Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join this debate. If you will indulge me briefly, I know that my soon to be four-year-old daughter is watching at home, and I want to wish her a happy birthday on her upcoming birthday.
With respect to the subject at hand, this is a very important agreement for those of us alive today, and indeed for future generations, in terms of the economic opportunities and prosperity it will create. However, I want to speak to the non-economic arguments for free trade in my remarks today.
We speak often, and many good speeches have been given, about the economic benefits of free trade. Maybe I will have a chance to return to that in the questions and comments period. One of the things we have discussed less and that we should remind ourselves of is that free trade is not just about the economic benefits it creates but also about the opportunity for community that is facilitated by economic exchange, with community among nations, and for the benefits that creates in terms of creating a more peaceful world, and also facilitating more open societies. I believe that open and pluralistic societies should also include economic openness in their understanding of societal openness, and that the kind of openness that is created through free trade reinforces a broader spirit of openness.
In that vein, I want to introduce for members a bit of the history of, as I see it, trade in the European Union and how that relates to the agreement that is in front of us today.
John Maynard Keynes, I would argue, is one of the most abused economists in that he is often used as a justification for positions that he did not take. John Maynard Keynes was at the peace agreement at Versailles in 1919. He was there advocating his view that the peace needed to be more generous to Germany but also that it needed to focus on different issues. Many of the powers in Europe at the time were focused on a conversation about borders and security, which entailed an assumption that there would be ongoing competition among nations with respect to things like territory. Keynes' view was that there needed to be a reorientation of the discussion, that rather than this kind of zero-sum game over territory there needed to be a focus on economic prosperity. He thought that having free trade within Europe was critically important because it would create the conditions for a cohesive community, for a community of nations working and prospering together, despite following immediately on the heels of a catastrophic war. This was a very prescient point. He argued that a focus on borders, on security only, without emphasizing the economic dimension, could well create the conditions for what had been history for hundreds of years in Europe, which was ongoing conflict and the harsh and negative manifestations of competition. He advocated free trade. He also advocated a credit program similar to what was brought in after the Second World War in the form of the Marshall Plan. He was quite prescient insofar as he understood that the heavy demands for reparation would lead to inflationary policies. They would lead to inflation as nations tried to respond to the requirements that were put on them.
During the interwar period, because of a lack of emphasis on the economic dimension, we had serious inflation, we had a decline in trade, and that really set the stage for the rise of totalitarianism and subsequent conflict. Keynes saw these things coming, which is why right after the First World War he wrote a book called The Economic Consequences of the Peace, where he specifically made this argument about the relationship between peace and trade.
Right after the Second World War there was finally a recognition of some of the insights that Keynes had advocated. What he had proposed in the aftermath of the First World War, what he had proposed in terms of freer trade, as well as a credit program to help European nations get back on their feet, was implemented. This was the basis for the European Union coming out of the Second World War, the sense that a community of nations, especially a trading community, would help ensure peace in Europe.
There are various other factors that contributed to the period of peace that has existed since the Second World War in Europe, but in general, we can see the wisdom of emphasizing the economic dimension and realizing that free trade creates the conditions for greater peace. This was Keynes's insight, and it is behind a lot of arguments for freer trade today.
I am not worried that in the absence of this deal we are about to have some kind of military conflict with Europe. However, the point is, as we pursue the expansion of trading relationships between nations, and as part of larger trading blocs, this establishes the conditions in which individuals can focus their passions on economic matters, and there is not the focus instead on the kind of territorial competition that historically was the basis for a lot of warfare in Europe.
This was the insight, and this is why coming out of that discussion we can see the importance of trade based on that history for two principal reasons: one, that we have a more peaceful world; and two, that there is this relationship between an open economy and open society. A society that is open to economic exchange is also one that is going to have a greater sense of solidarity with people in other countries.
In terms of this connection with peace, it is a fairly obvious point, but economics is not a zero-sum competition. Canada doing better economically does not mean someone else is doing worse economically. In fact, all of the nations of the world can do better economically together. This is really the advantage of what one might call the valorization of economic success. It is not that economic success should be seen as the most important thing in life, but to the extent that our polities are oriented towards trying to improve economically, those are the kinds of improvement that do not put us into conflict with other states. In other times, in other places, the primary objectives were seen as being territorial expansion, which obviously creates inevitable conflict, because control of territory is a zero-sum game. Also, warfare becomes more economically costly when there is economic interdependence and exchange between countries.
For Keynes to make these points right after the First World War, I think we can see that he was right to make those points. We can also understand why many in his own time would have been immediately skeptical. Why are we immediately jumping to the discussion of economics rather than looking at the factors that brought us here? Actually, highlighting trade even in the midst of a conflictual world, even in the midst of present tensions, I think is necessary for creating conditions that will build and ensure a lasting peace.
I want to speak to the relationship between an open economy and an open society. It is fascinating to me that there are members in the House and voices elsewhere who believe very much in an open society and the importance of people from different kinds of backgrounds living together, working together, yet when it comes to economic exchange between people from different kinds of communities and different nations, all of a sudden, that is a problem. It strikes me that there is this clear inconsistency between advocating for open societies, pluralistic societies, but on the other hand always being pessimistic about the prospects of people from different kinds of national communities trading together.
I am really perplexed by that, especially when we consider that pluralism and multiculturalism are facilitated by trade. The ability to trade with other places really helps facilitate the kind of diversity that we have. Also, by the way, the diversity that we have, the open society we have, creates opportunities for trade, because we have people here who have close connections with nations all over the world. This creates renewed opportunities for economic exchange around the world that benefit our interests.
These are some of the clear non-economic benefits that come with trade and that are associated with these kinds of trade deals. Because of this, I think it is important for Canada to be a strong voice on the world stage for the open economy. For those of us who believe in the value of peace and open societies, we should also be strong advocates for open and free trade, because that creates the conditions under which nations can prosper together, can see their success invested in the success of others, and indeed develop a deeper sense of solidarity.
In my remaining time, I want to follow up on some of the comments I have just heard in the debate because we have had some interesting comments from the government members, talking about the importance of opening ourselves up to competition. We have members of one party, the NDP, who do not want to open us up to competition. I get that impression from the kinds of comments that the New Democrats make.
Madam Speaker, am I out of time? I will have to come to that later.
