Senator Batters: Right.

Senator Wells: Certainly, one of the things that I did learn is when a farmer goes to a bank or goes to a lender, their case is a whole lot better when they don’t have this additional burden and they can apply that benefit that is retained in their earnings to their application for funds. Normally it is a long-term lease. Certainly, it would be more beneficial along those lines.

Senator Wells: Thank you. From where I stand, I can see you and I can see Senator Clement. I know that I was standing, and I also saw that you struggled to remember my name. I understand that; that’s not an issue personally with me at all. It was then that you deferred to Senator Clement. But I know clearly, Your Honour — and I guess you can choose whom you wish to recognize, but I know that I was standing up on debate with respect to Senator Moncion’s —

Senator Clement: I do not.

Senator Dalphond: I spoke with farmers, and I can give you the information. I have the bills. The tax on carbon this year is two cents per cubic metre. That is the increase. Last year it was two cents. The year before it was two cents per cubic metre. Maybe, Senator Wells, you can tell us the price of natural gas in Ontario?

Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Dalphond, for your question. I do not know the price of natural gas in Ontario. I only know the amount of actual dollars that farmers have to pay — large, medium and small — is considerable and derives no benefit to their farm and probably no benefit to the environment.

Senator Dalphond: Thank you, senator. Thank you for your speech. There is a lot that has been said, and I am glad that you agreed with some of the things I said speaking of Budget 2023.

Do you know how much it costs for somebody who is raising chickens or turkeys in Ontario using natural gas? How much does the carbon tax cost this year per cubic metre on the price of gas?

Senator Wells: I do not know that exact amount, no.

Senator Dalphond: Would you accept another question?

Senator Wells: Yes.

Senator Dalphond: Will you accept another question?

Senator Dalphond: I do not know if Senator Wells will take another question from me.

Senator Wells: Senator Dalphond, it is my policy to take questions until my time is up.

Senator Simons: This is the editor and fact checker in me. Senator Quinn asked you a question about whether this would lower costs for off-site grain drying.

To clarify for everyone, is it not true that this bill does not apply to off-site commercial grain dryers but only, in fact, applies to farmers using grain dryers on their own farms?

Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Simons. You are right. This only applies to on-site grain drying. But having been in business and having done quite a bit of production costing in my life, I would make the assumption that it would be more expensive per unit for the off-site grain dryer, regardless of the tax, only because they would have less volume. They would still have their drying costs but less volume. Perhaps I should not assume, but normally the higher the volume you have, to a certain point, the less costly your per-unit costs are.

Senator Batters: Isn’t it true that brand-new grain dryers that are the most efficient do have a saving on the energy costs; however, the substantial cost is that a brand-new very efficient grain dryer could be $150,000 or more? Isn’t that correct?

Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Batters.

A grain dryer is a huge cost. If you have a larger farm, you are going to require more drying capacity. That would either be multiple dryers or a dryer that has that higher capacity. I can only imagine that will be a higher capital cost. Certainly, if it is on‑farm, then at least you have some of the benefit of not having to pay the tax on the drying operation.

Senator Moncion: Yes, I will.

Hon. Yvonne Boyer: Honourable senators, today I will be delivering my statement in Michif, the language that the Métis grandfathers and grandmothers spoke. Elder Norman Fleury helped me write this speech; he is my teacher and will be interpreting for you. As I stand here in this chamber, there are children across the homeland who are learning the Michif language and culture in schools. This gives me hope that our language will survive through the generations, for its protection and revitalization must come through the young people. I speak Michif today to honour my kin and their resilience, and to show it is a living language. This statement is for the ancestors and our future, the children . . .

[Editor’s Note: Senator Boyer spoke in Michif — interpretation follows.]

Honourable senators, I am Yvonne Boyer. I am a member of the Métis Nation. My roots are in Saskatchewan and the Red River in Manitoba. I am the great-granddaughter of Narcisse Boyer, who was an American Michif from the Turtle Mountain Chippewa Band in North Dakota. And I am related to Alexis L’Esperance, who was the leader of the La Loche Boat Brigade, which were military boatmen who supported Louis Riel during the Red River Resistance of 1869-70. I also have family in Northern Ireland in the province of Ulster.

This language that I am speaking is called Michif. The Michif language has been around for a long time. From us — we made it ourselves. It is our language. Our old people are working hard so that our language doesn’t die. I am trying to speak my language. If we lose our language, we will lose who we are and our nation.

Today, as I speak my Michif language with all of you, I would like to say who we are as Michifs, and also that it is important that we keep what was given to us by the Creator and we don’t lose our way of life.

It’s for our children and future generations. I say thank you to Norman Fleury for the Michif language.

[English]

I urge everyone here to support the preservation and revival of Michif and other Indigenous languages. It’s crucial for us to embrace our culture, to empower our communities and to ensure that the Michif voice, once quieted, echoes through generations to come.

Senator Gold: I have been advised that the government takes all appropriate and possible measures to ensure that the aid reaches those whom it is designed and intended to assist: civilians in Gaza or, indeed, elsewhere in the world where many citizens are subject to non-democratic — sometimes autocratic — governments.

Senator Gold: Thank you, senator. The government works closely with its provincial and territorial counterparts — and Indigenous communities and leadership — with regard to health. Again, the role that the federal government has in this is to provide funding. It is the provinces who have to prioritize in the best interests of their own citizens and take into account their own best judgment. Lots of money is flowing to the provinces and will continue to do so to support Canadians.

Senator Gold: I will certainly transmit those concerns and the Globe and Mail article to the attention of the minister.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Plett: A response that I received in 2021 to my written question about the $196-million loss said:

The government is unable to provide more details on this specific transaction, as it would result in making public confidential information about a private company.

Senator Gold, this $196 million belongs to Canadian taxpayers. They deserve better than eight long years of the Trudeau government saying, “Take our word for it.”

What company was involved?

Senator Gold: Thank you. The passion with which you ask the question still does not change the fact that in matters of this kind — as it is in business — there are confidentiality agreements understood, regulated and protected by law that do not make it appropriate, necessarily, to provide the information that you are seeking.

I am not assuming any more than that about the circumstances.

Senator Plett: And you recognized Senator Wells as well, on debate.