What was factually wrong about what I just said? Was the plan to reduce nitrogen fertilizer? Was there a plan to buy out 3300 farmers in a mandatory buyout? Was there a plan to cull herds? That’s what I said. Tell me where it was wrong.
Did the cites actually support your argument this time?
Why would I bother? It has been shown that you mischaracterize the nitrogen fertilizer issue into a false narrative (no idea about the farms). You’ve done it over and over. Like seriously, what would be the point? Is today the day that you start becoming intellectually honest? I mean come on.
The “facts” in some sense are correct, but there’s omitted elements that are replaced with his own narrative. There is a program to reduce nitrogen fertilizer in some sense, but it is more to reduce waste. And Western farmers didn’t tell the PM to go pound sand. The program has been pretty successful with of course room for improvement.
The program was a voluntary program for farms that were overusing nitrogen fertilizer (which is not economically good for the farm by the way), and creating an environmental impact.
" I would like to be clear, there is no mandatory reduction in fertilizer use on Canadian farms."
“To achieve this target, we will look to voluntary efforts to maximize efficiency, optimize fertilizer use, and encourage innovation.”
“Many farmers are already implementing nutrient management practices to ensure that fertilizer goes to the growing crop, avoiding losses to air and water. It makes sense, both ecologically and economically. They are using the latest tools, management practices, and precision technologies, to help align fertilizer rates to the needs of crops.”
- Minister of Agriculture
Because he’s been nothing but polite. 
- Sam makes a “mistake”.
- Sam gets corrected.
- Sam eventually slinks off because reality isn’t on his side.
- Sam repeats same “mistake”.
- Sam gets called out for making the same “mistake”. <— we are here
- Sam gets mad because we’re mean to him. Blames it on ideology.
- Back to 4.
Indeed. 
Not having followed the topic in question, I at first assumed ‘nitrogen fertilizer’ was a euphemism for ‘bullshit’.
Carry on.
86% chance of no.
I’ll just put this quote here again (from your link), in case anyone missed it. Note that the bolding is in the original. It’s almost like they wanted to draw attention to this part.
I would like to be clear, there is no mandatory reduction in fertilizer use on Canadian farms. Instead, we want to support measures that producers can take voluntarily to reduce their emissions over the long term, without curtailing growth in crop yields.
Thanks. I had it in a post above, but I suck at the quotes. I keep thinking it is just using " " signs.
I actually let the cites to tell others to shut up when the cites showed how wrong they are, that you never learn, that is your problem.
So some government fail to make a good case, well nature does not care about your feelings, what the right then proposes and misleads farmers about the issue is not a good thing.
As Enrico Somaglia, deputy general secretary of the European Federation of Food, Agriculture, and Tourism Trade Unions said about the Nitrogen issue in Holland:
The protests are linked to different national circumstances, such as overregulation, subsidy cuts, or imports of Ukrainian grain to the EU. But there is definitely a frustration towards a common enemy, the European Union, the Green Deal and its Farm To Fork strategy. Of course, not every farmer sees them as enemies: the agriculture sector is very heterogeneous. Small and big farmers are organised in different ways, they have different representatives. A minority within the sector opposes any kind of green policies because it is resistant to change. As trade unions, we firmly reject this stance.
On the other hand, a significant part of the farmers are against the Green Deal because they perceive it as something that has been unilaterally imposed on them. Fortunately, there is still room to improve green policies to make sure they are more socially acceptable. Trade unions see this as the way forward to build a different agriculture sector which is not only more sustainable from an environmental point of view, but is also a better place to work. To achieve that, we need measures for a truly just transition. We should not forget that if the condition of farmers is challenging, that of agricultural workers is simply unbearable. A vast proportion of seasonal workers, migrant workers, and daily labourers still face unrecorded working hours, appalling housing situations, and exploitative working relationships. The green transition can be an opportunity to create better jobs, but it needs to be stronger on the social side.
The green transition can be an opportunity to create better jobs, but it needs to be stronger on the social side.
If the agricultural sector is not a united bloc, then who are those protesting? Do they really share the same interests?
Farmers are united against issues such as unilateral decision-making, the EU’s deal with the Mercosur trade bloc that is currently under negotiation, and the unfair distribution of wealth.
In many countries, small farmers represent the vast majority and are an essential part of the rural economy. They need responses, and trade unions are by their side on this. Of course, there is also a risk that farmers’ protests are instrumentalised by a minority within the sector that is resistant to change because it profits from the current environmentally and socially unsustainable model. This minority works against nature, and therefore also against agriculture. So farmers should be careful that their demands are not instrumentalised against their interests.
Greens are trying to pitch themselves to farmers as their best ally. Are they credible?
Progressive forces, including the Greens, are definitely the allies of farmers. The far right has absolutely bad solutions for the issues farmers are facing. The neoliberal agenda is not what we need. We need to defend nature and promote decent jobs in agriculture with strong collective bargaining rights. Farmers say, “Without us, there is no food”. Well, without nature there are no jobs and no farmers.
I wonder if we’ll get a “we’re mean” or if this will be a slinks off until he can repeat the same “mistake” again.
Look who else has been propagating the “mandatory reduction” conspiracy theory:
Whaaaaaaat?!? Sam gets his talking points from the far-right and never questions them?
Well, Sir or Madam, I am shocked. Shocked I say!
If only somebody had asked Sam, given that your sources keeping lying to you, why do you keep believing them? This just in. Somebody did in fact ask Sam that it.
In the words of Obi Wan Kenobi, “Of course I know him. He’s me.”
In essence: this has been a great wedge issue for the Right Wing… that has no good ideas whatsoever in how to deal with this issue.
I hate Trudeau and so should you. This is the right’s policy platform in Canada.
From my above link:
On July 5[, 2022], the Facebook page belonging to Cheryl Gallant, a Conservative MP who has been criticized in the past for spreading conspiracy theories, posted that “Trudeau wants us to eat crickets” while linking to a story about the Dutch farmers’ protest.
