Atlantic Party of Canada

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
30,469
11,205
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
But again, I see your from BC, and I must reiterate, respectfully, that the Atlantic Party is not for you. I'm not really here to debate the merits, merely to gain awareness for it. I don't expect anybody from outside of Atlantic Canada to agree with or support anything I'm saying here.

The old way isn't working, for us, at least, so it's on us to create a new way.


Being in BC, & from BC...are two very different things, before you decide who your
Party is or isn't for. Think of Fort Mac in Alberta, & all of those forks in Alberta that
aren't from Alberta. Is your Party not for them? You know what I'm talking about?

Lots of Folks from the Rock out in Alberta earning a living, & shipping much of their
cash back home. Your Party wouldn't be for them? Huh....just ask'n.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
Dexter Sinister - I think we are both saying the same thing, perhaps I phrased it wrong in my post.
I don't think we are. You said "national parties" need to be popular all across the country, and they don't. In fact I'd argue that there's really no such thing as a national party in our current political system, though the Conservatives come closest. There are parties that run candidates in every riding, but that doesn't make them national in any useful way. How many Liberals MPs are there west of Ontario, for instance? I'd have to look that up, I don't know the number offhand, but it's not enough to qualify them as a national party. The governing Conservatives have all but one of the seats in Saskatchewan, where I live, and they pay no more attention to Saskatchewan than they would if they had none. Maybe even less, because they know that no matter what they do, within very broad limits, Saskatchewan will reliably return a dozen Conservative MPs to Parliament. The long gun registry, for instance, which was a hotly debated issue in Saskatchewan and Alberta, the Conservatives promised to dismantle, they've done exactly nothing about it, and it's had no effect on their support in either province. They relegated the attempt to a private members bill rather than making it a government initiative, to distance themselves from it, because they knew it wouldn't play in the real power base in this country, the urban seats in southern Ontario and Quebec. They've broken promises about the equalization formula to Saskatchewan, to the tune of about a $billion loss to the Saskatchewan treasury, and again, no effect on their support here. I can't imagine what they'd have to do to lose around here.

Parliament is fractured and fractious partly because it currently consists of regional parties. I'm not for a second suggesting the problems you perceive in Atlantic Canada aren't legitimate, I'm sure they are, but I don't believe another regional party is a solution, or even part of a solution. I also concede I don't know what the solution is, though I think the demise of the Bloc Quebecois would be a good start. That requires somebody credible at the federal level honestly explaining what separation really means, but nobody has the balls to do that. It means no more transfer payments, no more milk quotas in Ontario for Quebec dairy producers, no use of the Canadian dollar or Canadian passports, no automatic Canadian military helping out after an ice storm, no automatic status in any of the international treaties Canada is party to, and on and on. It means the special status Quebec has within Canada ends, they're on their own, entirely and completely, and starting from zero as a new nation in the international community. The Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois have been lying to Quebecers and misrepresenting history to them from the beginning, and in my considered opinion they're preaching a dangerous and treasonous delusion.
 

Trotz

Electoral Member
May 20, 2010
893
1
18
Alberta
I don't think we are. You said "national parties" need to be popular all across the country, and they don't. In fact I'd argue that there's really no such thing as a national party in our current political system, though the Conservatives come closest. There are parties that run candidates in every riding, but that doesn't make them national in any useful way. How many Liberals MPs are there west of Ontario, for instance? I'd have to look that up, I don't know the number offhand, but it's not enough to qualify them as a national party. The governing Conservatives have all but one of the seats in Saskatchewan, where I live, and they pay no more attention to Saskatchewan than they would if they had none. Maybe even less, because they know that no matter what they do, within very broad limits, Saskatchewan will reliably return a dozen Conservative MPs to Parliament. The long gun registry, for instance, which was a hotly debated issue in Saskatchewan and Alberta, the Conservatives promised to dismantle, they've done exactly nothing about it, and it's had no effect on their support in either province. They relegated the attempt to a private members bill rather than making it a government initiative, to distance themselves from it, because they knew it wouldn't play in the real power base in this country, the urban seats in southern Ontario and Quebec. They've broken promises about the equalization formula to Saskatchewan, to the tune of about a $billion loss to the Saskatchewan treasury, and again, no effect on their support here. I can't imagine what they'd have to do to lose around here.


It's hard to be a Federalist in Western Canada because, as you mentioned, we're ignored by everyone. Atlantic Canada needs their own Federal Party and likewise so does Western Canada.

Parliament is fractured and fractious partly because it currently consists of regional parties. I'm not for a second suggesting the problems you perceive in Atlantic Canada aren't legitimate, I'm sure they are, but I don't believe another regional party is a solution, or even part of a solution. I also concede I don't know what the solution is, though I think the demise of the Bloc Quebecois would be a good start. That requires somebody credible at the federal level honestly explaining what separation really means, but nobody has the balls to do that. It means no more transfer payments, no more milk quotas in Ontario for Quebec dairy producers, no use of the Canadian dollar or Canadian passports, no automatic Canadian military helping out after an ice storm, no automatic status in any of the international treaties Canada is party to, and on and on. It means the special status Quebec has within Canada ends, they're on their own, entirely and completely, and starting from zero as a new nation in the international community. The Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois have been lying to Quebecers and misrepresenting history to them from the beginning, and in my considered opinion they're preaching a dangerous and treasonous delusion.
Some of these things are non-issues to be honest. Quebec has shown that it is taking the democratic route for secession and thus, if this did succeed, would not result in Quebec being a pariah state ("starting from zero"). And why does anyone need the Canadian currency? Currencies come and go and you don't need the name 'Canadian Dollar' to have a decently strength currency.

France would recognize Quebec and by extension so would the E.U. The United States would be investing its energies into making sure Quebec remains committed to NATO and NAFTA.

The U.S. wouldn't backstab a collapsing Canada namely because it would look hypocritical, considering that you have former-Soviet union regions like Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, et al, as members of NATO.
 

WilliamAshley

Electoral Member
Sep 7, 2006
109
0
16
WATERLOO
I never thought we were so different. I spent a couple years in Nova Scotia growing up as a kid. I've travelled a few places, and I find more and more how similiar everyone around the world is. Where you come from means much less to - what you need, what you have, and what you can do.

I don't see why someone from Halifax or Truro or Charlottetown or Fredricton can't work with someone from Nanimo, Peterbourgh or Red Deer and so on.

It is all about what one is trying to acheive. I'd never think Canadian society has become so stratified on regional grounds. True it is good to have that regional feedback - one of the reasons I advocate regional advisory councils.

The amount of government isn't the problem - an ideal society would have 100% government to population ratio - the problem is cost, efficiency, and need.

Overall regionalization is one thing, I think though that only a federal party can truly suceed at bringing things to the table.. otherwise the coalition forms in the commons rather than at the party table. this ain't bad per se, but regionlism is a little counter to federation. That is why Canada has a federal government - and provincial governments. There is nothing to stop a council of martimes provinces from being interalia.

I'm more than willing to take critisism and feedback on how my policity positions may effect Atlantic Canada, so I invite anyone to comment. http://www.williamashley.info/SOCIAL/SP/SP.htm (hijack of sorts)

I don't identify myself as a martimer, even though my moms side of the family is, and I have fond if not also troubled memories of Nova Scotia. I'm really very suprised to see regionlism appearing in the maratimes as to equate an actual party just for the maritimes.

I don't understand how this not federated thought process really works for a federal government in Federal Politics. True consensus and agreement is one thing, but a bloc for all Canada seems to be blind to "Canada" as a whole, who is looking out for that?

What does atlantic Canada want?
 
Last edited:

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
...would not result in Quebec being a pariah state ("starting from zero").
Starting from zero doesn't mean being a pariah state. It means only that it'll start out not being a member of NATO, NORAD, the UN, NAFTA, G20, etc., and it can't assume it'll get membership on the same terms Canada has, nor can it assume it'll keep its existing borders, if Canada is divisible so is Quebec. The key point though is that it'll no longer have access to the federal treasury, and I don't believe it could sustain its social programs without that. But let's not hijack this into a discussion of Quebec separatism, there are other threads for that.
 

robbie25

New Member
Dec 14, 2010
15
0
1
Anybody know the mods for this forum? I posted earlier and for some reason it said my post would have to be approved by a moderator....just wondering if they decided not to post it, and if so, why?
 

robbie25

New Member
Dec 14, 2010
15
0
1
bumping the thread just to make a quick announcement, the party website is up, please take a moment and see what we're all about. the link is www.atlanticparty.ca If you agree with our positions, please support us. It costs nothing and only takes a moment of your time.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States

What Have We Learned in 2,065 Years?
"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled,
public debt should be
reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be
te
mpered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be
curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work,
instead of living on public assistance." - Cicero , 55 BC

Evidently nothing.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
robbie25: Your party is what causes resentment in the West. We pay a huge chunk of our taxes into equalization payments so your provinces can have excessive representation in Ottawa and a bloated bureaucracy at home. Atlantic Canada already has a good deal from confederation. Get your own houses in order first. Otherwise at some point the resentment will build so far that we will take our marbles and leave the game. Then everyone East of Ontario will be royally screwed.
 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
Why a new party?

Is it because the "champions" and "leaders" of a proposed new party would nothing be but weak and pathetic wusses to express their feelings in one of the two dominant parties??

Just asking.
 

robbie25

New Member
Dec 14, 2010
15
0
1
Taxslave - Quite frankly, our concern for how we're perceived by the West means not one iota to us. It is not our parties mission to be well liked by the rest of Canada. It is about our right to have a political voice in our own country, which we currently don't.

This lack of political representation has allowed the current status quo. The political leadership of this country must see to the needs of the rest of the country first, and we get the scraps. We intend to change that. I'm quite sure we won't win any popularity contests, but again, that isn't our concern.

If the West gets so fed up with us having the gall to demand political representation in our own country that they decide to leave, then so be it.

"Just be happy we let you stay....now shut up and sit down" seems to be the attitude of the ROC, and if we allow this to continue, then the status quo will never change. We are not demanding more handouts...that is the LAST thing we want. We want sustainable prosperity in our region, of the kind that only concerted investment can bring. We need the infrastructure to be able to attract well paying jobs....high tech firms, manufacturing firms, R&D firms....that is the only way to improve the lot for an entire region. And I might add, that it is our opinion that a more prosperous Atlantic Canada is essentail for a more prosperous Canada.

We are strategically located for international trade, have the highest concentration of universities in the nation (per capita), and thus have a highly skilled and educated workforce. We have excellent natural resources that we are just now starting to exploit. There is no reason why we should rank last or near last in just about every important economic category, both in absolute terms and per capita. No reason, except that it is, and has been, politically disadvantageous to be seen as favoring those "lazy" Atlantic Canadians with any serious investments in their region. No, let's invest elsewhere and just give them a few handouts to shut them up.

We don't want handouts. We want the same livelihood that the rest of our Canadian brethren have. And if the fact that we "dare" seek a better life for ourselves causes the West, or anyone else to say, "good riddance" then so be it....but as long as we're all part of this great nation, get used to it, cause we're not going away.

Why a new party?

Is it because the "champions" and "leaders" of a proposed new party would nothing be but weak and pathetic wusses to express their feelings in one of the two dominant parties??

Just asking.

Well, first of all, let me assure you, making political change by starting a NEW political party, as opposed to joining an old one, is definitely not the "easy route" which it seems like you're implying.

And if you read our platform, you would know why change cannot be forced by joining an existing party. Because of strict adherance to Party Discipline (in which Canada is unfortunately a world leader) change, of the the kind we're seeking, cannot be done from within the existing framework. It is Party Discipline which removes Atlantic Canada from the political process.

Look at the Atlantic Accord. In the 2007 budget, Harper introduced changes that took almost $4 billion from Atlantic Canada. That's a lot of scratch for the poorest provinces in the country. It amounted to just over 4% of 2008 GDP for all provinces. An equivalent amount taken from Ontario (4% of 2008 GDP) would result in the Feds taking roughly $24 billion from Ontario's treasury. If you think the Federal gov't would even THINK about doing taht to Ontario (or Quebec, or the West) you're dreaming...why? Because Ontario has a political voice...however, us in AC can be ignored at little political cost.

And this money pays for our health care, our education, our infrastructure......This affects our lives, it's not some abstract thing.

And 8 out of 9 Conservative MP's from Atlantic Canada voted for it.....you think that's democracy? 8 out of 9 MPs stood in Parliament for supported a measure that took billions from their constiteuncy. And teh one MP who had the political courage to do what he was sent to Ottawa to do was kicked out of the Conservative party immediately after the vote.

When I make a vote, I expect my vote to represent my voice, and my interests, in Ottawa...not to give the Libs or the Cons more political ammo to pursue whatever agenda they see fit, often at the expense of my homeland.

The system is fixed against us, it cannot work any differently. The only way for change (for us) is a new party, and a new way of doing things. We need our vote to be held by a party that does not need to appease the population heavy areas of the rest of the nation, because when our needs come up against theirs, we're going to lose every time.

Again, I'm all for debate here, but if you are not from Atlantic Canada, this party is not for you. If you ARE, and you want to finally have YOUR voice heard in Ottawa, there is nothing more important you can do right now then support this initiative.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
Robbie25: You need to have a look see at how over represented you actually are in Ottawa. And Harper didn't "take" any money from the Atlantic provinces since much of your bloated budgets come from equalization payments , which means OUR money. All in All you are no different from the bloc.
 

weaselwords

Electoral Member
Nov 10, 2009
518
4
18
salisbury's tavern
Again, I come into a dicussion well on its way, so if I stumble over a point thats already been made forgive me. Atlantic regional are already over represented in Ottawa in both the Commons & the Senate, for those in the Maratime Provinces it would a better idea to keep your heads down & enjoy the fruits of equalization than to be out there sabre rattling.
 

robbie25

New Member
Dec 14, 2010
15
0
1
Robbie25: You need to have a look see at how over represented you actually are in Ottawa. And Harper didn't "take" any money from the Atlantic provinces since much of your bloated budgets come from equalization payments , which means OUR money. All in All you are no different from the bloc.

You are confusing seats ALLOTED to Atlantic Canada with seats REPRESENTING Atlantic Canada. They are not one and the same. As mentioned above, with the Party Discipline system, it doesn't matter how many seats are ALLOTED to Atlantic Canada if they all vote the way that that Party tells them too. It doesn't matter if we have 100 seats if all the seats vote contrary to our best interest.

As for the Atlantic Accord, it most certainly WAS taken from us. It doesn't matter what form the money came in, the face is, the money was promised in 2005, and was signed by the Fed at that point. Once that is done, the money belongs to the provinces. If you thik THAT deal was unfair, then take up your case the with 2005 Federal government who signed it. But once it was signed, it became Atlantic Canada's money. Just because you, or others, didn't like the deal doesn't mean the Fed can unilaterally break it and give us less money then they originally promised.....and if the Fed DOES do that (which they did) then I expect the person I elect to speak for me in Ottawa to fight tooth and nail against it.

Listen, you are not understanding basic democracy. It is not our job to do what is best for Alberta, or BC, or Ontario, or even the nation as a whole. It is our job to look out for us, just like you'd better believe Ontario is looking out for Ontario, and the West is looking out for the West. That is how democracy works....we elect people to represent out interests.

You are looking at this from the West's perspective, but you are denying our right to look at this from Atlantic Canada's perspective.

You have no interest in changing the status quo...it works for you. And if you feel it DOESN'T work for you, then by all means, use your political power to try to change it in a way that does work for you....I'm not begrudging you that, that's how democracy works. But the status quo doesn't work for us, and we are going to use our political power to try to change it for a way that does...as is our right.

Again, I come into a dicussion well on its way, so if I stumble over a point thats already been made forgive me. Atlantic regional are already over represented in Ottawa in both the Commons & the Senate, for those in the Maratime Provinces it would a better idea to keep your heads down & enjoy the fruits of equalization than to be out there sabre rattling.
Again, this is the attitude we are trying to fight again. We don't consider ourselves "just lucky to be here" and won't sit down and shut up. Your attitude is emblematic of the larger issue: That is, "oh, poor old Atlantic Canada.....what are they complaining about, we give them all this money etc....here, have another handout and begone"

As I said, we don't consider ourselves just lucky to be allowed here, we consider ourselves a partner in this great nation and we wish to be treated as such.

We don't want another handout and we don't need it. We want true, sustainable prosperity.

And for the record, after Quebec's $8 billion in equalization payments this year, the next highest receipiant is Manitoba with about $1.8 billion. So this is not just an Atlantic Canadian issue.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
It's possible to be over-represented, and have ineffective representation. I think that really is what Robbie is getting at. Parties like the Conservatives, Liberals, and NDP are focussed primarily on National issues, and are very much in favour of centralization. While the Bloc focuses on regional issues and favours greater decentralization, which seems very much like what Robbie's Atlantic party would be like, or the Wild Rose perhaps.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Now is your chance to come up with a new form of goverment even better than what we have in the United States (always room for improvement). You still have English law with some minor modifications to suite Canada. We have states of varying populations, but just because a state has the most people does not mean those people get a disproportionate amount of federal services. Just look at California, broke as a church mouse, and just how much will be dumped into their recovery is up in the air. (Each state can budget itself as it sees fit, that does not mean that the federal government has to support foolish spending, they have enough problems taking care of themselves.


I am not going to get drawn into a debate as to which government is better, I already know but everything can be improved.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I would vote Bloc Quebecois if they ran a candinate in my area; but it will never happen, as FPTP ensures that the options are limited to Liberal and Conservative (there are even areas of British Columbia that don't have a Federal NDP Candidate).

Nevertheless, the Bloc Quebecois has potential to export their party to the rural ridings in Western Canada and even win a few ridings, providing the rhetoric is less Quebec and more against the greviances that Canadians have against Ottawa and the Federal Government.

Federally wise, the conservative party was a "Western Canadian" Party but Steven Harper hasn't proven to be any different from his liberal counterparts, hence the irony in that Bloc Quebecois is the only party left for Western Canadian regionalists (after all if Quebec seperated there would be seperations here or we'ld renegoitate our confederation)

What would stop one from running as an independent candidate who held the same views? Or from voting for such an independent candidate?
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
What would stop one from running as an independent candidate who held the same views? Or from voting for such an independent candidate?


absolutely nothing, unless of course you're a weak minded idiot who blames everything on someone or something else.

Seems the author of the OP has a problem understanding that it's the electorate that keep putting the cons/libs into the House.