.

[nerve]

1. What incentive would the NDP have for propping up the Liberals, other than nominal agreements on some issues.

2. Also, TPP is a wedge issue between the Liberals and the NDP. What happens when the Liberals and the Conservatives vote for it, and the NDP against if the Conservatives have more seats?

3. Would nixing the TPP be a requirement of NDP cooperation in a coalition? The conservatives won't prop up a liberal government. The NDP won't be able to form the government as things are now.

4. To say that the Conservatives have no chance of forming government is just being obtuse. If they have the most seats, they will try. The liberals and the conservatives do have common ground (not as much as the liberals/NDP but still) The questions are:

5. Will the conservatives be willing to give up enough to gain the liberal support they need?

6. Will the NDP demand too much of the Libersals to prop them up? Nobody will want an election too quickly.

I'd guess if the conservatives do get the most seats, they will form the government for 6 months anyway

No sorry the issue is a conservative government. The TPP would go ahead in the event no matter what, but the supreme court and senate and other appointed positions would continue to be hijacked by conservative partisan objectives. Single issues are not more important than the issue of who runs government itself. Legisislative issues will be resolve by a vote regardless.

To answer your specific questions.

1. Forming government, particularly a non conservative government running Canada. The liberals are closer to the NDP than the conservatives, end of story.

2. it will be there no matter what. Open vote, there you go. Unless NDP gain a majority they will not have the power to stop it, regardless of what comprises government. They will be in a much stronger lobbying position as part of government though. Once the TPP is made public, rather than leaks, people will be able to critically analyze it, still 90 days is not a long time to analyze a trade deal of this size. I can tell you this, the common man will not support the TPP it is all about more money for big business. This means higher consumer costs, and the IP laws will completely contradict Canadian common law and precedent on the issue, it is not inline with Canadian law, and will impose itself on domestic law, it is not a fitting agreement for Canada. This isn't a "trade agreement" it changes domestic law. The Harper government is lying to people about its effects.

3. No, because it would pass anyway without a NDP majority. The benfit is that the executive angles of how it is implemented will be able to soften the issues, something that wouldn't be able to be proposed or implemented with a deaf conservative minority.

4. It is a waste of time for them to try, they cannot govern, they do not have support of the public, and didn't even with their majority, and if they don't have majority of the house it will be government in the worst form and end up costing a hell of a lot of money to force unpopular legislation on people, that didn't pass muster when it was forced down the throats of Canadians. If they don't have a majority them and their policies have been rejected and they have no mandate. The NDP and Liberal Party are more capable of forming a popular and representative government than the Conservative party any day of the week. The only thing that allowed conservatives to govern was a broken electoral systrem we had 7 million vs 6 million votes in 2011 and this time I expect that gap to be even wider perhaps 10 million to 4 million or so. They are not repsected or liked by the vast majority of Canadians, their legislation and their policies domestic and foreign are hated.

5. Its THEM, you think Canadians are a bunch of idiots and have forgotten the last 10 years of despotic corrupt rule?

6. The proposal that will be official on election night will represnt what issues they can work on, and what type of power sharing will happen in the executive. You know the government and the legislature are two different things. They will ahve a few years to strip down all the policies that were shoved down peoples throats and introduce badly needed equalization, and involvement of the provinces, work on building industry, and strengthening the lower classes that have been ignored by the Harper Regime.

The hot button issues will be put to an open vote. Running government is more important than the agenda of government. Removing corrupt conservative government and reducing the total control of conservative overlords will be a priority in the event of having enough seats to overpower the conservatives.

A liberal-NDP coalition will be a million times more stable than a conservative government.

It will also be a fresh breath of popular government, something the conservatives have never had in the last 25+ years.

I have to say though that it is far more in the NDP's intest to form a partnership with the liberals to shut down the conservatives for 5 years, than risk going to the polls early and blowing it all. There is to much at risk with the composition of the senate and Supreme court, crown corps, RCMP, etc... than to allow them more time in. That is the issue, not the legislation. THE GOVERNMENT is the issue NOT the policy.

You clearly don't understand why what creates government is the issue, not control of the house, or are ignoring it or trying to supreme that reality.

ITS NOT POLICY, IT IS WHO RUNS GOVERNMENT. WHO IMPLEMENTS THE LAWS. Parliament will make them regardless.

Tom Mulcair says he is willing to work with Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau to form a government – and has even written that pledge into his platform – but he could never support Stephen Harper, and says his “No. 1 job” is to oust the Conservatives from office.

Edited October 11, 2015 by nerve

[SpankyMcFarland]

So nearly 10 per cent of voters get two or three seats for their trouble. Does not compute. Much as I dislike the BQ, I think they deserve more than that. And the Greens certainly do.

Edited October 12, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[TimG]

It's not a confidence issue, but the government can say yea or nae. If the requirement of the NDP propping up the liberals is to nix the TPP we have an issue.

If the Libs have the most seats they can play the CPC against the NDP to get support. Dropping the promise to reduce TFSA limits or income splitting would have less negative consequences for Canada in the long run than blocking the TPP.

[nerve]

If the Libs have the most seats they can play the CPC against the NDP to get support. Dropping the promise to reduce TFSA limits or income splitting would have less negative consequences for Canada in the long run than blocking the TPP.

What negative consequences the status quo? What is so bad about the trade situation now? Is there some reason bilateral agreements cannot be worked out rather than a omnibus treaty?

Europe isn't part of this treaty or 200 other countries, are they all doomed? Are they are lining up like lemmings preaching the impending doom merrily rolling along?

This is just shove down throat fear monger shilling at its worst!

What products is Canada going to be out competing The Asian Triangle, Mexico and the US on? Not only that but giving up domestic market protection means less of a market for local businesses.

CANADA CANNOT COMPETE WITH ITS MINIMUM WAGE BEING TWICE TO 10 TIMES THAT OF THE OTHER SIGNATORIES!!!

WAKE UP ITS BAD NEWS FOR CANADA!!!

1. Oil: US$128,926,515,000 (27.2% of total exports) (GONIG TO TAKE A BEATING IF THE PRICE SLUMP CONTINUES)
2. Vehicles: $59,753,479,000 (12.6%) (GETTING HIT BY 20% atleast due to TPP)
3. Machines, engines, pumps: $32,600,025,000 (6.9%) (LIKELY ALSO GETTING HIT WITH REDUCTION TO EXPORTS TO TPP MEMBERS)

1. Gems, precious metals, coins: $21,518,760,000 (4.5%) (GETTING HIT BY CHINESE THE MARKET IF THERE IS NOT INCREASED DEMAND)

1. Electronic equipment: $13,639,592,000 (2.9%) (WILL BE OWNED BY THE US)
2. Plastics: $13,192,128,000 (2.8%) (WILL LIKELY BE ONLY MEETING UNMET DEMAND CHINA AND US ARE THE TOP 2 PLATICS EXPORTERS AND FTA HAMMERED CANADIAN PLATICS TPP WILL BE FAR WORSE)
3. Wood: $12,686,263,000 (2.7%)
4. Aircraft, spacecraft: $12,409,459,000 (2.6%) (TAKING A MAJOR HIT, AND WILL LIKELY GET WORSE AS CHINESE AEROSPACE CONTINUES TO GROW) http://export.gov/china/doingbizinchina/leadingsectors/eg_cn_081020.asp

Airbus and Boeing are forming production facilities in mainland china.. http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2015/09/23/boeing-to-build-its-first-offshore-plane-factory-in-china-as-ex-im-bank-withers/

"China’s official Xinhua news agency reported yesterday the company has signed a huge deal for 300 737s with three Chinese companies, besting the record 250-plane deal that Airbus received for its A320 last month from low-cost Indian carrier IndiGo"

"The company estimates Chinese carriers will buy or lease 6300 commercial transports over the next 20 years, and 4800 of those will be single-aisle jetliners like the 737 and A320. Airbus began delivering A320s from a Chinese plant in 2009, and signed an agreement this summer to build a second such facility in the country. Boeing can’t afford to be left behind in the trillion-dollar Chinese market, and the Beijing government has been eager to attract the kind of high-tech manufacturing its products entail."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac

1. Aluminum: $8,865,363,000 (1.9%)
2. Cereals: $8,774,059,000 (1.8%) (WILL BE A DEMAND WITH OR WITHOUT TPP, CANADA WILL GET LESS FROM THESE DEALS)

As yourself what new markets will be realized or maintained as a result of the TPP, which ones will be lost?

CANADA WILL NOT OUTCOMPETE CHINA!!! US CORPS ARE OFFSHORING AND NOW THEY CAN IMPORT CHINESE GOODS IN HIGHER AMOUNTS WHEREBY PREVIOUSLY THEY NEEDED TO BE NAFTA SIGNATORY MEMBERS.>. INTO THE CANADIAN MARKET.

"the uncertain fate of the U.S. Export-Import Bank"

Edited October 12, 2015 by nerve

[Smallc]

What negative consequences the status quo?

With the TPP, the status quo no longer exists, with or without Canada.

[TimG]

What negative consequences the status quo? What is so bad about the trade situation now? Is there some reason bilateral agreements cannot be worked out rather than a omnibus treaty?

It would not be the status quo because we would be on the outside of a major deal that included our major trading partners. Why would any auto part maker bother to set a plant in Canada if it did not qualify for the 45% TPP requirement?

And why would any of the TPP partners agree to bilateral negotiations if Canada opted out? What incentive would they have to offer any concessions that they have not already offered in the TPP? If anything, Canada's negotiating position would be much worse and we would likely have make much greater concessions to secure bilateral arrangements. More importantly, even with these bilateral agreements Canada would be outside the TPP and that would kill the auto parts industry here.

By opposing the TPP, Muclair shows that his claims of being a moderate was a sham. He is leading a party of economic illiterates that would drive the economy into the abyss.

Edited October 12, 2015 by TimG

[Bonam]

By opposing the TPP, Muclair shows that his claims of being a moderate was a sham. He is leading a party of economic illiterates that would drive the economy into the abyss.

I'm not a fan of the NDP but I don't think that opposing a treaty which we do not know the contents of is necessarily a bad move. Frankly, I'm more suspicious of people who support the treaty without knowing what it contains... because that implies they are throwing their support behind something without actually knowing what it is, therefore they are accepting it not based on rational analysis but on ideology or partisanship. One can believe that trade agreements are beneficial in general but still not support a particular one without first being able to see what it contains.

I think any responsible citizen should be highly suspicious of any treaty that is negotiated in secrecy and to which a government commits itself without first making the complete terms of the treaty public knowledge, (except perhaps treaties related to matters of national security during wartime).

[TimG]

I'm not a fan of the NDP but I don't think that opposing a treaty which we do not know the contents of is necessarily a bad move. Frankly, I'm more suspicious of people who support the treaty without knowing what it contains...

I see your point except the Conservatives presumably know the details that have not been made public so their stance is more rational than the NDP. Also, trade negotiators from lot of different countries with different economies agreed on the deal so it is hard to imagine that the deal will be very one sided. That said, I agree that the most rational approach on this file comes from Trudeau which is support for the idea pending evaluation of the details. The NDP out right rejection of the deal is nonsensical.

[Smallc]

I'm not a fan of the NDP but I don't think that opposing a treaty which we do not know the contents of is necessarily a bad move.

Of course it is. It's entirely irresponsible. The right mow would be to reserve judgement. That makes the Liberals right here.

[Bonam]

I see your point except the Conservatives presumably know the details that have not been made public so their stance is more rational than the NDP. Also, trade negotiators from lot of different countries with different economies agreed on the deal so it is hard to imagine that the deal will be very one sided. That said, I agree that the most rational approach on this file comes from Trudeau which is support for the idea pending evaluation of the details. The NDP out right rejection of the deal is nonsensical.

Of course it is. It's entirely irresponsible. The right mow would be to reserve judgement. That makes the Liberals right here.

Well, I agree that reserving judgement is a valid response as well. But on the other hand, waiting to oppose it until after it is already passed is kind of useless. Presumably, pulling out of the treaty after the fact may have substantial costs and downsides. Any economic treaty that is likely to have substantial impact on a country's economy should have a chance to undergo vigorous debate by that country's public, even if the ultimate decision about whether or not to go ahead with the treaty still rests in the hands of the sitting government. And, given that that debate has not happened, opposing the treaty's ratification until such time as it its terms are made public seems like a reasonable principled stance to me.

As for the conservatives... yes presumably the government knows the details of the treaty and they have been vested with a majority mandate to make these kinds of decisions on behalf of Canadians. That said, I still dislike deals done in secrecy except where a need for that secrecy can be clearly and unambiguously demonstrated, which it cannot in the case of the TPP in my opinion.

Anyway, all this would probably be better placed in a separate thread regarding the TPP...

Edited October 12, 2015 by Bonam

[Vancouver King]

I see your point except the Conservatives presumably know the details that have not been made public so their stance is more rational than the NDP.

More rational? When the CPC is locked in a desperate re-election bid and their trade negotiation counterparts are fully aware of the party's need to produce an agreement to stay in contention with their rival Liberals, what do you think is the worst that happened?.

We can only imagine the extent to which Canadian interests were sold out to election expediency.

[nerve]

1. It would not be the status quo because we would be on the outside of a major deal that included our major trading partners.

2. Why would any auto part maker bother to set a plant in Canada if it did not qualify for the 45% TPP requirement?

3. And why would any of the TPP partners agree to bilateral negotiations if Canada opted out?

4. What incentive would they have to offer any concessions that they have not already offered in the TPP? If anything, Canada's negotiating position would be much worse and we would likely have make much greater concessions to secure bilateral arrangements. More importantly, even with these bilateral agreements Canada would be outside the TPP and that would kill the auto parts industry here.

By opposing the TPP, Muclair shows that his claims of being a moderate was a sham. He is leading a party of economic illiterates that would drive the economy into the abyss.

1. Its not a free trade deal, it is a trade protections deal for megacorporations THAT ARE NOT CANADIAN!!!! The only market Canada will ever fill is "excess demand" Frankly expanding trade will be expanding Canada's trade deficit. BUilding up something you have a negative balance at is not a good result. Its like saying I can't compete in the status quo so I will make it even harder to compete by introducing more competitors. What new markets are realized. The only thing that is seen is changes to domestic law to lock out compettition by Canadian Companies whereby IP will be owned by foreign companies meaning domestic production will be blocked, and further liberalizing domestic markets to foreign competition. It has no benefits.

2. To sell their product in Canada. Will US and Mexico NULLIFY NAFTA WITH TPP IF NOT THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO JOIN IT.

3. To sell their product in Canada. You think tis is the last agreement to ever exist? Please... This is largely a deal to pander to US lobbyists. These deals always result in labour beng moved offshore to the cheapest labour markets. They ain't Canada.

4. Canada has no need to negotiate. It is not gaining anything from the deals. It is jumping in with 20 other countries and Canada is not the most compettitive. It is an allusion that canada will win a gold from entering the race when in fact it may get lucky to finish 9th or 10th, where previously it was running in 5th.

TPP will massively disrupt NAFTA... it isn't a stronger deal than NAFTA it is a worse deal than NAFTA so why ANULL NAFTA? MAKES NO SENSE? Why weaken your trade balance with your #1 trade partner?

Where are these magical new markets coming from?

The US is 70-80% of Canada's Market. Canada is less than 20% of the US market. After this maybe less than 15% if that. That works out to a 20% reduction in the trade balance.

Canada should dump the TPP and join a trade alliance with India and China for more limited markets such as agriculture, electronics etc.. One that excludes the US, and doesn't interfere with IP and other domestic issues.

Such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), It is projected to be the LARGEST trading block in the World, far larger than the TPP.

EMERGING ECONOMIES ARE FAR MORE LUCRATIVE THAN OLD DYING ONES.

CANADA ALREADY HAS BILATERAL AGREEMENTS WITH MOST OF TPP!!!

GO RCEP BEING THE ONLY North American/European WESTERN STATE IN THE PREFERENTIAL ORG!!!

WAY BETTER DEAL!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Comprehensive_Economic_Partnership

The arrangement is also open to any other external economic partners

http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/152753/reiwp-146.pdf

Edited October 12, 2015 by nerve

[TimG]

2. To sell their product in Canada. Will US and Mexico NULLIFY NAFTA WITH TPP IF NOT THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO JOIN IT.

They would have to apply both rules. i.e. selling a product that crosses the Canadian border would require compliance with NAFTA rules but selling cars to TPP countries would follow TPP rules. What this means is auto parts makers will need to be in TPP countries because it would maximize their potential market. The end result will be the complete death of the Canadian auto parts industry. Remember that trade agreements don't prevent your partners from signing better deals with other countries - they only cover the rules for the trade between the countries.

3. To sell their product in Canada.

You did not answer the question. What incentive would they have to offer more concessions that they already have? The Canadian market is not that big and does not give Canada a lot of leverage. Canada may attempt bilateral deals but it won't stop the destruction of the auto parts industry.

TPP will massively disrupt NAFTA... it isn't a stronger deal than NAFTA it is a worse deal than NAFTA so why ANULL NAFTA? MAKES NO SENSE? Why weaken your trade balance with your #1 trade partner?

Because your No #1 partner is making deals with other countries which will impact business investment decisions whether you like it or not. If we are part of the TPP we minimize the potential impact of those decisions. Remember that 80% of our auto parts production goes to the US. Being out of the TPP encourages parts makers to relocate and that is very bad for Canada. Edited October 12, 2015 by TimG

[nerve]

They would have to apply both rules. i.e. selling a product that crosses the Canadian border would require compliance with NAFTA rules but selling cars to TPP countries would follow TPP rules. What this means is auto parts makers will need to be in TPP countries because it would maximize their potential market. The end result will be the complete death of the Canadian auto parts industry. Remember that trade agreements don't prevent your partners from signing better deals with other countries - they only cover the rules for the trade between the countries.

You did not answer the question. What incentive would they have to offer more concessions that they already have? The Canadian market is not that big and does not give Canada a lot of leverage. Canada may attempt bilateral deals but it won't stop the destruction of the auto parts industry.

Because your No #1 partner is making deals with other countries which will impact business investment decisions whether you like it or not. If we are part of the TPP we minimize the potential impact of those decisions. Remember that 80% of our auto parts production goes to the US. Being out of the TPP encourages parts makers to relocate and that is very bad for Canada.

Hardly. First off, TPP means opening up Canada's auto sector. Canada still controls what comes into Canada, knocking that down by 1/5th is selling 1/5th the market, or in actuality it amounts to selling 1/3rd the market because 1/5th has already been opened up.

TPP opens it up more, you are assuming Canada will gain export markets as a result of TPP. Canada is still able to protect what comes in, with TPP that is opened up to 20 countries and the amount is increased, you can't try to sell that as a better deal, it isn't.

BECAUSE IT KEEPS STUFF OUT OF THE ONE MARKET CANADIAN AUTO CAN THRIVE IN, DOMESTIC PRODUCTION!!!

IF CANADA CAN'T SELL TO ITSELF WHO CAN IT SELL TO. NO WAY WILL CANADIAN LABOUR OUTCOMPETE THE 2nd world, its clear the intent is just to destroy labour unions.

Edited October 12, 2015 by nerve

[Vancouver King]

Final prediction based on confirmed surging Liberal support:

Liberal - 145

CPC - 133

NDP - 57

Bloc - 2

Green - 1

Time for Stephen Harper to write his memoirs.

[TimG]

IF CANADA CAN'T SELL TO ITSELF WHO CAN IT SELL TO. NO WAY WILL CANADIAN LABOUR OUTCOMPETE THE 2nd world, its clear the intent is just to destroy labour unions.

What can't you understand about the phrase: "80% of parts made in Canada are exported" can't you understand? If you care about the Canadian auto industry then you must realize that the Canadian market is too small to sustain the industry at its existing size. It must export and if its ability to export is crippled because the US and Mexico are part of TPP then the Canadian industry dies.

[ToadBrother]

At the moment, I'm betting on the Liberals getting 140 to 150 seats, the Tories down about 100-110, and the NDP stuck with no more than 70, with the Bloc and the Greens rounding it out.

[Canada_First]

I'm going to play devils advocate here and give approximates...

CPC 150

Libs 120

NDP 40

Bloc 25

SID 2

Grn 1

Fill in the rest where ever.

[ToadBrother]

I'm going to play devils advocate here and give approximates...

CPC 150

Libs 120

NDP 40

Bloc 25

SID 2

Grn 1

Fill in the rest where ever.

You're going to be very disappointed on election night.

[Vancouver King]

I'm going to play devils advocate here and give approximates...

CPC 150

Libs 120

NDP 40

Bloc 25

SID 2

Grn 1

Fill in the rest where ever.

SID - 2?

[cybercoma]

Strength in Democracy

[webc5]

Is it safe to say at this point that the Conservatives will NOT win a majority?

[ToadBrother]

Is it safe to say at this point that the Conservatives will NOT win a majority?

I think that much is a given. And without a majority, they are almost certainly finished, whether on the 19th, or when Parliament returns.

[ReeferMadness]

Most likely scenario at this point is a Liberal minority.

[SpankyMcFarland]

How are the usual Conservative spokespersons on PandP looking e.g. Rempel, Calandra, Gill, James etc.? For their

performances on that show alone, James and Gill deserve to lose. I presume Rempel is safe as houses and didn't need to

campaign in her own riding.