Atlantic Party of Canada

[APC]

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.

[bloodyminded]

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.

I'll take a look....but I don't quite see much NDP "stranglehold."

They don't even get seats in NB. So we don't feel terribly oppressed by them.

[APC]

I'll take a look....but I don't quite see much NDP "stranglehold."

They don't even get seats in NB. So we don't feel terribly oppressed by them.

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.

[Shwa]

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.

So by "Atlantic Canadian interests" is that referring to the interest on the transfer payments to Atlantic provinces paid out by the rest of the country? Is the Federal Government holding back on those transfers to skim the interest or something? That's shameful!

If you want to help Atlantic Canadian interests, throw your lot in with the Liberals and get Dominic Leblanc elected party leader. Dominic Leblanc is so charismatic, even the cod'll come back.

[APC]

So by "Atlantic Canadian interests" is that referring to the interest on the transfer payments to Atlantic provinces paid out by the rest of the country? Is the Federal Government holding back on those transfers to skim the interest or something? That's shameful!

If you want to help Atlantic Canadian interests, throw your lot in with the Liberals and get Dominic Leblanc elected party leader. Dominic Leblanc is so charismatic, even the cod'll come back.

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.

Edited December 27, 2010 by APC

[Shwa]

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.

Fair comment. However, you have provincial governments as well that are supposed to represent your regional interests in a national setting - do they do a good job? The concept of a federal party is balance. If you see a regional interest party as being the solution to your problems fair enough, but expect them to cause problems as well. Especially when they come up against the interests of Ontario, Quebec or the West.

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.

This phenomenon is based on population and economic wealth. Why SHOULDN'T we have a majority say? However, you assume that our interests are not compatible or that you think our elected do not consider the interests of the Atlantic provinces when all the evidence proves the opposite is true.

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.

It sounds like your quarrel is with the CPC. And if you want to form a conservative regional interest party then that is certainly all right by me since it will fracture the conservative vote in the maritimes and give more LPC seats. But wait until Ignatieff is gone please.

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.

Again, you are advocating for a 'separate but equal party' and Atlantic Canada is neither separate nor equal. Your best chance is with the LPC. (unless APC is conservative, in which I case I will donate money to the cause)

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.

But there is the base assumption that an APC will actually have influence in Parliament and there's no guarantee of that. If the APC advocates high risk with small reward, good luck running against CPC or LPC candidates who can promise the moon.

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.

Then get your LPC card, influence the constituencies to get Dominic in as LPC leader and I will bet you that the LPC will be the next ruling party, with a majority and with Maritime interests firmly in view.

[Moonbox]

Guys I'm going to start the Ontario Party of Canada. Everyone else seems to have a party of their own. Who's with me??

[Queenmandy85]

APC, have you considered moving to Ontario? Usually, we move to the place that is better than where we are. I loved living in the Kootenays, but I needed work so I moved to Saskatoon. It is cold, but I have my paycheque to keep me warm. If I were keen to have political power, I would move to Central Canada. The power of Central Canada is dictated by Geography. Populations shift for reasons of geography, hence so does power. Geography trumps politics any day of the week.

Listen to Shwa. If you want change, get involved with one of the big 2 parties and campaign for a leader who will make a difference. Then, hold her feet to the fire to get what you want.

"If it were easy, it wouldn't be fun." me

[APC]

Fair comment. However, you have provincial governments as well that are supposed to represent your regional interests in a national setting - do they do a good job? The concept of a federal party is balance. If you see a regional interest party as being the solution to your problems fair enough, but expect them to cause problems as well. Especially when they come up against the interests of Ontario, Quebec or the West.

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.

This phenomenon is based on population and economic wealth. Why SHOULDN'T we have a majority say? However, you assume that our interests are not compatible or that you think our elected do not consider the interests of the Atlantic provinces when all the evidence proves the opposite is true.

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.

But there is the base assumption that an APC will actually have influence in Parliament and there's no guarantee of that. If the APC advocates high risk with small reward, good luck running against CPC or LPC candidates who can promise the moon.

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.

Edited December 27, 2010 by APC

[Queenmandy85]

I do sympatize with you, APC. When I lived in the Kootenays, I felt the same way about the provincial Government. The Premier was from the interior but he reflected the view from Vancouver that once you got east of Hope, you were in Alberta.

Your best bet is to influence the nomination process and get better people elected...people with courage and integrity. If you want to know how that is done, let me know.

[Jack Weber]

I see you live in Oshawa (at least, I'm assuming that's what "The Schwa" means).

"The Shwa" is short for Oshawa...

"The Schwa" might be short the Schwanz...Which is something entirely different...

[Topaz]

I agree Leblanc, would make a good and fair PM! I think some of the problem is when voters go to vote, they are thinking more of THEIR candidate rather than party and the leader of that party. Candidates who are popular in their riding , even before they decided to run for office, usually win no matter what party they are in. The problem becomes when that person gets to Ottawa and you have a leader who expects you to support him no matter what the voters are telling you at home, then we have a problem. I think on those debates with the leaders, the host should ask, should the member support the leader or the people who sent them to Ottawa. I would like to know their view on that question. I understand the problem the Atlantic province face and I feel the PM should treat every province the same. After all, the revenue that Ottawa gets, comes in from ALL of Canada.

[Moonlight Graham]

Good luck to your party APC. Though you will never escape the influence that Ontario and Quebec have based on sheer population #'s, maybe a party like this will give your region a bit more pull.

[APC]

I agree Leblanc, would make a good and fair PM! I think some of the problem is when voters go to vote, they are thinking more of THEIR candidate rather than party and the leader of that party. Candidates who are popular in their riding , even before they decided to run for office, usually win no matter what party they are in. The problem becomes when that person gets to Ottawa and you have a leader who expects you to support him no matter what the voters are telling you at home, then we have a problem. I think on those debates with the leaders, the host should ask, should the member support the leader or the people who sent them to Ottawa. I would like to know their view on that question. I understand the problem the Atlantic province face and I feel the PM should treat every province the same. After all, the revenue that Ottawa gets, comes in from ALL of Canada.

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.

[APC]

Good luck to your party APC. Though you will never escape the influence that Ontario and Quebec have based on sheer population #'s, maybe a party like this will give your region a bit more pull.

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

[M.Dancer]

designed at ending the undemocratic stranglehold that the Big 3

You lost my interest with that...

There is nothing undemocratic about parties dominating the political process through obtaining more votes than the fringe parties.

[Michael Hardner]

Does "taking money from provincial coffers" mean reducing transfer payments ? If so, then look at changing your wording.

[APC]

You lost my interest with that...

There is nothing undemocratic about parties dominating the political process through obtaining more votes than the fringe parties.

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.

[M.Dancer]

But when our MP's are not free to oppose legislation that is harmful to their contituents then THAT is undemocratic.

MPs are completely free to oppose what ever they like. They choose not to.

... and as long as Canada demands strict adherence to Party Discipline, then we don't have a voice in the political process.

Canada doesn't demand anything, parties do. Even a regional party such as you suggest would too....

But it is clear the system doesn't work for us and we are offering a solution.

System works fine, perhaps not for fringe parties but then, there is a reason why they remain fringe parties...

[APC]

Does "taking money from provincial coffers" mean reducing transfer payments ? If so, then look at changing your wording.

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.

[punked]

Lets be serious though the drop of 4% GDP from 2007 isn't from the Atlantic Accord being broken it is from the price of natural gas going from 14 dollars down to 3 it blew a whole in a lot of budgets across the country. Someone is trying to blame one problem on another. I am no fan of the 2007 budget but I am also not one to shift blame.

Edited December 28, 2010 by punked

[Moonlight Graham]

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.

Strict party discipline is one of the biggest problems in the way our system currently seems to work. It is undemocratic. But constituencies in Atlantic Canada get the shaft in this department no more than any other constituencies in Canada that don't have the PM, party leaders, or very influential cabinet ministers as their MP's.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[APC]

Lets be serious though the drop of 4% GDP from 2007 isn't from the Atlantic Accord being broken it is from the price of natural gas going from 14 dollars down to 3 it blew a whole in a lot of budgets across the country. Someone is trying to blame one problem on another. I am no fan of the 2007 budget but I am also not one to shift blame.

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.

[M.Dancer]

It is undemocratic.

More accurately, you din't like it, but undemocratic it isn't.

[APC]

More accurately, you din't like it, but undemocratic it isn't.

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.