Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Literally every appearance I have seen from her in public since the Trudeau government was first elected has she been completely the opposite of what I want in a Prime Minister. Fake in all the ways Trudeau is, dishonest, ideologically motivated champagne liberal who just cannot get enough of identity politics. She's completely full of crap, and I have no reason to think she'd be any more ethical than Trudeau is given that she's perfectly capable of spewing the same type of BS with a straight face.

The fact that she would probably be more effective and competent than Trudeau, given all of that, actually accrues to her detriment, for the same reason that I don't want a more competent version of Trump in the White House.

Now, if she becomes the LPC candidate for PM, I'll see more of her in six months than I have in the ~7 years since JT took office. It's possible that given all that airtime, she'll convince me that I was wrong about all of that and should vote for the LPC candidate in my riding. I'm not completely dismissing the possibility. But she has a tougher hill to climb in that regard than a candidate coming in with a blank slate, or better yet, someone completely outside of the Trudeau circle.

I don't think you're wrong. I just don't see anyone in the current Liberal party that won't fit this description. They're not going to be interested in making any major systemic changes. That wouldn't fly with party faithful, so they'll run on being less deplorable than the CPC.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by rubecube

That wouldn't fly with party faithful, so they'll run on being less deplorable than the CPC.

Sadly at this point that is a low ####ing bar to get over.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

If PP is the leader, yeah, it's the same menu as always next time around: "these guys are bad people, Harper Harper Harper, Trump Trump Trump, we care about everyone, vote for us and not the evil bad people".

Which will be depressing, but at least we don't have to really think about it until 2025.

Which... is... also depressing.

Well, ####.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

If PP is the leader, yeah, it's the same menu as always next time around. Which will be depressing, but at least we don't have to really think about it until 2025. Which... is... also depressing.

Well, ####.

You little ray of sunshine

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Literally every appearance I have seen from her in public since the Trudeau government was first elected has she been completely the opposite of what I want in a Prime Minister. Fake in all the ways Trudeau is, dishonest, ideologically motivated champagne liberal who just cannot get enough of identity politics. She's completely full of crap, and I have no reason to think she'd be any more ethical than Trudeau is given that she's perfectly capable of spewing the same type of BS with a straight face.

The fact that she would probably be more effective and competent than Trudeau, given all of that, actually accrues to her detriment, for the same reason that I don't want a more competent version of Trump in the White House.

Now, if she becomes the LPC candidate for PM, I'll see more of her in six months than I have in the ~7 years since JT took office. It's possible that given all that airtime, she'll convince me that I was wrong about all of that and should vote for the LPC candidate in my riding. I'm not completely dismissing the possibility. But she has a tougher hill to climb in that regard than a candidate coming in with a blank slate, or better yet, someone completely outside of the Trudeau circle.

I follow this stuff relatively closely and I've seen her talk maybe 3-4 times (now I don't watch TV news) and I'm sure 1-2 of those times were some Azure post about her being out of touch about something.

Maybe I'm wrong - but the segment of voters who have made a judgement on her has to be tiny.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I suspect the segment of voters who even have heard her name is tiny. Same goes for PP. Most people, even those who end up voting, don't pay much attention to politics at all when there isn't an election coming up.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Chingas

Thanks for the well thought out response. I agree with the majority of what you said. However with regards to the nitrogen in Fertilizer by saying up to 40% runs off is not accurate. It's possible in extreme cases that that may be the truth but it would not be the majority. It's true that Not 100% of what is applied each year is bio available that year, but it does not necessarily disappear or translocate through the soil. Additionally Fertilizer is expensive and it is not prudent to apply more than is necessary at any point. Most farmers in today's age are soil sampling every year to establish the appropriate amount of each portion of a Fertilizer blend that is necessary for the planned crop for that year. The soil sample gives levels of n,p,k etc at each depth and determines what portion will be available for the crop year and what portion will likely be available in the following year.

I don't like it when politicians take a blanket approach with little understanding of what it is that they are altering. With the world in a strange flux and the cost of Fertilizer more than doubling in less than a year farmers are more careful than ever about how much Fertilizer they are purchasing. I know of tens of thousands of acres that had less than necessary Fertilizer applied this year resulting in lower than the real potential yield on said acres being the likely final result. This is not Benificial to the farmer who is shouldering ridiculous cost increases nor will it be beneficial to the end consumer who will pay more for food.

Absolutely agreed.

I also think that the right way to go about this is to find ways to educate farmers about more efficient methods, and possibly helping fund more smart technology to help give them a massive advantage over the other countries. We heavily subsidize almost all other industries.

End of the day Trudeau and the Liberals are tone-deaf and they're going to completely screw this up, which will backfire massively for their entire party, but at the same time I think there is a lot of room for technological advancements to help the Canadian farmer become more efficient, and lead the world in sustainable farming.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Stranger

Farmers are already taking measures to decrease the amount of inputs on our crops. In the past 5 years we’ve started using sectional controls which decreased our inputs 5-8% on each field. This year we stated using variable rate controls on a few fields to test it out. We’ll see this harvest how it worked out.

Trust me. We are trying everything to decrease what we put in. My fertilizer bill alone this year was over $450,000. If I can redistribute how and where it’s used and cut back on that bill I will, but I definitely don’t need a politician who’s never been to a farm to come in and say cut it all by 30%. Profit margins are slim already. This could really hurt farmers at a time when the world need our grain.

And the sad part is that the cost of going to section control isn't necessarily paid for by the 5-8% decrease in input costs.

Variable rate is a big benefit though, and from my experience in Canada with mostly straight lines when it comes to farming, it can save the most money.

But I get it. The cost of land, equipment, seed, fertilizer, chemical, fuel and all other overheads are high, high, high...and without a bumper crop it is tough to make ends meet.

That is why I feel the Liberals are tone-deaf about this. Increased phosphorus buildup in our rivers, streams and lakes are an increasing problem, but it is a problem that could be addressed by rehabilitating our wetlands and marshes which can reduce phosphorous levels on average 5% PER YEAR. It would also help if cities like Winnipeg would dump raw sewage into the Red River.

At the same time I think farming will really change the next 10-20 years, and we as a country need to protect our farmers, not treat them as the problem.

[Stranger]

Originally Posted by Azure

And the sad part is that the cost of going to section control isn't necessarily paid for by the 5-8% decrease in input costs.

Variable rate is a big benefit though, and from my experience in Canada with mostly straight lines when it comes to farming, it can save the most money.

But I get it. The cost of land, equipment, seed, fertilizer, chemical, fuel and all other overheads are high, high, high...and without a bumper crop it is tough to make ends meet.

That is why I feel the Liberals are tone-deaf about this. Increased phosphorus buildup in our rivers, streams and lakes are an increasing problem, but it is a problem that could be addressed by rehabilitating our wetlands and marshes which can reduce phosphorous levels on average 5% PER YEAR. It would also help if cities like Winnipeg would dump raw sewage into the Red River.

At the same time I think farming will really change the next 10-20 years, and we as a country need to protect our farmers, not treat them as the problem.

Farming’s always changing. And like many industries most farmers are good at innovating new ideas to help them out. We just don’t need big government walking in and saying “We know what’s best and here’s what we we want you to do”.

Also if they cut essential fertilizer back that is used for producing food what is their plan for non essential fertilizer that goes on residential lawns, parks, golf courses etc. Do you cut that too? I’m sure it contributes to green house gases as well. If it’s as big an issue as Trudeau says shouldn’t it be eliminated completely?

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Stranger

Farming’s always changing. And like many industries most farmers are good at innovating new ideas to help them out. We just don’t need big government walking in and saying “We know what’s best and here’s what we we want you to do”.

Also if they cut essential fertilizer back that is used for producing food what is their plan for non essential fertilizer that goes on residential lawns, parks, golf courses etc. Do you cut that too? I’m sure it contributes to green house gases as well. If it’s as big an issue as Trudeau says shouldn’t it be eliminated completely?

No because of whatever political reasoning is driving the decision. We know what Trudeau is, and what he is not. Trudeau is not a champion of the environment, evidenced by his actions. He literally flew from Kelowna to Penticton. He picks and chooses winners and losers and deploys rules based on such selection, then he states such selections are in the name of climate change while doing 10 other things that are equally environmentally damaging.

Trudeau is like a modern day Marie Antoinette, but more fake and less intelligent.

[Stranger]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

No because of whatever political reasoning is driving the decision. We know what Trudeau is, and what he is not. Trudeau is not a champion of the environment, evidenced by his actions. He literally flew from Kelowna to Penticton. He picks and chooses winners and losers and deploys rules based on such selection, then he states such selections are in the name of climate change while doing 10 other things that are equally environmentally damaging.

Trudeau is like a modern day Marie Antoinette, but more fake and less intelligent.

He’s the one of most frustrating people I can think of. Definitely not a leader who gives you any confidence in his decisions or actions. He’s looking out for himself.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Stranger

Farming’s always changing. And like many industries most farmers are good at innovating new ideas to help them out. We just don’t need big government walking in and saying “We know what’s best and here’s what we we want you to do”.

Also if they cut essential fertilizer back that is used for producing food what is their plan for non essential fertilizer that goes on residential lawns, parks, golf courses etc. Do you cut that too? I’m sure it contributes to green house gases as well. If it’s as big an issue as Trudeau says shouldn’t it be eliminated completely?

Why not? The Government taking charge and centralizing farming has historically always worked out really well, just ask Stalin or Mao...

/notcomparingtrudeautostalinormao

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Stranger

Farming’s always changing. And like many industries most farmers are good at innovating new ideas to help them out. We just don’t need big government walking in and saying “We know what’s best and here’s what we we want you to do”.

Also if they cut essential fertilizer back that is used for producing food what is their plan for non essential fertilizer that goes on residential lawns, parks, golf courses etc. Do you cut that too? I’m sure it contributes to green house gases as well. If it’s as big an issue as Trudeau says shouldn’t it be eliminated completely?

You're right, it is the same problem, particularly with golf courses.

I think the overall goal should be to find ways to be more efficient with fertilizer usage, not just blanket reductions.

[Azure]

The industry association Fertilizer Canada commissioned a report from accounting firm MNP that says these fertilizer reductions will lead to a $48 billion loss in farm incomes over the eight years leading to 2030.

The association says that: “Because Canadian farmers are already among the most sustainable growers in the world, they have less room to lower fertilizer emissions without compromising their food production than those in other countries.”

What they prefer over firm regulations is for the industry to go “all-in” on what’s called 4R Nutrient Stewardship — a technical method that ensures only the minimum amount of appropriate fertilizer is used.

Industry experts point to how Canada is already a leader in such farming techniques.

“Canada is situated probably at the top of sustainable production,” says Michael Keegan, an agri-food consultant who has served as chief of staff to agriculture ministers in the previous Ontario Liberal government, in an interview with the Sun. “In fact there’s kind of a growing movement in Canada to elevate Canadian production and production know-how so that the more people around the world eat Canadian product and grow like Canadian producers do, the better off we’ll all be.”

Keegan says a big challenge is the disconnect between the federal government and farmers, who currently view each other with distrust and aren’t really speaking the same language.

This becomes all too clear when farmers complain that they haven’t been consulted about the fertilizer regulations, which Saskatchewan Minister of Agriculture David Marit describes as an “arbitrary goal.” And while the feds just launched what they’re describing as additional consultations on the regulations, it’s pretty clear this is mostly a PR exercise and they’re not going to back down on their targets. (Although an extension of the timeline beyond 2030 is considered one possible olive branch.)

https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...-across-canada

Also from the article.

The government’s discussion paper notes that synthetic fertilizers accounted for 12.75 Mt of emissions in 2019 — less than 2% of our national total. Why invite increased food prices, farm closures and more convoy protests over such an inconsequential figure?

From what I understand, these emissions could be easily offset with proper rehabilitation of wetlands, marshes, lakes & rivers that deal with run off and such. Not sure why it isn't presented as a viable option.

Perhaps Trudeau could also quit flying all over the place for PR spectacles.

[shotinthebacklund]

Originally Posted by Stranger

Farmers are already taking measures to decrease the amount of inputs on our crops. In the past 5 years we’ve started using sectional controls which decreased our inputs 5-8% on each field. This year we stated using variable rate controls on a few fields to test it out. We’ll see this harvest how it worked out.

Trust me. We are trying everything to decrease what we put in. My fertilizer bill alone this year was over $450,000. If I can redistribute how and where it’s used and cut back on that bill I will, but I definitely don’t need a politician who’s never been to a farm to come in and say cut it all by 30%. Profit margins are slim already. This could really hurt farmers at a time when the world need our grain.

Thank you for taking the time to post this. The reality is, a huge percentage of Canadians have no clue where their food comes from, and is what makes this nitrogen reduction policy so dangerous.



This is a video produced by a Sask Farmer, Many here will not appreciate some of the manners and tone he uses to convey his message but he points out some key facts about our agriculture system Canadians should start to understand are already in place and implemented.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMG4kuEN_kM

[StickMan]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

Thank you for taking the time to post this. The reality is, a huge percentage of Canadians have no clue where their food comes from, and is what makes this nitrogen reduction policy so dangerous.



This is a video produced by a Sask Farmer, Many here will not appreciate some of the manners and tone he uses to convey his message but he points out some key facts about our agriculture system Canadians should start to understand are already in place and implemented.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMG4kuEN_kM

If we had competent mainstream media, they would be broadcasting a similar message all over Canada. But we don't, so Canadians will remain ignorant and vote Trudeau.

[Stranger]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

Thank you for taking the time to post this. The reality is, a huge percentage of Canadians have no clue where their food comes from, and is what makes this nitrogen reduction policy so dangerous.



This is a video produced by a Sask Farmer, Many here will not appreciate some of the manners and tone he uses to convey his message but he points out some key facts about our agriculture system Canadians should start to understand are already in place and implemented.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMG4kuEN_kM

Quick Dick McDick has some good videos if you are into agriculture. He’s got some good info. He’ll get criticized on social media by the left because of his name and he makes no bones about disliking Trudeau. That video on fertilizer was on point though. Everyone should take the 13 minutes and watch it.

[Stranger]

Originally Posted by Azure

https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...-across-canada

Also from the article.



From what I understand, these emissions could be easily offset with proper rehabilitation of wetlands, marshes, lakes & rivers that deal with run off and such. Not sure why it isn't presented as a viable option.

Perhaps Trudeau could also quit flying all over the place for PR spectacles.

That’s a good column. Our fertilizer emissions are a fart in the wind to the total global emissions. Like you says there are other ways of dealing with it that won’t cripple a huge western Canadian industry.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Stranger

Quick Dick McDick has some good videos if you are into agriculture. He’s got some good info. He’ll get criticized on social media by the left because of his name and he makes no bones about disliking Trudeau.

Why would the left be mad about either of those things?

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Why would the left be mad about either of those things?

Mad is definitely the wrong word, I've watched the video, but when he gets into "Trudeau is a clown", and "they are all a part of an environmental cult" etc etc. it reduces his credibility. He makes some good points, but seems to lack self awareness when talking about others being a part of a cult.

I don't care if someone hates Trudeau, but the minute you start yelling about cults and calling everyone clowns I start to tune out.