2026-05-21

4. Deputy Sinéad Gibney asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if she is aware of concerns regarding the investor court system established in the CETA deal, particularly the potential need for EU-wide consent for the termination of CETA as well as the possible 20-year post-termination obligations that Ireland would still face. [38316/26]

I will answer this question on behalf of the Minister. The ratification of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, between Canada and the EU is an absolute priority for the Government. The 2025 programme for Government contains a specific commitment to ratify this important free trade agreement and the Government is committed to delivering on it. The ratification of the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement is an important part of Ireland’s diversification strategy in reducing concentration risk among our trading partners. The ratification of CETA is also a key priority for Canada, which has been repeatedly raised with Ireland by Canadian partners, including with me last weekend. CETA took seven years to negotiate and the deal that was agreed at the Council of the European Union followed extensive engagement and debate among EU member states. It is now close to ten years since the agreement was signed, with the European Parliament giving its consent a number of months later. The EU's new approach to investment protection includes the investor court system, which will replace the old, long-standing investor state dispute settlement, or ISDS, mechanism. The EU and all of us are keenly aware of the criticisms of the old system. To overcome those shortcomings, the EU and its member states have put forward new reforms which address the concerns head-on. The new, progressive system contains investment protection provisions that are very much balanced against the State's right to regulate in the public interest. In relation to the termination clause the Deputy referred to, we have collectively agreed, through the democratic process at EU level, to have a trade and investment agreement with our ally, Canada. It makes absolute sense that it would involve a collective decision of the EU to terminate it. I cannot envisage circumstances in which the EU and Canada would want to end this agreement. In the case of Ireland alone, we have seen bilateral trade in goods and services increase from €3.2 billion in 2016 to more than €12 billion in 2024. This significant increase in bilateral trade between Ireland and Canada supports thousands of Irish jobs and benefits large and small Irish businesses throughout our country. The Government is currently progressing the Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2025 through the Oireachtas as part of ongoing efforts to take forward ratification of CETA. The Bill, which amends the Arbitration Act 2010 to deal with concerns addressed in the Costello case, is currently before the Seanad.

Farmers, workers and consumers have been left totally confused by the CETA deal. Although the Minister of State describes the extensive debate at EU level, that debate has not been reflected here in the Oireachtas, where the Bill is being rushed through and pre-legislative scrutiny has been essentially suspended on it. The EU is not rushing us to ratify and given that France has shown extreme reluctance, I do not understand why we are pushing this through. We have all of the benefits of the trade we want with Canada without the investor court system. Essentially, we are selling out to this system by forcing through this Bill. It is such a threat to our sovereignty as a country. It is a threat to future legislative powers of this Dáil that we are choosing to go with investors courts and not just settle for and work with what we have, which is a positive trade agreement.

In relation to farmers, citizens and consumers, they are the ultimate beneficiaries of the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. They benefit. We are not selling out; we are buying and selling goods and services. This is mutually beneficial. CETA is not a threat to our sovereignty. Every time an agreement is reached with another entity or country within the EU, there is a sharing of sovereignty in order to get bigger benefits for all of our citizens. I do not accept that the legislation is being rushed through. The Bill is just over two pages long. There has been extensive debate and there continues to be extensive debate about it. I absolutely reject this notion we are selling out the country. This type of language about a trade agreement is damaging to politics. It is not the case. There is no imposition on the State's right to regulate, as I have extensively explained to the House during this legislative process. If we do not ratify this or make a decision not to ratify this, as the Government's regulatory impact analysis says, it would collapse the entire agreement.

The Bill is two pages long but it will have an immeasurable impact on this country. As I said, we can continue our current arrangements with Canada without the investor court mechanism which undermines our regulatory ability. I will focus on the real dangers these investor courts present to us. They would hear cases from X against Ireland if we were to ban their undressing AI software. We have seen the prioritisation of big polluters' profits in Mexican investor courts and it is explicit that companies will be able to sue for loss of future profits because of regulation. That is not just in the area of climate; it is in areas like workers' rights as well. It is possible that the State would have to pay off X for the privilege of protecting the children of this country. Will the Minister of State accept that the introduction of investor courts is a serious danger to people's well-being and their rights under the European Charter of Human Rights?

The idea that we would have to pay off X to protect the children of this country is simply the latest scare story about CETA. It is unbecoming of the debate to start going into this. By stating that, Deputy Gibney has completely ignored the terms of CETA, the joint interpretative instrument and the fact that there are no precedents for this investor court system she can rely on because it is not in existence yet. The safeguards are in place. The agreement is there to enhance our economies, and it has done that. If we take the route the Deputy is suggesting, the entire agreement between the EU, its member states and Canada would collapse. That is simply a fact. The Deputy cannot say we can retain the benefits without having the overall agreement because that is not factually correct. These examples that keep getting thrown out here in the Dáil are getting more and more extreme. The facts do not bear out what the Deputy is saying. The Deputy and the opponents of this treaty simply refuse to read the actual text of the agreement and the interpretative instrument.

That is not true.