COLUMN: On Parliament Hill – Association with EU and what this means for Canadians

Last week, we watched meetings surrounding Canada’s proposed association with the European Union (EU) unfold in Montreal. As the weekend progressed, journalists were left discussing the vague proposals, the apparent contradictions and uncertainty of competing interpretations of what this arrangement might actually involve.

The truth is Canadians still do not have a clear understanding of what is being proposed or what it will be called.

Is it an “alliance for the future?” An “associate membership?” An “associate membership and alliance for the future?” A “deeper and more integrated partnership?” Or some combination of any of these?

The fact is that we just don’t know.

What we are told is that the details will be worked out with some elements extending to 2030. Right now, Liberal ministers and the prime minister are signing papers in front of the cameras, smiling for photographs, while Canadians are expected to applaud. But progress towards what, exactly?

Back in September, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen referenced the paradox of this ambiguity in her address. She borrowed the words from Charles Dickens’s, A Tale of Two Cities: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.”

At a subsequent press conference in France, Prime Minister Carney told Canadians not to be concerned about the nomenclature, insisting that what matters is the substance. Yet that substance remains largely undefined, leaving Canadians to interpret these vague phrases for themselves. And, borrowing from Shakespeare, therein lies the rub.

While we are being sold on greater travel opportunities for Canadian students as a benefit for this proposed relationship, little has been revealed about the rules and obligations that could be enforced on Canadian trade, manufacturing, or goods.

Last week during the Montreal summit, von der Leyen described the proposed relationship between Canada and the EU as a ‘close alignment on policies,’ ‘close alignment on governance,’ and ‘closer alignment on each other’s programs.’

Clearly, this is the vision being advanced. But closer alignment with the EU has meant surrendering a significant portion of their sovereignty and independence for other countries. Canada will have to do the same. Such principles matter deeply to Canadians. Remember how in the last election, Mark Carney presented himself as the defender of Canada’s sovereignty and independence?

Yet now it seems we can redefine sovereignty, as long as the influence does not come from the U.S. Here’s what von der Leyen said last week: “In a world of growing rivalries sovereignty and independence are no longer just the freedom to act alone. It is the capacity to act together.”

So, who ultimately sets the rules that Canada would be expected to follow? Britain left the EU to regain control over its laws and regulations and escape the burdens of deeper integration. Even efforts to rebuild closer ties have faced obstacles. Why would Canada pursue an arrangement that risks surrendering the very regulatory independence Britain fought to reclaim?

There is certainly merit in countries cooperating to address shared challenges. But cooperation and regulatory integration are not the same thing. Working together does not necessarily require adopting another jurisdiction’s laws, standards, or policy priorities.

Some journalists are asking Mr. Carney the right questions. Chris Nardi of the National Post asked specifically about carbon tariffs and EU deforestation rules but did not receive an answer.

These questions remain unanswered even as the existing trade relationship with Europe already faces significant barriers. Nine EU member states have still not ratified the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), despite it being provisionally applied since 2017. Staggeringly, the EU’s threatened carbon tariff could affect $2.8 billion in Canadian exports, and European restrictions continue to block Canadian beef and pork from its markets,

Canada deserves to know what this agreement means. Issues of sovereignty, immigration, taxpayer commitments, regulatory authority, and democratic accountability are valid concerns. Since we know there are discussions around linking digital identity systems and cross-border payments, which should raise concerns about the potential for a shared digital currency in the future, why are we not addressing how this is a potential threat to Canadian sovereignty? Is Mr. Carney assuming Canadian compliance when he agrees to paragraph 26’s referencing our commitment to work together toward digital identity, digital credentials, and trust services?

Canadians are entitled to answers.

Will Canada be required to adopt EU laws, regulations, or environmental standards? Will Canadian businesses operating exclusively in Canada have to comply with European regulations? Will European institutions have any authority to adjudicate disputes involving Canadian laws or regulations? Will Canada have a meaningful say in shaping the European rules it is expected to follow? Can Canada withdraw from individual regulatory commitments without jeopardizing the broader agreement? And will Parliament retain the final authority to reject changes that conflict with Canada’s interests?

These are some of the questions about the terms, obligations and consequences of the relationship being negotiated on Canada’s behalf, which require an answer.

We return to where we started. We are being told that the name doesn’t matter, that the details will come later and that Canadians should celebrate the opportunities ahead.

But without knowing what we are agreeing to, how can Canadians properly assess the benefits, the costs or the consequences?

To borrow Shakespeare’s words once again: therein lies the rub.