The visit yesterday of the Canadian Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, was an important one. While socks and jogging might have captured the headlines, it seems clear from Prime Minister Trudeau's comments that he was here for one specific reason, building support for the free trade agreement between Canada and the European Union, CETA. Like most Members of this House, I understand the benefits of globalised trade. Such trade has reduced global poverty and has enriched many lives and brought people back to work. We must also be aware of the negative impacts of globalisation, however. CETA has been a long time coming. It is welcome that it proposes to replace investor-state dispute settlements, which were secretive arbitration panels that allowed investors to challenge government regulation behind closed doors. The Japan-EU deal has been grappling with this exact issue. While a move away from the existing model may be welcome, replacing it with investment courts does not go nearly far enough.

The proposed courts are not transparent and they pay little attention to democratic politics or the right of individual countries to regulate in their own national interest. As a country, we have suffered immensely as a result of light touch regulation, or deregulation. The banking crisis and much of the shoddy building work in this State over the last 20 years are testament to that. Therefore, we have more reason than most to question any structures that would allow investors or companies to challenge the robust regulation we now have. As The Financial Times - no bastion of left-wing thinking - has pointed out, in highly developed legal systems, including those of the EU, Canada and Japan, there is really no need for a separate adjudication forum for investors. Therefore, there is much political reason to insist on our own domestic courts. Japan, Canada and the EU should be comfortable with the national courts making decisions where conflicts arise, in particular given the presence of international treaty obligations of non-discriminatory treatments for investors and companies.

Several months have now passed since the Seanad voted for a variety of reasons against the ratification of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA. Can the Taoiseach indicate the view of Government on the vote of the Seanad in the first instance and can he tell the House when he will bring the agreement for formal decision and ratification before the House?

The visit of Prime Minister Trudeau to Ireland was very welcome. The purpose of the visit was to cement the bonds of friendship that exist between our two countries and governments. We discussed many different issues in our meetings, but free trade and CETA, which is a free trade agreement between the EU and Canada, were things we discussed in depth. While some countries may be turning their backs on free trade, this country, those in the EU and Canada are absolutely committed to it. We understand that free trade in the round makes us all better off and creates good jobs and opportunities for businesses and individuals. Both countries are very committed to CETA and want to see it implemented as soon as possible.

While there are always arguments over free trade agreements, once they are in place very few people want to pull back from them. That is why we are trying to retain the free trade agreements we have with the UK because we know they make us better off. That is also why we joined the EU. We all know the EU has made us better off. CETA will be no different. It will be a successful and progressive free trade agreement that creates jobs and opportunities for people. That is what government is all about.

It is intended that provisional ratification will occur in the next couple of months. That will give us about 80% of the benefits of the deal. We will remove tariffs from the vast majority of goods that are traded between the two countries. We do not have a date for formal ratification, which involves the court procedure that the Deputy mentioned, as yet. There is no timeline for it. Only two countries in the EU have so far ratified it and we do not have any plans to do so in the next couple of months, but will do so in due course. What is crucial to us is provisional ratification because that is what removes the tariff barriers. Removing the tariff barriers is the mechanism by which we will get the most benefits economically.

Most people in this House and in most arms of the community - labour, employers, agriculture workers and so on - support the concept of free trade. However, when there are issues to be addressed, we as an elected assembly have a responsibility to address them to ensure we have support for trade agreements that are beneficial to an open economy like ours. That means having a proper debate in the House, ventilating real concerns in an open and honest way and finding solutions that will bring the bulk of our people with us. Even in advance of the provisional ratification, will the Taoiseach arrange for a proper debate in this House with a formal motion put by Government so that we can address the concerns outlined by various elements in society and build the biggest consensus we can for an agreement that meets those concerns?

I very much agree with the Deputy's sentiment. In Ireland, labour and employers support free trade. Left, right and centre support free trade. It was not always so and I am glad that it is one of the areas in which that argument has been won in the past couple of decades. We have a vast political consensus in Ireland in favour of free trade and its benefits to business, individuals and the economy. Ratification of the agreement in full will require a motion and a debate in the Dáil. We have not scheduled that yet but as EU countries ratify the agreement, we will have a debate in the Dáil and a motion on it. We do not have any plans for a motion or debate on the provisional ratification, because all that involves-----

There was a Fianna Fáil motion last week on CETA.

-----is reducing the tariff barriers. Obviously, if the Deputy wants to have that, it could be discussed with the Business Committee or perhaps be done in his party's time.

There was a motion passed on CETA last week.