Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Azure]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

We do minimal till, but we are far from normal in Mountain View County. Lots and lots of very black dirt here.



But you do raise a good point. Every micro climate will have different practices and ecology, which is part of what makes a Country wide policy dangerous.

Regenerative ag is growing, but it takes time and education to implement.

Around my area lots of people till, but if you go to Brandon area, more people do not. It definitely depends on where one is located.

Yields are yields. Its tough going most years, and if a farm has had good success with a certain plan, they tend to stick with it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

We do minimal till, but we are far from normal in Mountain View County. Lots and lots of very black dirt here.



But you do raise a good point. Every micro climate will have different practices and ecology, which is part of what makes a Country wide policy dangerous.

If you read through the terms of reference that were linked the plans seem to acknowledge this

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Firebot

And the pointing to a consultation phase is a copout, when the goal is simply to use the phase selectively to fuel the narrative as needed, and the current government is pushing agreements with these targets already in place.

Did you know there was a consultation phase for the online harms bill?

https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-he...-we-heard.html

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...nada-1.6431141



It's all a charade, only to show that the government 'listens' to the people, but a year ago they rammed this toxic bill and only got beaten to become legislation by their own election call. And for that bill, they didn't even bother to consult the privacy commissioner.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...ine-harms-bill

But consulting the Liberal apologists don't actually mean consulting the Canadian farmer, right? They just mean the Liberals should consult someone, like their NDP lackies who will bend over at will. Or some high priced Toronto agriculture consultant who has never stepped on a farm in his life. Then they can slap on the 'consulted' label, approve the plan and sit back and laugh.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by GGG

If you read through the terms of reference that were linked the plans seem to acknowledge this

This is not focused on this particular government. But local scaling has never been a forte for the Canadian Federal Government. I'd love to be wrong, since environmentally sustainable agriculture is something I care about a lot.

[CaptainCrunch]

LNS makes me laugh

https://twitter.com/user/status/1552701577122693122

[Fuzz]

That twitter feed is embarrassing. Like the Beaverton, but without a sense of humour. Unsubscribe.

[CaptainCrunch]

Today's information on the firearms buyback program.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/feds-p...gram-1.6005409

OTTAWA - The federal government is proposing $1,337 in compensation for turning in an AR-15 rifle under a mandatory buyback program.
Public Safety Canada has released a price list detailing how much money owners of banned firearms can expect to get under the program.
At the higher end of the scale, forfeiting a Swiss Arms SG550 could net an owner $6,209.

[Stranger]

Originally Posted by Azure

But consulting the Liberal apologists don't actually mean consulting the Canadian farmer, right? They just mean the Liberals should consult someone, like their NDP lackies who will bend over at will. Or some high priced Toronto agriculture consultant who has never stepped on a farm in his life. Then they can slap on the 'consulted' label, approve the plan and sit back and laugh.

I saw on the government website that the federal government was consulting with farmers, ag specialists, environmental groups, indigenous groups, women in agriculture, children and youth and a few others. This to me is very vague and just seems to check off the liberal talking points. Why talk to youth? Aren’t women in agricultural farmers too? Of course we know what environmental group will say. They are the ones pushing 30% reduction. Most articles I’ve read say that people in ag haven’t been contacted yet. I think it will get pushed through without much say from farmers. I’ll try find the link to the government website.

Here it is

https://www.canada.ca/en/agriculture...ertilizer.html

[CaptainCrunch]

Liz May runs for the Green Party Leadership.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1552762813554298880

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Liz May runs for the Green Party Leadership.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1552762813554298880

"I swear we're not a Cult."

- Elizabeth May...probably

[Northendzone]

liz may running again seems to suggest that she actually stopped being their leader

[Northendzone]

anyone have a sense of what an AR15 currently costs to buy?

I wonder how much this will cost the country OR is the real question "geez, imagine the thousands the lives that will be saved by this" and "imagine what life will be like in TO without three or four shootings every weekend"

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Today's information on the firearms buyback program.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/feds-p...gram-1.6005409

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

anyone have a sense of what an AR15 currently costs to buy?

I wonder how much this will cost the country OR is the real question "geez, imagine the thousands the lives that will be saved by this" and "imagine what life will be like in TO without three or four shootings every weekend"

There are currently over 90,000 lawfully owned AR pattern rifles in private Canadians hands. So using the govt figure of $1337 per rifle that's going to be well over $120,000,000 of taxpayers money. Basically the owners can help buy the rifle twice and own nothing.

$1337 is most assuredly on the low end of cost per rifle. Nevermind accessories that will now be useless.

An AR rifle in Canada is more likely to be stolen from the police than used in a shooting. So, in essence this will do nothing other than offer token symbolism for a party who promised not to do such a thing on the back of events in another country, while costing the taxpayer.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

anyone have a sense of what an AR15 currently costs to buy?

I wonder how much this will cost the country OR is the real question "geez, imagine the thousands the lives that will be saved by this" and "imagine what life will be like in TO without three or four shootings every weekend"

I thought the estimation of the buy back program is a half a billion dollars or so. But we all know that governments tend to guess anyways.

Whether this makes a difference or not who knows, but it doesn't really do anything for the type of gun crime that's happening in Canada now.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

There are currently over 90,000 lawfully owned AR pattern rifles in private Canadians hands. So using the govt figure of $1337 per rifle that's going to be well over $120,000,000 of taxpayers money. Basically the owners can help buy the rifle twice and own nothing.

$1337 is most assuredly on the low end of cost per rifle. Nevermind accessories that will now be useless.

An AR rifle in Canada is more likely to be stolen from the police than used in a shooting. So, in essence this will do nothing other than offer token symbolism for a party who promised not to do such a thing on the back of events in another country, while costing the taxpayer.

Yeah, but it feels good and appeals to the idiots who think it does something to reduce gun violence.

[2Stonedbirds]

Pretty expensive placebo to feel good, man.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Stranger

I saw on the government website that the federal government was consulting with farmers, ag specialists, environmental groups, indigenous groups, women in agriculture, children and youth and a few others. This to me is very vague and just seems to check off the liberal talking points. Why talk to youth? Aren’t women in agricultural farmers too? Of course we know what environmental group will say. They are the ones pushing 30% reduction. Most articles I’ve read say that people in ag haven’t been contacted yet. I think it will get pushed through without much say from farmers. I’ll try find the link to the government website.

Here it is

https://www.canada.ca/en/agriculture...ertilizer.html

According to the graph on the discussion document - https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/abo...culture-sector

a 30% reduction takes us back to like 2006 levels of synthetic fertilizer.

I'm not going to pretend to know anything about it, but at least at a surface level its not that far back where we using less.

Graphs also show less emissions in the west compared to Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes.

[Erick Estrada]

Dang there's a lot of fertilizer usage for a small area in Quebec. The cynic in me thinks this isn't likely going to be overly enforced on them.

[Aarongavey]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/scc...sion-1.6535127

The Supreme Court of Canada decided Friday that use of a condom can legally be a condition for consent to sex in a ruling that could set important legal precedent on consent and sexual assault.

Makes sense. Good ruling for sexual assault cases.

[Stranger]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

According to the graph on the discussion document - https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/abo...culture-sector

a 30% reduction takes us back to like 2006 levels of synthetic fertilizer.

I'm not going to pretend to know anything about it, but at least at a surface level its not that far back where we using less.

Graphs also show less emissions in the west compared to Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes.

We’ve been using roughly the same rate of fertilizer for years. In our area since 2006 a lot of pasture land has been broken up for crop land. That would increase fertilizer use. After 2002 and the BSE troubles many farmers got rid of some of their cows and need less pasture.

If it’s unused N that worries them would switching to variable rates work? That way you are trying to put the exact amount of fertilizer on a specific area of the field hoping the crop uses it all an none of it is lost.