Gerald Nash (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in favour of the motion tabled by Senator Higgins. Regardless of where one stands on the substance of this new-generation trade agreement, we should be extremely cautious as legislators about how we proceed. As this is a mixed agreement the Dáil, under the treaty rules and as required under our own Constitution, as I understand it, is required to have a say on whether it is to be passed into law. The Dáil has not yet had that opportunity and I firmly believe it would be very unwise of Ireland to assert its support for any provisional application on this matter until there is a full and open debate and a decision of the Legislature on what we are to do with it. That is why the Labour Party Senators and I support the general thrust and ambition of this very timely and well-considered motion.

The CETA has an enormous scope and its impact will be felt way beyond industry. I hope the debate today shines a light on some of the potential implications and consequences for public policy-making, regulation and sovereignty from the terms of the proposed agreement. I spoke last night about the Labour Party's support for the Government's decision to challenge the European Commission's view on the Apple issue. We spoke of protecting both our sovereignty and our reputation and I hope the Government can apply the same principles to its consideration of this proposed agreement. As the Department's own briefing notes state, "CETA covers virtually every aspect of economic activity". On the face of it, with 99% of tariffs between Canada and the EU set to be lifted, there would appear to be very clear benefits for Irish business and Irish jobs, particularly in the context of the need for Irish businesses to broaden their horizons in the very uncertain and difficult Brexit era.

On mutual recognition of professional qualification standards and on addressing the costs and barriers associated with double testing, the agreement would appear to be very positive and something with which anyone who is interested in economic growth would find some favour. However, these are not the areas on which the public here, across Europe and, to some extent, in Canada have expressed concern. With citizens having become increasingly more disconnected from decision-making and feeling more disempowered, it is entirely understandable that trade unions and NGOs should raise concerns about the creation of new policy innovations such as investment court systems, which appear to me to provide gold-standard, first-rate protections for multinational corporations and investors. There are no similar protections or supports for enforcing better labour standards and it is at least peculiar that the agreement provides for the establishment of an investor court system between trading blocs which already have some of the most progressive and advanced judicial and court systems in the developed world. I have yet to receive an explanation for this and there is a suspicion that this innovation provides very privileged status to investors and elevates the rights of corporations above and beyond those of citizens and the public interest.

There is a lot of rhetoric in this agreement on labour standards and labour rights but the references thereto are neither enforceable nor binding. Canada has yet to invoke many ILO conventions and the labour element of the CETA is not covered in the general dispute settlement provisions of the agreement, something which tells us an awful lot about its purpose and scope. Where there is a dispute over standards, the only requirement the CETA appears to have is for the parties to engage in toothless, non-binding consultations, and we know where that gets us. There are many examples of the capacity of globalisation to transform people's lives and to work for the betterment of communities. We should not go down the cul-de-sac of saying that all globalisation is bad as that is evidently not the case. However, on reading about what some elements of the CETA seek to achieve, I wonder if the lessons of the past decade of economic and social catastrophe, following the great recession, have been learned or understood.

There are few people in this Chamber who have worked harder with business than I to create jobs and I have worked with trade unions and others to improve labour standards in this country. I know the Minister of State at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Pat Breen, is also working hard in this area and I have every confidence that he will deliver in this regard. I do not want our hard-won gains to be diluted in any way by agreements that will not be subject to the scrutiny of this Legislature. We are elected by the Irish people to make these decisions and it is important that this Parliament has a full and open role in deciding whether nation states endorse such agreements. I urge caution on how we proceed to apply this proposed agreement, which I predict will be caught up in debates in the European Parliament and national parliaments for some time to come. Along with Labour Party colleagues, I am happy to support this motion, particularly the call to closely scrutinise its provisional application.