When it comes to trade and investment deals, the facts mean nothing. The federal government makes its own "reality" by crafting "facts" to fit its policy objectives.
The Walloon government's resistance will have emboldened elected decision-makers across the continent, who must still decide, in 40 parliaments, if they wish to ratify the Canadian deal.
Since the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in 1988, promoters of investment protection agreements have held sway. But 30 years after the first experiment, signs of resistence are growing.
The House of Commons standing committee on international trade will be in Montreal, Quebec City, Windsor and Toronto and civil society will be there to let them know that they want the TPP stopped.
The TPP would open some of Canada's dairy market to imports from the U.S., but less than what had been demanded by American dairy farmers.
Canadians have many reasons to be concerned about the Trans-Pacific Partnership. But the real poison pill in the TPP lies in its "investor-state dispute settlement" mechanism. Here's why.
On the Trans-Pacific Partnership, International Trade minister Chrystia Freeland has claimed to be in "listening mode." But it is not clear whom she is actually consulting.
It is simply not true that there is a crisis in Canada's internal trade relations that is undermining our international competitiveness. It is a myth -- like unicorns and the Easter Bunny.
The United Nations Special Rapporteur for Indigenous Rights Victoria Tauli-Corpuz says the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) threatens Indigenous land rights.
While a reformed investment court system in the CETA deal is meant to protect governments' "right to regulate" it may simply embolden adjudicators into attacking progressive public policies.