Atlantic Party of Canada

[Jack Weber]

I kind of hope that there could be more parties like Confederation of the Regions since it stood up for areas that do not get a lot of support which is rural areas.

The Confederation of Regions Party,at least nationally,was known to attract white supremacists and neo-NAZI's...It was an extreme right wing party...

Not so ironically,it lost alot of it's support to the Reform Party...

I believe it held the position of the Official Opposition in New Brunswick in the early '90's?

[ccen]

The Confederation of Regions Party,at least nationally,was known to attract white supremacists and neo-NAZI's...It was an extreme right wing party...

Not so ironically,it lost alot of it's support to the Reform Party...

I believe it held the position of the Official Opposition in New Brunswick in the early '90's?

Well then it is good the party is now defunct at the federal level because of what you said. I feel if a party attracts those type of people it should not exist.

[pinko]

It appears individuals from Atlantic Canada are disappointed in the nature of the political process and have the false belief that estbalishing a new party will be the answer to the perception offered. It should be noted that several of the Atlantic provinces already enjoy disproportionate influence if one looks at representation in the Senate. While I don't begrudge anyone wanting their interests properly represented in Ottawa I don't see the need for such parties. Unless sovereignty is the ultimate goal what possible purpose can there be in creating such a party?

[Wild Bill]

Well then it is good the party is now defunct at the federal level because of what you said. I feel if a party attracts those type of people it should not exist.

Look a little deeper and don't be so quick to decide. EVERY new party attracts those kooks! It's like moths to a flame! Those guys could never win support on their own so when they see someone else being successful at starting up a new party they all try to hijack the bus and get a free ride.

So new parties have to go through a culling process. It's hard at first because you're so desperate for volunteers and new members that no one is checking newbies out that carefully. However, as time goes on and you work beside these people you begin to learn what their true colours are and you can start weeding them out.

It WILL happen to your party, too! If you put enough effort into the culling you'll get through it ok. You'll have to put up with your opponents trying to label your entire party as being made up of those wingnuts but that's politics. If you just keep cleaning your nose eventually it will die down.

Reform actually went into an election and discovered that their nominated candidate had a white hood in his closet! It was too late to name another candidate so the Party turfed him out anyway, choosing to give up the riding rather than have a guy like that in their Party, let alone an MP.

Meanwhile, the Liberals had a similar situation where one of their candidates was revealed to be mired in scandal. Their decision? They let him run! "What are we supposed to do?" they cried. " It's too late to get anyone else!"

In the end, character will win out.

[Jack Weber]

Look a little deeper and don't be so quick to decide. EVERY new party attracts those kooks! It's like moths to a flame! Those guys could never win support on their own so when they see someone else being successful at starting up a new party they all try to hijack the bus and get a free ride.

So new parties have to go through a culling process. It's hard at first because you're so desperate for volunteers and new members that no one is checking newbies out that carefully. However, as time goes on and you work beside these people you begin to learn what their true colours are and you can start weeding them out.

It WILL happen to your party, too! If you put enough effort into the culling you'll get through it ok. You'll have to put up with your opponents trying to label your entire party as being made up of those wingnuts but that's politics. If you just keep cleaning your nose eventually it will die down.

Reform actually went into an election and discovered that their nominated candidate had a white hood in his closet! It was too late to name another candidate so the Party turfed him out anyway, choosing to give up the riding rather than have a guy like that in their Party, let alone an MP.

Meanwhile, the Liberals had a similar situation where one of their candidates was revealed to be mired in scandal. Their decision? They let him run! "What are we supposed to do?" they cried. " It's too late to get anyone else!"

In the end, character will win out.

Kooks attracted to new party's???

No way!!!

Unfortunately,there is a long list of evidence that white supremacist/"Nationalist" types are attracted to hard right democratic party's....

There's really no question about that.

I suppose they appeal to them because it might lend some specious credibility to there cause being attached to a democratic,yet Right of Centre,political entity.It also might be that most Right of Centre party's usually have very defined plans for things like immigration,the military,gun controlreverence for older institutions.etc.?

[Wild Bill]

Kooks attracted to new party's???

No way!!!

Unfortunately,there is a long list of evidence that white supremacist/"Nationalist" types are attracted to hard right democratic party's....

There's really no question about that.

I suppose they appeal to them because it might lend some specious credibility to there cause being attached to a democratic,yet Right of Centre,political entity.It also might be that most Right of Centre party's usually have very defined plans for things like immigration,the military,gun controlreverence for older institutions.etc.?

Maybe, I dunno. I can only speak for what I myself saw with Reform. Manning used to say that if you show people a flame you have to expect a few moths. I saw my share of what I considered "wingnuts" come out to meetings but most didn't stick around when they found out that not only was the party not extreme enough for them but because it was populist based, building policy directly from the members, they knew that it would NEVER become extreme enough to suit them! Even if they laid low and weaseled their way into leadership positions they would not be able to shanghai the party to go their way. Its very populist structure prevented that.

I kept hearing about all these bible-thumping fundamentalists but I never actually met one. Maybe there were some out West. Again, I dunno. I do know that all the policy that came out of the workshops actually seemed fairly middle of the road! Yet to this day I still run into people that have got some cockamamie ideas about Reformers that seem cribbed directly from some Jean Chretien comic book.

I guess it makes for a better story if you embellish it! And you wonder why "rightwingers" seem a bit thin-skinned at times?

Edited January 21, 2011 by Wild Bill

[jbg]

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.

I guess you could call it "Bloc(heads) by the Sea"?

[cybercoma]

Just out of curiosity how do you keep this Atlantic Party of Canada from turning into the Halifax Party (w/ a vocal and ignored St. John's faction)?

I'm all about Atlantic solidarity, but I don't believe a new federal party is the answer. What might be more effective is getting the 4 premiers on the same page, working together.

[Molly]

The thing all these new parties have in common is the attempt to escape the national party whip- the circumstace in which member after member is asked to hold greater loyalty to his party than to the folks he is supposed to be representing.

If we moved away from so rediculously empowering the parties -- start with little things like removing party affiliations from ballots, and shuffling some campaign spending rules to makie affiliation less valuable.... maybe even vote for the best available candidate ... then we wouldn't need new party after new party.

[Smallc]

And then, we'll have nearly totally ineffective government, like our southern neighbour. It's nice to talk about more choice and more freedom for MPs....but that has consequences.

[Wild Bill]

The thing all these new parties have in common is the attempt to escape the national party whip- the circumstace in which member after member is asked to hold greater loyalty to his party than to the folks he is supposed to be representing.

If we moved away from so rediculously empowering the parties -- start with little things like removing party affiliations from ballots, and shuffling some campaign spending rules to makie affiliation less valuable.... maybe even vote for the best available candidate ... then we wouldn't need new party after new party.

Molly, there's a much simpler solution that Manning and Reform figured out years ago! All you need is backbencher MPs willing to defy the party whip, in large numbers!

It's the party solidarity thing that makes Canadian politics so dictatorial and undemocratic. All power really resides in the Prime Minister's Office. The PM and his cabinet thrash out a policy and then the caucus is expected to act like a bunch of trained seals and just rubber-stamp it. Nobody cares if the policy is unpopular in a certain region. MPs from that region are expected to just "lie back and think of England", voting as they are told for the good of the party.

Why do the backbenchers always go along with this? Well, part of it is just Canadian tradition but most of it is MONEY! Most MPs desperately need party money to run a campaign and get elected or re-elected. There is also the worry that the party leader could refuse to sign your nomination papers next election, effectively forcing you out of the party.

If backbenchers would concentrate on local fundraising effectively enough they wouldn't need the party money. At that point, if enough of them decided to band together they could easily challenge the party whip! After all, there are FAR more backbenchers than there are party leaders! If the party leadership wanted to retain control they would be forced to listen to their backbenchers, or lose power. If they had been foolish enough to make a bill a non-confidence motion this would bring down their own government. Odds are that after an election most Canadians would have shown far more respect for the backbenchers for choosing their constituents over their party brass and re-elected most of the rebels and few if any of the leaders!

If Reform or at least its principles had have survived the merging of the two parties the iron fist of total party solidarity would have been severely weakened. We seem to be unique among British parliamentary type systems to practice solidarity on every damn thing, from F-35s to who brings the doughnuts, or even what kind! In America or even Britain representatives vote against the party line all the time, practicising solidarity only on "Bills of Substance" where it's considered vitally important to have it passed.

Oh well, we fought the good fight, but we lost! The CPC runs exactly like the old Progressive Conservatives. The elitists won!

[cybercoma]

And then, we'll have nearly totally ineffective government, like our southern neighbour. It's nice to talk about more choice and more freedom for MPs....but that has consequences.

Ineffective in regards to what? If representatives actually representing their constituents would make the government ineffective, then perhaps the system is broken and needs to be fixed.

[Smallc]

Ineffective in regards to what? If representatives actually representing their constituents would make the government ineffective, then perhaps the system is broken and needs to be fixed.

Ineffective in terms of not getting anything done. Now, I'm all in favour of them being allowed to vote their conscience on matters of non confidence, and right now that's usually the case, but I'm not in favour of a long drawn out process to try and pass something like a budget. On most issues, the matter is discussed by caucus. The individual MPs get to have their say, and then the party comes to a decision. Now, sometimes individuals will be allowed to vote as they want to, but often they have to vote along party lines. Obviously, people don't hate it that much, as they don't seem to throw MPs out because of it.

[Molly]

And then, we'll have nearly totally ineffective government, like our southern neighbour. It's nice to talk about more choice and more freedom for MPs....but that has consequences.

It's not a binary situation. There's a tremendous amount of room to loosen the party stranglehnold without stripping parties of all relevance.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Molly

[Smallc]

It's not a binary situation. There's a tremendous amount of room to loosen the party stranglehnold without stripping parties of all relevance.

I agree with that, but I think that parties still have to be able to control some things. The reality is, there's nothing in the system that makes things this way, it's just an evolution that has developed, and one that seems to work for Canada in that we've had relatively sound and popular legislation passed.

[Esq]

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'm currious what the atlantic party of Canada thinks about creating an oil/gas pipleine project that would go from the acrtic

It would stretch across baffin Bay (connecting to any oil/gas fields discovered there. A secondary link N/S would go from baffin bay to labrador, and from labrador to quebec and newfoundland. - likewise - a link to the 3 major oil feilds hibernia/hebron and terra nova.

This line would continue with a greenland to iceland line, and a iceland to faroehs/shetlan to the uK and scandinavia.

Each. It would serve as the first step in an "arctic pipeline" from North America to Europe.

Would the Atlantic Party support this type of pipeline project

--- It would connect to the montreal portal from the north, and meanwhile Connect Canada with oil and gas pipelines of europe. Providing a non nafta gas/oil source. Even though there is potential for free trade with europe there are no trade restrictions on source of oil. also the artic oil sources and a pipeline from north to south in the east would allow more domestic oil for eastern canada removing all the oil canada imports from the US simply because it doesn't have the capacity in eastern canada and is blocked from importing western canadian oil..also it would remove the dependence on a US based oil line. .

Likewise in the maritimes it would connect newfoundland, novascotia and newbrunswick to european and canadian artic oil. Making the east the source of future arctic boon rather than the west. (although this pipe could late be joined with the proposed mackenzie pipeline.

It would connect with the North Sea pipelines in shetland et al

http://images.pennwellnet.com/ogj/images/off/55051401.gif

Here is the MASTERPLAN

green is already existing lines

red is the proposed megaline

and pink is the "connection" to link up to "the deltaline"

http://williamashley.info/SOCIAL/SP/POLITICS/biggerline.gif

It is forward thinking.

http://gheorghe47.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/arctic-boom-towns-in-2050-gas-pipelines-across-the-tundra/

take a look at this to get a better idea

http://www.cepa.com/images/Liquid%202008.jpg

Also take for instance

http://www.canadabyte.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/oldharry280709-500x2551.jpg

Hey, and no trees to clear above the tree line!

Russia is building a 4600km+ long pipeline in siberia

1,963km is estimated at under 20 billion.

The mackenzie delta pipeline alone is estimated at

$16-billion and that is only to supply oii to the US, not Canada, or Europe.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Esq

[Molly]

I agree with that, but I think that parties still have to be able to control some things. The reality is, there's nothing in the system that makes things this way, it's just an evolution that has developed, and one that seems to work for Canada in that we've had relatively sound and popular legislation passed.

..mmm... We've also had a plethora of regional parties started up by disenchanted folks who feel- often quite rightfully- disenfranchised. To me, that's a symptom suggesting a serious problem. If so many people feel disenfranchised, maybe it's because they are.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Molly

[Smallc]

..mmm... We've also had a plethora of regional parties started up by disenchanted folks who feel- often quite rightfully- disenfranchised. To me, that's a symptom suggesting a serious problem. If so many people feel disenfranchised, maybe it's because they are.

There really aren't (other than the Bloc) regional parties in existence right now though. That doesn't really seem to speak to a large problem. Governments have to be pragmatic, an parties have to do the same. If everyone is running off in different directions, it doesn't really work all that well when it comes to getting things done.

I'm sure there are disenfranchised people, but it really isn't a large problem. Regional parties (or parties with rigid ideology) and low voter turnout are issues in every democracy, not just ours.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Smallc

[Molly]

You don't, then, consider Reform/Alliance/CPC to be a regional rump that grew...

Yes, they tend to be flashes in the pan- but that's because they are formed by folks who are idealistic and optimistic, but not politically savvy. The list, though, is huge, and theay are largely cookie-cutter replays of legitimate disgruntlement that simply goes unaddressed- even unacknowledged- by 'national' parties.

[Smallc]

You don't, then, consider Reform/Alliance/CPC to be a regional rump that grew...

Is the Reform Around? No, I don't consider the Alliance and certainly not the current CPC to be region.

Yes, they tend to be flashes in the pan- but that's because they are formed by folks who are idealistic and optimistic, but not politically savvy. The list, though, is huge, and theay are largely cookie-cutter replays of legitimate disgruntlement that simply goes unaddressed- even unacknowledged- by 'national' parties.

Because of the national level, that kind of operation doesn't work in a country as diverse as this one. There is a reason that the party system we have has developed, and that all 4 major parties share the same real structure when it comes to MP whipping. It works here, and it has for a very long time.

[cybercoma]

Ineffective in terms of not getting anything done. Now, I'm all in favour of them being allowed to vote their conscience on matters of non confidence, and right now that's usually the case, but I'm not in favour of a long drawn out process to try and pass something like a budget. On most issues, the matter is discussed by caucus. The individual MPs get to have their say, and then the party comes to a decision. Now, sometimes individuals will be allowed to vote as they want to, but often they have to vote along party lines. Obviously, people don't hate it that much, as they don't seem to throw MPs out because of it.

What I'm suggesting is that maybe the process needs to be long and drawn out. We're talking about a huge country with vast regional differences. Our system is ineffective (your definition) now because Quebec felt they weren't fairly represented in the federal government and formed their own regional party that skews the numbers in the House. I would argue, though, that this is even more effective because every region ought to be fighting for itself and to have its interests met, rather than towing the line for Ontario or more populated regions. If this is too slow, too bad. The federal government is responsible for the country coast-to-coast and those that don't have a voice ought to have their concerns heard and taken seriously. If that's not possible because it would simply make things too slow and "ineffective" than a Canada that spans coast-to-coast is not possible to govern and we should begin considering Balkanizing it.

Of course, I don't believe that's the answer. I believe we just need to give voice to the various regions. There are many ways that could be accomplished from allowing MPs to vote conscience or with their constituents or by revamping the Senate to have real power and real representation, not by population but evenly divided between regions. That's another debate for another time though, I suppose.

[Smallc]

What I'm suggesting is that maybe the process needs to be long and drawn out.

I definitely do not agree, and living in Manitoba, I don't see everything as being done for Ontario's benefit either. We get enough out of the budget every year that I'm quite satisfied. As Canadians, we're pretty lucky, and the recent recession proved that. I'm generally quite happy with the status quo.

[KeyStone]

Is this a joke?

The pandering to Atlantic Canada is unprecedented.

First of all, you have the government supported seal hunt, where politicians of all parties line up to eat seal, wear seal, and promote seal products despite the fact that it's activities damage tourism and trade.

Second of all, you have the ludicous offshore oil deal, where Newfoundland basically gets to earn a wage, and collect welfare too, because oil money 'doesn't count' as part of the transfer payment calculations.

Thirdly, you have a legacy of fifty years of seasonal workers working for six months of the year, and then collecting EI for the other six. And they've been doing this for 20 years with no intention of looking for other work. It's not unemployment insurance, it's seasonal Atlantic workers top-up salary.

Newfoundland didn't even join Canada until 1949, when the fish dried up and they wanted to suck Canada dry.

And how we have the APC to whine that Atlantic Canada isn't being treated fairly.

Fucking separate already. Good riddance.

[jbg]

First of all, you have the government supported seal hunt, where politicians of all parties line up to eat seal, wear seal, and promote seal products despite the fact that it's activities damage tourism and trade.

I'd heard that the seal hunt was in Saskatchewan.

[bloodyminded]

Is this a joke?

The pandering to Atlantic Canada is unprecedented.

First of all, you have the government supported seal hunt, where politicians of all parties line up to eat seal, wear seal, and promote seal products despite the fact that it's activities damage tourism and trade.

Second of all, you have the ludicous offshore oil deal, where Newfoundland basically gets to earn a wage, and collect welfare too, because oil money 'doesn't count' as part of the transfer payment calculations.

Thirdly, you have a legacy of fifty years of seasonal workers working for six months of the year, and then collecting EI for the other six. And they've been doing this for 20 years with no intention of looking for other work. It's not unemployment insurance, it's seasonal Atlantic workers top-up salary.

Newfoundland didn't even join Canada until 1949, when the fish dried up and they wanted to suck Canada dry.

And how we have the APC to whine that Atlantic Canada isn't being treated fairly.

Fucking separate already. Good riddance.

There are a couple of reasonable points here; but as for the seasonal EI recipients...Atlantic Canadians are pissed about that, too. Some of them make a lot of money, and it seems preposterous to us. But they're few enough that hardly any of us personally knows even one.

Now, as for the "whining" bit....

Well...okay, but you can't tell me that anyone has--or would wish to--top those two whiniest of whiny Canadian bitches: Quebec and Alberta.

Everyone (except maybe for the whinier residents of those two provinces) is perfectly aware that no one throws self-absorbed, amusing little tantrums like Alberta and Quebec like to do.

No one.

Certainly not the Atlantic provinces!