[email protected]

You know, the NDP also runs in Atlantic Canada..I hear they even elect the odd person or two......and then there's the spirograph party......the leader is even running in McKay's seat. Not that Canada needs another regional party, but if you want to be taken seriously, you should be serious about the choices..... We are a provincial party in the four Atlantic Canadian provinces.

So, what do you expect from your MP? 1) an MP should always follow his election platform no matter what happens during his term. 2) an MP should not be obligated to follow his election platform throughout his term. Which one is it? I do not think it matters because I do not expect MPs to act in the best interests of their constituents. In an ideal world a representative, after hearing a free and informed debate, should vote according to a mix of: What is best for his/her constituents What is best for the common good, ie all citizens (The Burke-ian position) The trade off of voting with a voting block/party or not; “if I vote with my block/party on this issue, a vote which I would not normally do, will I be able to garner support later for something more important” These three influences always exist. The key is that each rep be free to balance them and then decide. In our current system this is not allowed.

It should be left up to the rep to decide. The rep should not be coerced.

That makes one of us because I still am confused about why you think we should have Citizen Initiatives. I don't think we should, perhaps that's where the misunderstanding comes from. The reason CI is a good idea is that helps to ensure that the government+legislature are more or less staying on the citizen's agenda versus their own. If there is a possibility that citizens may start to organize or call for CI then that sure helps focus the energies of the government and the house. In a properly functioning governance process CI would rarely if ever be used. It is much more useful as a threat. Our model is the Swiss experience; most CIs never make it the whole way since legislators are quick to jump on the bandwagon and pass it themselves. Also CI encourages citizen engagement.

While replacing the 4 Atlantic provinces with only 1 Atlantic province will be good for the whole country and for the Atlantic provinces in particular, it will not be possible because each of the provinces will claim it will be ripped off by the other three and 3 premiers and many MLAs will lose their jobs and influence. No way in hell they would give up their piece of the pie. Yes, it would be good for the whole country because it makes it easier for the region to become less dependent. It is probably also true that the existing entrenched system has little to gain from it, so it has to be championed by some sort of pan-Atlantic Canada grassroots movement.

The idea was floated and dismissed by the Atlantic provinces who felt they had more advantages remaining as seperate provinces. To argue such a thing you would have to establish how it would be of ecnomic benefit to the provinces and place them in a better position then they are now. I doubt the people of New Brunswick, PEI and Newfoundland will dismantle their provincial governments because the logical place to put the provincial capital of an Atlantic province would be Halifax the largest city in the Atlantic. I doubt given the regional loyalties you would make it past the above post. I mean as it is you have the people of Cape Breton constantly talking about their own province and Labrador has always felt a strain being associated with Newfoundland as it is. New Brunswick being bilingual would expect the Atlantic Province to be fully bilingual which is another issue. More to the point the funding out of such a united province would never get consensus from the provinces who would all fight just like the 12 provinces do now with Canada. Probably not true. The 1863 discussions would have probably created some kind of Union, but then Confederation came along and the focus shifted. Here are the benefits: · A larger, stronger Atlantic Canada with a louder voice with which to speak in Canada, a region of 2.4 Million versus four very small weak provinces. · A rationalization of government services with lower costs. Why four separate governments in such a small region? · Economic union to eliminate barriers to trade within the region. · Comprehensive planning to address region wide issues; the economy, population, marketability. · Lower debt servicing charges by pooling debts. · A unified region better able to withstand Quebec separation. · An opportunity for electoral and political reform. · The possibility of a federal regional party(s) for the region. · The status quo; federal handouts, impoverishment, declining populations, and increasing irrelevance is really not an option. And no one has said anything about where the capital would be, many suggest Moncton or Charlottetown since they are both more central. There is good reason to think that the federal government and the other provincial governments would approve, since Union helps to create a less dependent Atlantic Canada.

Not so, Union was discussed in 1864 and likely would have gone ahead except Confederation came along. It has been reexamined periodically since then, most recently in 1970. Issues such as the capital, number of MLAs etc etc are not really all that important. Especially when faced with the start reality of doing nothing; federal handouts, impoverishment, declining populations, and increasing irrelevance is really not an option.

By ending confederation? No, the question means a new united province in Canada.

Absolutely correct.

Good questions. The reason CI is a good idea is that helps to ensure that the government+legislature are more or less staying on the citizen's agenda versus their own. If there is a possibility that citizens may start to organize or call for CI then that sure helps focus the energies of the government and the house. In a properly functioning governance process CI would rarely if ever be used. It is much more useful as a threat. Our model is the Swiss experience; most CIs never make it the whole way since legislators are quick to jump on the bandwagon and pass it themselves. Having said that it is very important that any CI process be well designed; Tough financing laws to keep wealthy interests from taking advantage. Tough audit rules on process, disclosure, signatures etc and to keep things 'open' A fairly high initial signature threshold, say 10% of electors (which means tens of thousands of signatures) Making the pass threshold 50%+1 of all electors not just of voters who turnout. And of course with all legislation it will be subject to judicial review.

How can we achieve Atlantic Union?

That is should a petition signed by a minimum number of registered voters force a public vote on an issue? If yes, should it be direct (a straight public vote) or indirect (goes to legislature first, then public vote if not enacted)?

No. The PMO+Cabinet+the civil service form the government/executive. They do the day to day managing of stuff plus prepare policy initiatives for the country. In theory the parliament is an independent organ that oversees and retrains the government, the government must send its bills to be debated and passed by the parliament, the people's representatives. In Canada it is easy to get the two confused since the executive has effectively subverted the parliament so it appears as if the parliament is just another 'department' of the government, its effective role is just as a rubber stamp. Actually no. Parliament as opposition is its original British role, to oppose the monarch. Centuries of evolution in England saw the parliament eventually become a stopgap against the monarch, especially on taxing and spending. All the taxes the monarch wanted had to ratified by the people's reps. The Americans refined the system a little, but they did not invent it. It is a purely British notion of government. The Founding Fathers were all Englishmen steeped in English political philosophy. Yes we do. It is the recent subverted version of the traditional English approach, one that fuses the Executive to the Legislature and betrays the original intent of the sharing power between the Monarch and the Parliament. It is a very poor model and is not worthy of Canadians. Yes, and again this makes parliament ineffective. The only way to restrain the government on a bill is by precipitating an election? What kind of system is that? The simple approach would be to vote 'no' on a government proposal and get back to business. It is true that under a minority government there is a little more restraint on the PMO but still the PMO has vast powers. Majority governments are the norm in Canada and there the PMO operates with virtually no restraint and has complete control over the executive and the legislature.

PMO/government hasn't stripped Parliament of its power. Parliament has given it away. Winning and personal advancement is more important than holding government accountable. Either way Parliament is ineffective. QED What should we do about it, if anything?

Please explain how Parliament is ineffective. I believe it is one of the most powerful and effective institutions in Canada. The Senate is irrelevant so don't bother addressing that. The role of Parliament is to restrain and oversee the government. To do that it has to have the power to say no to the government on a routine basis. Currently the PMO/government controls the Parliament thereby stripping it of its power. Therefore it is ineffective.

NFLD has much in common with the rest of Atlantic Canada, same people, history, culture by and large. Of all four provinces NFLD is the one that would benefit the most, it is actually slated to have a declining population of the next thirty years. Probably. There is good reason to think that the Federal government would be eager for this type of union.

Very good point. We have one riding in Toronto that has one MPP and one MP - with a population larger than the whole of P.E.I. which has 6 MP's, 4 Senators plus an entire freakin' legislature. Fact is, if Altantic Canada were to merge and have seats assigned on a fair and reasonable basis commesurate with the rest of the country, I suspect they'd lose about half of their MP's and Senators. A federal vote in Atlantic Canada is worth roughly double what a vote in Southern Ontario is worth. No. Atlantic Canada would loss a handful so seats. (PEI only has four seats). Also remember that parliament and the Senate are ineffective. Having one or four or ten seats makes not one bit of difference. Atlantic Canada may be overrepresented by a few seats, what good has it done us? The over representation is just another handout. Agreed.

If they just do that then why even have them ? Have a vote and see who gets in and whoever wins the Prime Ministership gets to be king. Thats basically how it works now anyways. Well, in my area, the farmer's were the ones that really back the Con that won. It has been reported they are sorry they did because they weren't getting anywhere with Harper until last week. It really comes down the person who was elected and if he agrees with the party leader. What should happen if the riding says one thing and the leader another?

One of the problems of our system, something we what to change, is the monopoly that the two major parties have on (almost) all the routes to power. Its a Catch 22 scenario: In order to have a reasonable chance of getting elected you have to join one of the two major parties and be approved by the leader to run. In return you have to promise to vote as the leader says. Yes you can vote against the party line but you have to give everything up to do it, because you will be cashiered (in Canada we say Nunziata-ed).

If they want. Unite the four provinces into one province with one legislature and one provincial government inside Canada. That allows: 1. Atlantic Canada a larger more unified voice with which to speak in Canada 2. A rationalization and better co-ordination of provincial policies 3. Economic union 4. A region commensurate with other regions in Canada 5. Canada to rationalize seats in parliament, ie have the region give up its over-representation 6. A base on which to start building a regional economy 7. A stronger region in the likely event of Quebec separation

So, do you think you live in a vacuum, that the rest of the world should stand still? Booms come and go, the trick is being part of the next one. How did the rest of Canada destroy your prosperity? What could you have done outside of Confederation that would have given you more opportunities than being in it? That is a valid question and very tough to answer since it is a big 'what if'. It seems likely that Maritime Union would have gone ahead, with or without NLFD (they probably would have joined later). Given the fast rising population, increasing industry and wealth it seems probable that the region would have adopted policies to enhance and continue this. It certainly would have developed a sizable industrial base which would have keep pace with the growth of New England in the years ahead since the regions were very similar. Strong links would have been kept with the US and the UK. Plus the Union would control the eastern seaboard and control access to Canada from the Atlantic. Of course, anything could happened, but this seems reasonable.

Why is it fair to say that? Atlantic Canada was booming before Confederation, doing better than Central Canada. And then the Brits banned slavery and Canada adopted principles of free trade. Bad luck for Nova Scotia who's 19th century prosperity was dependent upon slavery and extremely high tarriffs. The Brits banned the slave trade in 1807 so not relevant. The Reciprocity Treaty eliminated custom tariffs with the US, so what do you mean high tariffs?

What exactly were those terms? Can you provide a specific link or a reference? sure. The Quebec Resolutions, October 1864 (what everyone voted on) 1.The best interests and present and future prosperity of British North America will be promoted by a Federal Union under the Crown of Great Britain, provided such Union can be effected on principles just to the several Provinces. 2.In the Federation of the British North American Provinces, the system of Government best adapted under existing circumstances to protect the diversified interest of the several Provinces, and secure efficiency, harmony and permanency in the working of the Union, would be a general Government, charged with matters of common interest to the whole country … http://www.collectionscanada.ca/confederat...3001-245-e.html It is also interesting to read about the events leading up to Confederation (or not). There was not very much support for Confederation. PEI and NFLD did not join in 1867 and both NS and NB tried to leave or alter it soon after 1867. Most of the opposition was around economic, ie prosperity issues, taxes, trade etc etc eg "The proceedings of the conference were not recorded, but it is known that Tilley and the other New Brunswick delegates were impressed by what Confederation could offer: greater security, a wider market for their goods, and a way to reach that market through the promised Intercolonial Railway." http://www.collectionscanada.ca/confederat...001-2100-e.html If Canada had not promised prosperity, why would anyone want to join it?

Why is it fair to say that? Atlantic Canada was booming before Confederation, doing better than Central Canada.

What if the whole country goes in the dumpster, will you still feel you are owed prosperity by the rest of the country? Yes, because it was promised as terms of Confederation. Figures. That attitude is much of your problem. We both want a prosperous Atlantic Canada. Joining Confederation was (probably) a raw deal, but we have stuck with it and that has benefited the rest of the country. If, as you say, waiting for the national government to reverse the negative impact that national economic policy is having is a 'bad attitude', then maybe the solution is to start seeking prosperity outside of Confederation?