Thank you, Chair.
As I was saying, our position has consistently been, from the beginning, that the permit should be revoked, but our motion adds additional information to the factual matrix demonstrating why it is important in particular now, number one, given the fact that Nord Stream 1 is clearly no longer supplying gas to Europe anyway due to the blast that created the hole in the pipeline. This is somehow being used by the government to imply that it's no longer an important issue because the pipeline isn't supplying gas anyway. However, as long as the exemption exists, it sets a very negative precedent.
The number one thing I heard in conversations from people in Ukraine about the government's decision to put in place the permit was about the message that it sent, the precedent that it set, because allies have different interests when it comes to sanctions and there is always some cost when it comes to imposing sanctions. We don't impose sanctions ignoring that there's a cost. Generally speaking, we do so recognizing that the cost is worth it in pursuit of a greater good than simply economic well-being. When when we have cases of nations that are allowing these kinds of permits to be granted, it sets a precedent whereby other nations will do the same thing.
This is what we heard from witnesses: When you start to weaken or fold on aspects of the integrity of that system, when you say, let's grant an exception here and let's grant an exception here, then other countries will start to make the same arguments and say, if Canada is granting this exception so that they can benefit from turbines that are, in fact, being worked on fairly close to the Minister of Foreign Affairs' own riding, then maybe other countries feel that they have the same licence to make the same kinds of decisions. This can then open a floodgate to the weakening of sanctions.
This is why revocation of this permit is extremely important.