Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senators for tabling this important motion. The issue crosses over between the public and private, the vested interest and the public interest and, therefore, we must discuss the matter.

I have some knowledge of the CETA agreement having read about the subject and also from what I observed in Canada as my wife is Canadian. I know that prior to the last general election in Canada the then Canadian Prime Minister, Mr. Stephen Harper, sold the agreement to Canadians as part of his re-election campaign.

Who benefits the most? Is it Canada or Europe? Should we benefit equally? The trade deficit between Canada and Europe must be considered. Canada trades more with Europe than vice versa.Canada is just short of 10% in terms of its overall trade with the EU whereas the EU's overall trade with Canada is currently just under 2%, so there is room for growth. I am always of the view that Ireland needs to expand into new markets, open up corridors of trade and have more movement of goods and people.

I do not know enough about the CETA deal that is being put together. It is a complicated trade agreement with all of the European member states and with provincial or federal governments as they are known in Canada. In order for the deal to be passed it must be approved by 36 autonomous units of Government.

We have not read the details of the final product yet. This month the European Commission hopes to have a finalised approval on the table from the Council of Ministers, then it goes before the European Parliament with co-decision and then each of the relevant national parliaments would then debate the deal. The proposal must be translated into the official languages of the European Union before that occurs. A lot of negotiation must take place. One could argue that today's motion is premature but I do not think so and believe it is very relevant. There are major consequences if the deal is approved. I listened in my office to some of the earlier speakers such as Senator Norris.

I am concerned at the way the European model works and how it conducts its business. Unfortunately, when one centralises power one also centralises access to power in terms of lobbying and so forth. One can go to Brussels on any day of the week where one will discover the best paid lobbyists in the world working there, whether in pharma or big business. Those lobbyists work in Brussels because it is the crossroads of power in Europe.

Will the agreement centralise power? I am not sure. I do think that we should have this debate and that this House should debate the agreement somewhat further after the final details have been published. Research on the trade deal has been commissioned. Depending on who funds the research, different opinions will emerge.

Following a cursory look at the deal I am left with questions about the provision of big business being able to capture national Governments within the EU and provincial governments in Canada. One of the articles of the trade deal allows for governments to be sued. These questions require clarity.

Another issue is financial regulation. Senator Norris referred to Enron in the US. I am concerned about the ability to capture, or lack of regulation, in terms of financial services in the US. Regulations in the United States are totally different from European regulations because they are legislative-based and Europe's are based more on rules. Differences exist even though Canada has a different set of principles in terms of the regulation of the financial services sector. We cannot allow different regulations to rule. We cannot allow big business to be able to subvert money out of one jurisdiction and into another jurisdiction just to comply with equity requirements to satisfy shareholders. I have not received answers to these questions and do not see that there will be any forthcoming.

There are other interests like tourism. Also, issues were raised by the parliaments in Romania and Bulgaria about visa access for citizens and the fact that some European member states can obtain visas for Canada while others cannot. I am not sure if that is the case. Questions have been raised about these matters and answers have not been forthcoming.We should always grasp the opportunity to develop trade links with other countries and jurisdictions, but in this case I have reservations and a mixed opinion. There is a lot of detail and there is a need for clarification. We are a member of the European Union and if it was getting things right, we would not have a Brexit in the aftermath of the referendum. We all hear it on the street from our electorate that bureaucrats in Brussels are making decisions that are beyond the scope or remit of democratic politics and perhaps that is the case with this deal. There was much debate in this House this evening about decisions being removed from democratic accountability. There is a darker side, whether we like to admit it, where big business can capture those who have centralised power, whether in the Commission or elsewhere. We should stand up against and question this. That is why a motion such as this is absolutely important. We should never be afraid to question consensus, particularly where so much money and trade deals are involved. I may be wrong, but I am not sure pushing this to a vote is the right thing to do; I would actually rather see this issue being kept alive rather than being killed tonight in a vote. Perhaps this is a matter into which we should delve more. I would love to see this Chamber actually scrutinise what is happening in the European Union much more. I remember when former Senator Maurice Cummins was Leader, I made a suggestion that the Seanad should sit just one day a week to scrutinise EU legislation and what was happening in the European Union, but there may be another platform on which we could do this. We only find out about all of the laws made in Brussels when they impact on us, whether it be special areas of conservation, SACs, or health inspectors operating under European Union law, etc.

Fair play to the Senators who tabled the motion. There is a lot of information provided in it. There are lorry loads of text that need to be scrutinised. I do not believe it can be properly scrutinised in a four or six minute contribution. However, I would be very happy to play my part.