COLUMN: On Parliament Hill – Which is it Mr. Prime Minister, ‘unique alliance’ or ‘associate membership’?

At times, listening to our prime minister feels less like a policy briefing and more like an episode of the Twilight Zone.

A couple of Sundays ago, we had heard about the investment summit and knew there were meetings with the European parliament coming up, but we didn’t know that an “audacious bid” was being considered to make Canada an associate member of the European Union (EU). That changed when the story surfaced in an article from the Wall Street Journal. Suspiciously, the news didn’t come from Canadian media but instead it appeared to have been leaked to an American newspaper.

As former Prime Minister Stephen Harper noted in his closing address at the investment summit, “In 2015, Canada was poised to become the energy superpower. Today, we are not.” Harper attributed the shift to “deliberate policy choices” made by successive Liberal governments over the past decade.

When it comes to expanding trade with Europe, Canadians need to understand what is actually being proposed. Canada already has a free trade agreement with the EU. The Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) was negotiated in 2014-15 under Prime Minister Harper. It was poorly implemented by the Trudeau government in 2017. Despite the agreement, significant barriers remain.

And tariffs were not the only obstacles to trade. Testing requirements, certification rules, labelling requirements, and production standards can make it more difficult and expensive to get Canadian products onto foreign shelves. These non-tariff barriers have a direct impact on Canadian farmers and exporters.

Consider Canada’s red meat sector under CETA. Canadian beef and pork exports to the EU continue to face restrictions because Europe refuses to accept standard Canadian production practices due to differences over production and food-safety requirements. Restrictions persist despite the promise of duty-free access, effectively keeping Canadian ranchers out of the European market, even as European meat flows into Canada.

So, when we hear that Canada is navigating toward the next step in its relationship with Europe—described by the Wall Street Journal as an “audacious” proposal—it is important that Canadians lean in and understand exactly what is being discussed.

This is important because when Mark Carney was asked about associate membership with the EU by the CBC, he described the proposal as a “unique alliance”. Yet, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen referred to the proposal in her speech as an “associate member”. Which is it, and what does it mean? Neither is currently in effect, and Canadians deserve clarity on the matter.

While Prime Minister Carney emphasizes that this is about strengthening Canada’s sovereignty, ironically, countries are required to adopt greater regulatory alignment when they partner with the EU. Norway provides an example of the trade-off. It enjoys extensive access to the European single market through the European Economic Area, but in return accepts a substantial body of EU rules and regulations without having a vote in the European parliament.

We can all agree that Canada needs more trade. We should pursue greater access to markets in the EU, the United States and around the world. Canada should not surrender its ability to make its own laws or determine its own policies. Canada should pursue agreements that open doors to Canadian businesses while preserving our sovereignty.

But clearly Canada must never surrender control over our laws, taxes, borders or democratic institutions to Brussels, Beijing, Washington, or anyone else.

Canadians have many legitimate questions that deserve answers. Does “associate membership” include open borders with the EU? Is the massive migrant crisis being experienced in the EU part of the deal being negotiated? Is PM Carney signing Canada up for new obligations involving labour mobility, regulations, spending or border policy? Are there tax dollars being committed to the EU bureaucracy? Will Canadian small businesses be buried under EU regulations?

As much as diversification is important when it comes to trade, we can’t lose sight of our economic objectivity. The United States over the last few years has outperformed the EU. According to the OECD, U.S. labour productivity increased by 2.2 percent while EU labour productivity has only increased 0.2 percent. According to the World Bank’s current figures the U.S. economy is roughly 45 percent larger than the entire EU economy. As Associate Prof. Ian Lee at Carleton University’s Sprott School of Business reminds us, while Canada exports $400 billion a year to the U.S., that number is only equivalent to 1.5 percent of the U.S. economy’s $32 trillion GDP.

We also cannot ignore what is happening now. On Sept. 21, 2026, President Donald Trump posted that the U.S. is working on a “massive deal” to purchase potash from Belarus. This could be devastating for our agriculture industry. Conservative Shadow Minister John Barlow points out that Canada is the only major fertilizer-producing jurisdiction outside of the EU with a direct price on carbon. He adds that fertilizer production in Canada will pay $1.32 billion in cumulative carbon taxes. Furthermore, imported fertilizer carries a 15 percent tariff that is charged to farmers. Losing major fertilizer markets is not good for Canada.

We can’t miss the larger point that the U.S. has the largest GDP in the world. Billions of dollars in business have already left Canada for the U.S. over the past 11 years under successive Liberal governments. Prime Minister Carney promised Canadians he would have a deal by July 21, 2025. Raw emotion and anger cannot substitute for sound economic policy.