejection of the motion. The Ukraine study is separate from this particular study that brings us here today, and so I think it's entirely appropriate for us to debate this motion and to conclude this particular study on the Gazprom turbines with this motion.
In regard to eliminating the tariffs on fertilizer, the member opposite is wrong in her argument. The government applied the tariffs on fertilizer for Canadian farmers retroactively, Mr. Chair. Farmers who had contracted nitrogen last fall, before the war had begun in Ukraine on February 24, were suddenly dinged with a massive tariff that directly affected their ability to fertilize their crops this past spring. It has led to effects on yields for corn, wheat, soybeans and a range of other crops. To suggest that it was inappropriate for us to ask the government to not retroactively apply the tariff on nitrogen fertilizer is wrong. We simply asked that the government not apply the tariff to fertilizer that had been contracted for before the war began on February 24, an entirely reasonable position. Farmers shouldn't be penalized for making decisions last fall, a year ago, before the war began in Ukraine.
I heard from dozens and dozens of farmers in my riding of Wellington County in Halton Region who were quite upset about this tariff because they had made decisions on crops and on fertilizer use, whether they were going to use nitrogen or other types of fertilizers, based on the fact that there was no tariff on it at that time.
We support the tariff on fertilizer that was contracted after the war began on February 24. I think that's an entirely cogent and consistent position. In fact, I think it's the right position for the government to have taken, but it didn't take our advice, clearly, which is why farmers were negatively impacted, as they often are with this government, for decisions they made well before the war began in Ukraine.
By the way, Mr. Chair, we cannot neglect the fact that these farmers are often operating on razor-thin margins. It was an unfair retroactive application of a sanction that should never have been retroactively applied prior to the war beginning on February 24.
Regarding the meeting we just had with Mr. Egan from the Canadian Gas Association, it's entirely appropriate for this committee to talk about exporting LNG in the context of the Gazprom decision by the government. At the end of the day, what we are talking about is whether or not we should have any role as a country in replacing 40% of Russian gas in western Europe.
We clearly believe that Canada does have a role to play. In fact, Mr. Chair, I'll put to you that Canada, being a middle-sized power, can't impact many of the aspects of this security situation in Europe in a way that a larger superpower, such as the United States, or larger powers such as the United Kingdom, France or Germany, can by virtue of their size, but the one area in which we could have an outsized impact on countering Putin's aggressive war in Ukraine is in cutting off the source of some $100 billion that has flowed since February 24 into Russia from the sale and export of oil and gas. That is one area where Canada could cut the Putin regime off at the knees by replacing Russian gas in western Europe with Canadian natural gas. By doing that, we will cut off the 30% of the Russian economy that is based on oil and gas, large parts of which are exported.
If we do that, we can make an outsized contribution to the NATO alliance, and an outsized contribution to the defence of democracies both here and across the Atlantic, which is why this is not simply a natural resources issue for the natural resources committee. This is not simply an economic issue for the finance committee; this is a geopolitical issue, a foreign affairs issue for this committee.
In fact, we had a visit from a head of government of a G7 ally to this country in August. His number one request was for more Canadian gas, for any Canadian gas. He went away empty-handed. To suggest that this is just a narrow issue that should be restricted to some economic committee is simply false.
In fact, Mr. Chair, if it was simply an economic issue, then why did the Deputy Prime Minister go to Washington on October 11 to give a keynote foreign policy speech, a large part of which centred on expediting Canadian energy for our allies? In fact, many have dubbed it the “Freeland Doctrine” on foreign policy. She also indicated in that speech that this was a new policy of “friend-shoring”.
I quote a sentence from her speech. She said, “And crucially, we must then be prepared to spend some domestic political capital in the name of economic security for our democratic partners.” That is a foreign policy doctrine of the Deputy Prime Minister of this government that makes it clear that the government sees the export and expediting of natural gas not just as a narrow economic issue but as an essential geopolitical issue in support of our allies across the Atlantic.
Mr. Chair, I hope that members of this committee support the motion. It's done in good faith.
I'll finish by saying this: The government should immediately revoke the waiver. Nord Stream 1 has been blown up. There's a 50-metre hole in the pipeline. These turbines aren't going to be of any use to anyone. That pipeline is not coming back. It is broken and dead. As a point of principle, the government should acknowledge the mistake it made in granting the waiver in the first place and simply cancel the waiver so that we can get our foreign policy back on track, which is to say that we don't support Russian exports of natural gas to western Europe. We support the exports of Canadian liquefied natural gas to Europe. Adopting this motion will send a clear statement from this committee about its opinion on the matter, and hopefully sway the government to do the same.
Thank you.