Globalization is neither good nor bad, but CETA is a bad deal. Especially when we want to battle resource limitations and climate change. A key problem with CETA is the so called protection for investors, which sounds like we do not have a proper legal system in Canada and the EU. CETA has also a system which allows to modify the treaty later without parliamental control. So in short it is undemocratic and I want to keep my democracy.
explaining this to the quite rule-based society Germany probably, which is typically receiving end of why trade needs state-independet dispute resolution even for established democracies. The 2nd part of the answer is why counterintuitively trade agreements and nation-independent courts would be the most impactful way to address climate change (!) if implemented properly.
(1) The badly termed Schiedsgerichte investment court system (also investor-state dispute settlement-ISDS) protects investors from one country to political arbitrariness. Recent examples are:
* banks having to forgive part of loans by decree of other governments that gift bank loan reductions to its voter clientele (Hungary, Croatia). Technically the exchange rate is modified by changing laws, which in effect forgives part of the loan. Needless to say that people will invest less given this, for which in the end all lose.
That is, it's not uncommon at at all that even developed democracies parliaments/governments change rules affecting the investments of others on the fly. You would not believe how common it is even in more developed democracies for ex post facto changes based on domestic politics that harm investors from other nations, it's possible to cite many more recent examples.
If an investor wants to go to court for this with only domestic courts it may amount to a wish-you-good-luck situation. So there need to be non-national, potentially less biased independent courts (better) or resolution mechanisms. As trade agreements are badly explained and quite complex which makes them prone for popular simplifications. but it's not given that robust democracies have need independent judiciary.
(2) Climate change: I would posit that CETA-alike agreements with China could do more for climate change than lip-service non-binding populism as maybe seen with COP21 (non-binding Paris climhttps://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/10/30/2233243/ceta-signed-off-as-wallonia-folds-under-pressure#ate treaty). If China would need to pay for its environmental emissions enforced by proportional duties and other instruments, overseen by independent dispute settlement courts it could lead to real CO2 parts per million reductions.
A pity that (2) sounds completely unrealistic in a populist climate of trade being bad mouthed and the need for non-national courts weakly understood.