APC

So we in Atlantic Canada should just be satisfied with no voice in our own political affairs at the Federal level because of that?

Haven't been on here for a while, but just wanted to clarify a few things. First of all, I love this country. I served 6 years in the Canadian Forces as an infantry soldier. I was deployed to Afghanistan in 2007 as a member of 2nd Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment. Of the 40 guys in my company, only 35 came back. So I think I've earned my patriotic credentials. And as Thomas Paine once said, "A patriot is one who protects his country from his government." We must never confuse dissent with disloyalty, and we are dissenting with our what we feel our place is within the current political system. And we are exercising our constitutional right to address the grievances we have. And before you criticize, do some research. A quick look at the policies on our website (www.atlanticparty.ca) will show you that we don't believe anythign of the sort that you're insinuating. In fact, we believe Equalization (the "fat paycheck" you're reffering too) to be a drug that Atlantic Canada is addicted too (among others) and due to it's economic disincentives is largely responsible for keeping Atlantic Canada in (relative) poverty in prepetuity. Our position regarding Equalization is that the entire system needs to be overhauled, and that is the policy yhat we would pursue at the Federal level. For an update, we have been on Global News, CBC News (Atlantic region) and numerous radio talk shows in the past month or so. Due to that exposure, we are roughly 75% of the needed membership to officially register the Party. Like it or not, this is going to happen, and based on the feedback I'm getting from Atlantic Canadians (who are really all that matter with regards to this issue) the response is overwhelmingly positive.

No, the system is undemocrative when partic discipline is enforced on MP's FROM Atlantic Canada by parties whose interests are OPPOSED to Atlantic Canada's. When the party is devoted solely to furthering AC interests, then the MP's who vote will do so with the best interests of their constituents in mind.....i.e. democraticly. As my previous post, there are no issues at the Federal level that are bad for one Atlantic province and good for another. With regards to the Bloc comparison, I would say it is apt. After all, the Bloc is merely doing what every government SHOULD do for it's constituents...that is, try to get the best deal they can for their citizens. It is not the Bloc's job to look out for any intersts other then Quebec's, nor do we consider it our job to look out for any other areas interests but ours...that is how democracy works. We elect people to represent us, and you do the same, and let the chips fall where they may. if you want to blame someone for Quebec's outsized influence in Ottawa, blame the weak politicians that give in to their demands, and not the Bloc for making them.

Very painfully The fact is, business will always find a way to survive.....but that is a far from thrive. Doesn't matter the exchange rate, there will always be somebody somewhere doing something....however, that doesn't mean that everything is hunky dory. higher dollar is bad for exporters. This is fact. There be someexceptions, but they are just that. That doesn't mean manufacturers are wiped out, just they will be suffereing.

A fair point, however PEI would still be in a much better position then it is now, and more importantly, most issues at the Federal level deal with the Atlantic region as a whole, and not individual provinces. I can't think of too many initiatives (on the Federal level) that are bad for PEI but good for, say, NB or NS.

Not gonna happen in my lifetime, so I'm focusing my energy on something I think I acutally may be able to change.

The APC will have discipline, the difference is, the discipline will be wielded by a party that cares only about Atlantic Canada, instead of not caring at all. If you don't like the thread, then stop posting in it.

Absolute value of a currency isn't as important as recent activity. If the CAD goes to $1.15 in the next 6 months, exporters will be hit hard....it will be very painful. But let's say it stays at $1.15 for the next 5 years, eventually an equilbrium will be reached in which case exporters/manufacturers will learn to deal...either by slashing prices, or cutting quality, or by producing less. But a high currency is not good for exporters. I'm kind of surprised we're even having this debate, that is pretty common knowledge. I mean, here's a link I found with a 2 second google search, there are many, many others http://www.gocurrency.com/articles/stronger-dollar.htm An excerpt: "Along the same lines, a stronger dollar reduces the competitiveness of US goods that are sold outside of the US. When the US dollar strengthens, foreign trade partners will have to pay more euros and pounds in order to make up for the appreciated dollar when they import from the US. Subsequently, the increase will lead to a decline in demand as American made goods become less attractive to buy at the consumer level. This slump in demand will ultimately translate into thinner profit margins of manufacturers and producers in the US, depleting expansion potential in the country. The result in the longer term will be slower growth even as US consumers up their near term standard of living" It's talking about the US dollar, but the same market forces are at work and applicable to all countries.

I guess it depends how you define democracy. I consider a system that leaves elected officials unable to vote the interests of their constituents (or else they'll be kicked out of caucus and forced to serve as a lame-duck independent) undemocratic. In any case, you are correct...I don't like it. And neither do many of the Atlantic Canadians I've talked too. And we're using all the political avenues available to us to try to change it.

Guys, I'm pretty sure the OP is not serious. He even replied to one comment saying "he had no computer or no internet" Pretty sure the poster is trying to be satirical.

There are many variables at play, but generally a higher dollar is bad for exports/manufacturers. The reason is simple....your goods become more expensive for foreigners, and thus demand for them will go down. Simple supply and demand. It is good for importers however, because now the same goods they always bought are now cheaper. Generally, because the US is, by far, our biggest importer of goods, a high loonies is a bad thing for Canadian exporters. But remember, when we talk about a "higher dollar" we mean higher, relative to the USD. The CAD is also traded against all other major currencies, so the efects may be different with other areas. The loonie has been strong against the Euro, for example, but not as strong as against the greenback. Right now, the Euro is trading for about $1.32 CAD, but it has been as low as $1.20-ish as recently as July, so the effect won't be as pronounced with European goods.

I must concede that point....What if sometime in the future, those routes becom unprofitable to Emirates and they stop them....but in the meantime AC has been wiped out, or a shell of it's former self, where does that leave Canadians? But that being the case, considering air travel is - in this day and age - a necessary service, why not make AC a crwon corporation again and exempt it from regulations to make it competetive? Just like other essential services that were once private where the business model may not be feasible anymore - firefighting, postal service to name a few - make air travel an essential service, run it at a loss if need be, and protect it from competition. But let's drop the "free market" pretense when it comes our national airline.

I disagree. Canada has a tendency to preach "free markets" when it suits us, and to go the protectionist route when it doesn't. The crux of the matter is the added sots to Emirates would be bad for Air Canada....but AC is not a Crown corporation anymore, it is a public company operating in a highly global industry. We can't hold it's hand anymore or protect it from competition.....either it can compete, or it can't. And really, the added competition would only benefit consumers and lower fares....not to mention improve access to the growing Mid East markets. Anybody who has ever been to Dubai (When I was in Afghanistan, we went throug Camp Mirage and were allowed time off in Dubai) knows that it is a place you want to have access to if you are in business. And speaking stricly as a traveller, when we went to Mirage, we flew from Frankfurt to Dubai on Emirates, and seriosuly, I would actaully get excited to fly if I knew I was flying Emirates again. The experience was the best I've ever had flying, by a wide margin.

You are right OP, that is quack economics. The concept that Alberta is getting less because oil is purchased in USD - and when the CAD goes up, they will be getting less USD for the same quantity of oil - is wrong, because the difference is completely offset by the fact that the CAD only is going up in response to higher oil prices. If the CAD was going up at the same time that oil was going down, or stagnating, then that would cost Alberta money....but since the nLoonie is at it's heart a petro-currency, that's not going to happen anytime soon. The Loonie is only going up BECAUSE oil is gone up. I'm assuming that $221 million loss per pennyn (which is a foreign exchange rate loss) means per year. At the current rate of 1.8 million bbl/day, every dollar oil goes up give oil sands about $650 million in extra revenue. Obviously, that is not Albertaa take, but their royalty structure, which varies depending on different factors, is generally around 45%, whcih comes out to about $245 million. So the decrease in FX is more then offset by the increase in price.

No, you misunderstood me....I meant, the $1.1 billion taken from NB IN the 2007 budget was equivalent to over 4% of it's 2008 budget, ( and the $1.4 from NS and NFLD was over 4% of thiers. I just used 2008 because that was the fiscal year after the budget was passed. and let me be clear, this is not about shifting "blame." After all we have no one to blame but ourselves because we voted for those MP's. It's not that it's "bad" or "wrong" that the Libs and Cons must focus on Ontario and Quebec and parts of the West.....it's reality. There's no reason why they would put AC's 1.9 million people above Ontario's 14 million...they'd be idiots not too. But that's the point. They cannot do anything differently then what they're doing, and they're not wrong for doing it.....but at the same time, we also have the right to not vote for those parties. That is all we're trying to do, is provide a viable alternative for the AC voter.

No, the wording is right. The budget in 2007 broke agreements the Feds signed in 2005....at that point, once the money is promised to us, it is our money. If you take issue with the details of the original agreement, then take it up with the 2005 governm,ent who signed it. But once it is signed, you cannot just unilaterally brreak the agreement, and the amount that we are shortchanged compared to the 2005 agrement is, yes, taking money from our provincial coffers. I'm not saying equalization is the answer...in fact, our platform is based on the fact that equalization payments are what KEEPS our economies stagnant, as for the msot part they are in lieu of proper investment in our infrastrucutre, of the type that will create real and sustained prosperity for our region.

Of course there isn't. But when our MP's are not free to oppose legislation that is harmful to their contituents then THAT is undemocratic. As long as our seats are represented by national parties, and as long as Canada demands strict adherence to Party Discipline, then we don't have a voice in the political process. We're not saying anything has been taken from us, we are the ones voting for these parties. But it is clear the system doesn't work for us and we are offering a solution.

And that is all we can really hope for. Thank you for your comment.

I can tell you right now the answer is the party...always the party. Canada is generally accepted as having the tightest party discipline in thwe world, where almost every vote of any signifcance in the house is assumed to be a confidence vote. It is generally accepted that MP's will vote the way their party tells them too.

That's true, and there are groups working towards that. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm nto so foolish as to think that a regionally based, federal party (similar to the Bloc) would be a cure-all or panacea for Atlantic Canadian problems, and the APC will lead AC intop the Promised Land. It would just one step towards better representation, and having a voice in the political process.... which is only a means to an ends, and never the ends itself. I won't disagree with you. Ontario is the biggest province in the conutry, and as such, will enjoy the benefits that go along with that. I'm not saying Ontario, or Quebec, or anybody else is wrong for that. But we in Atlantic Canada shouldn't be expected to relinquish our political voice simply due to demogaphics. I'm not saying it's some vast conspriacy designed to keep us in chains or some foolishness. It is rather the unfortuante (but inevitable) result of our national party system, combined with a strict adherance to party discipline. But just because no one is to blame for our lack of political representation does make the situation any more palatable to us. The end result is all that matters, and the end result is the same, regardless of the reason. The fact is, as long as we vote MP's from the NDP, Libs or Cons, our voice in Ottawa belongs to Harper, Iggy, or Layton, instead of the people of Atlantic Canada. And to me, and people like me, that is unacceptable. I'm pretty confident that the APC, if it held a majority of seats in parliament would have influence...much more so then we have now. But truthfully, if the APC had MP's in the House, and all they were were a string of 'nays' against legislation that passed anyways, that is still better then what we have now. At least somebody stood up in the House, on our behalf, and said "no, we don't support this" And you could say "well, MP's from Ontarop can't do that either" and that's correct. But the fact is, MP's from Ontario would never be in a position where they would HAVE too. I'm not saying Ontario gets everything they want. I understand every single province has legitimate grievances with the Feds....but I can promise you that an ONtario or a Quebec MP have never and will never be in a position where they have to get up and support a budget that took 4% of their GDP over 13 years, which is what our MP's did in 2007. So I understand and agree with your position that it only makes sense that the federal parties give Ontario, Quebec, and the West treatment and consideration that AC does not have, as a direct result of your population. This is not 'bad' or 'wrong.' But it is also within our rights to not elect members of these parties to represent us.

I'm talking about Atlantic Canadian interests wherever they may be. We simply want MP's that belong to a party that will support legislation that helps us, and oppose legislation that harms us, as is our right, and really, is a basic concept of democracy. I see you live in Oshawa (at least, I'm assuming that's what "The Schwa" means). The major political parties all must consider your interests (and that of your province) in everything they do. They know they cannot alienate you too mcuh, or else you and your provincial neighbours won't vote for them, and they cannot win an election without your support. Us here in Atlantic Canada are not so lucky. For example, 8 out of 9 Conervative MP's voted for the 2007 budget that took billions from our provincial coffers. The amount differs by province, but all four provinces lost more then 4% of their 2008 GDP. For comparison, if the Feds took an equivalent amount from Ontario (4% of 2008 GDP) you guys would lose about $26 billion. Now, no Federal government would even dream about shortchanging Ontario for that much - it would be a political suicide - so why is it OK to do it to us? And once it happened, most of us expect that the people we send to Ottawa to be OUR voice (not yours) to oppose such an obviously harmful budget (harmful to us, that is). But unfortuantely, of the 9 Conservative MP's from AC that were sitting at that time, 8 voiced their support (the one who opposed it was booted from caucus hours later, and is now out of Federal politics). This is just one example, just to show how the system works. We are not advocating our own party because of that one vote, that is jsut a microcosm of how the system works. Who knows what votes in the future our "representatives" will support, simply because it benefits the party they belong too, even if it harms the constituents whose voice they are supposed to represent. I mean, come on. If our MP's didn't break ranks to oppose the 2007 budget, it is fair to say they won't break ranks for anything. As long as our seats belong to a party whose interests are often opposed to ours, we will never have a voice in the political process.

No, the NDP is the least popular of the big 3 of course, and so are going to hold less seats. The point is, any party that runs candidates across the country (which all three do) by nature must place priority to the vote-heavy areas of Ontario, Quebec, and parts of the West. The interests of our region will often come up against the interests of those areas, and the policies pursued by the parties must, by definition, be favourable to them, often at our expense. That alone would not be an issue if our elected MP's were allowed to use their vote to actually represent us....but in a system with as strict an adherance to party discipline as ours, they are unable to do so. Canada is generally considered to have the tightest party discipline in the world, severely limiting the ability of our MP's to do the job we elect them to do. As long as our vote is for any of these national parties, things will not change. Thus, our vote - instead of being a tool to represent us - instead becomes merely ammunition for whatever party our MP's belong too, to be deployed however they see fit, and if that vote is deployed against us - as is sometimes the case - well....so be it.

Hey, not sure how many Atlantic Canadians are on this site, but I'm raising awareness for a grassroots political movement designed at ending the undemocratic stranglehold that the Big 3 (Libs, Cons, and NDP) have on our region. They have proven time and again that they are unwilling and unable to be our voice in Ottawa, and until we start electing parties whose main purpose is to advance Atlantic Canadian interests, we are forfeiting our right to have a voice in the political process of the nation we belong too. The Atlantic Party if Canada is such a party. Please check us out at www.atlanticparty.ca If what we say resonates with you, please click the "support the APC" tab on the website. The only support we're asking for right now is your signature. It doesn't cost you a thing, and you will be supporting a better life for all of us.

n