This morning, I attended the press launch of the Raise the Roof campaign at which trade unions, student unions, housing groups, anti-poverty groups and many more, including Opposition parties, outlined details of the national housing demonstration that will take place in Dublin city centre on the Saturday after next. We expect many thousands of people to take to the streets to demand action that has not been forthcoming from the Government to address the shameful, intolerable, ever-worsening housing and homelessness crisis.

There are many reasons for the crisis. I urge those affected by or angry about the crisis to come out on the Saturday after next. The reasons for the crisis include: the failure of the Government to control rents and house prices to make them affordable; the failure of the Government to stop the constant flow of families and individuals into homelessness and emergency accommodation; the failure to deal with the scandal of empty properties; and the failure to deal with vulture funds and property speculators that profiteer and benefit from the housing and homelessness crisis.

I want to ask the Taoiseach about another reason that people should come out on the streets, that is, the Government's commitment to the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, between Canada and the EU. Last Friday, as a result of Deputy Costello's Supreme Court action, we found that CETA is, at least at the moment, unconstitutional because it has the potential to bypass the sovereignty of the court system and fundamentally undermine democracy in the interests of multinational investors. I want to ring the alarm bells about this matter for the public and remind them what is at stake here. In simple terms, the agreement gives multinational companies the right to sue governments that introduce progressive legislation or regulation to deal precisely with matters such as the housing crisis, environmental issues or workers' rights by means of a system that bypasses our courts. I refer here to the investor court system. Despite this, the Government continues to be committed to this attack on democracy in favour of the profits of multinational companies. This opens up the potential, for example, for property speculators and investors to sue governments that introduce measures to protect tenants, control rents and regulate the behaviour of vulture funds, property speculators and so on. Yet, the Government remains committed to this unconstitutional agreement and refuses even to agree-----

I thank the Deputy. We are over time.

-----to a referendum whereby the people could debate and vote on whether they want to be part of this dangerous agreement.

I remind the Deputy he has raised two issues under Leaders' Questions.

No, I did not. I connected the housing issue to CETA.

Well, on the two issues I am not sure so I am going to let the Taoiseach-----

I am saying it is another reason with CETA.

I am going to let the Taoiseach deal with whichever issue he wishes to deal with.

A good polemicist and a great propagandist can often conflate issues and spin them to his heart's content, which is what Deputy Boyd Barrett has done. However, he has done it in a very disingenuous and, dare I say, dishonest way in his presentation and his attempt to conflate the two matters. Suffice it to say that I have repeatedly stated in this House that housing is the greatest social issue facing this country and the Government's number one priority is to deal with it. The Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage has brought in a raft of not just legislation but also schemes to deal with the housing issue. We need to build houses more rapidly to help younger generations get access to houses they can afford and that they can rent at affordable levels. That might be affordable housing, social housing, cost rental, the refurbishment of existing houses or any other initiatives we can take.

The Supreme Court ruled in respect of CETA, and I welcome the clarification in its judgment. The court did not rule on the principle of free trade but rather on a point of law, which can be remedied. The decision of the court was six to one in favour of the view that an amendment to the Arbitration Act can deal with the issue and that, consequential on such an amendment, CETA can be ratified.

What is this great danger the Deputy wants alarm bells to go off all over the place about? He never says it or references it. He talks about multinationals, developers and vulture funds. He does not talk about the 400 companies that employ many people in this country. These are Enterprise Ireland client companies, many of them startups and many of them small operations, that trade with Canada.

This agreement has been operational since 2017. The only real impact of this agreement is a 30% increase in trade between Ireland and Canada to the benefit of our companies and to protect jobs. What does Deputy Boyd Barrett want? Does he want every trade deal the European Commission does with a country like Singapore or Japan to go through a referendum?

Does the Taoiseach want parallel courts to cover it?

Free trade is the esprit de corps of this country. Since the 1960s, we have fundamentally changed an insular approach to an external approach by joining the European Union and embracing the Single Market. Why? Because we sell 90% of everything we make in this country, be it services or merchandise. We sell and export to create wealth and jobs in this country.

Deputy Boyd Barrett's diatribe and his reading of the riot act to me is anti-enterprises, anti-jobs and against the best interests of this country. Is the Deputy for free trade or not? Will he answer that question when he gives his supplementary response?

Thank you, Taoiseach.

We export €4 billion to Canada, which is a country that abides by the same liberal democratic values as we do and which is as committed to climate change as we are.

We are over time.

Nothing in CETA can stop us-----

Deputy Boyd Barrett to answer.

We are certainly committed to raising our rents.

-----or can in any way damage our Constitution or, indeed, the values of the European Union for that matter.

We can develop trade between Canada and any other country without introducing a system that bypasses the court system and which favours multinational investors. I will tell the Taoiseach what I do not want, and this is the connection between housing and CETA. I do not want what has happened to the United States, which is that the National Apartment Association, which represents big investors in apartments, has taken the US federal court to court through the investor court system and is claiming billions in losses because of the introduction of a moratorium on evictions. That has just happened in the United States. This is not a hypothetical danger.

Who is the biggest apartment owner in this country? IRES REIT. Who is its parent company? A Canadian property company. Therefore, if the Government were to introduce regulations that controlled or reduced rents or regulated the behaviour of vulture funds and speculators that are benefiting from the housing crisis, we could be sued through the investor court system, as governments have been on a whole range of environmental issues. The French Government has been sued over trying to limit fossil fuel extraction, for example.

Thank you, Deputy. We are over time.

The Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, told this House that we could not ban further fossil fuel extraction because of the threat of possible legal action by fossil fuel companies.

We are over time. The Taoiseach to respond.

Do not say this is a red herring. It is true, and you will not even let people have a say on it.

No, it is not true, actually. The Supreme Court is clear. If the Arbitration Act is amended, the point of law that was raised can be dealt with.

It is actually not the case. Read the judgment.

Sorry, hold on a second. No country can be sued for adhering to the European Union treaty. It is daft to suggest it could be. It cannot.

Romania was sued by a Canadian mining corporation.

Neither can any country be sued in respect of upholding its own constitution.

Eamon Ryan told this House we would be sued.

That would be the effects of the amendment to the Arbitration Act.

The Deputy should not scaremonger in the hypothetical manner he does and raise the one issue.

The Taoiseach should read Eamon Ryan's comments on the climate emergency Bill.

I have read about and taken far more substantive advice on this question than Deputy Boyd Barrett has and I can say to him very clearly-----

A Canadian mining company took Romania to court.

It is not your question, Deputy Murphy; it is Deputy Boyd Barrett's question. Have some respect for the norms of the House.

You are saying it cannot happen. It has happened.

I will repeat what I said. An amendment to the Arbitration Act takes out any theoretical issue, which is theoretical rather than hypothetical at this stage. We are bound by European Union treaty-----

Read the judgment.

-----and by the decisions of the European Union treaty, as we are by our own Constitution. By the way, investor courts or mediation forums are part of every standard trade agreement, so you need to come clean.

We are over time.

You lot over there need to come clean on where you stand in relation to free trade.

Thank you. Taoiseach, we are over time.

It seems to me if your policies came to fruition, you would grind trade from this country to a halt. That needs to be called out.