COLUMN: On Parliament Hill – Canadian sovereignty and the EU terms of agreement for immigration in Canada

Back in September, we read in the New York Times that Prime Minister Mark Carney made the bizarre proclamation that he had been preparing for the “extreme tail risk” of potential military action ordered by President Donald Trump against Canada. It was a shocking claim, and it was not the first time Canadians had to read statements from the prime minister about Canada, in foreign newspapers. Unfortunately, it would not be the last.

One interview with Prime Minister Carney produced multiple articles, leaving Canadians looking abroad for answers about their own government. In fact, Canadians had to subscribe to American media in order to read Canada’s news; a rather conspicuous irony considering the Liberal rhetoric regarding the Team Canada and Elbows Up approach to project Canadian unity and sovereignty.

More recently, attention has turned to the “associate membership” announced by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen following Mr. Carney’s characterization of the relationship with the EU as a “unique alliance.”

A few weeks ago, Conservatives asked several pertinent questions in this column about the proposed arrangement and what it would mean for Canada. Would EU associate membership open Canada’s borders or impose new migration obligations? Would Prime Minister Carney be committing Canada to EU rules on labour mobility, spending and border policy? Would Canadian taxpayers be funding EU bureaucracy while small businesses contend with more costly regulations?

These are all important questions that need to be answered, and Canadians have the right to read those answers in Canadian media.

Yet, once again, Canadians and Parliament are learning about the prime minister’s proposed immigration policy changes through foreign media, rather than receiving clear answers from their own government.

A leaked document suggests the government could remove safeguards in the existing Canadian European Union Trade Agreement (CETA). Canadians have the right to know whether this is true.

CETA was negotiated with the EU under Prime Minister Harper, beginning in 2009. The agreement broke the mould of traditional trade deals by moving Canada beyond border barriers addressing regulatory cooperation, professional accreditations, and trade.

In March, the Hub, an independent news agency, compiled a list of 26 trips made in the first year under Prime Minister Carney’s leadership. The Hub concluded that “no major expansive trade deals” resulted. Other critics and trade experts have assessed that Canada has not secured any new legally binding free trade agreements, only MOUs (Memorandum of Understandings) which carry no legal weight.

In other words, for all the announcements and travel, it is Mr. Harper’s work on CETA that still stands.

Now, however, a proposed associate membership arrangement could introduce new commitments that Canadians have yet to see clearly defined.

So, what would this new alliance or “associate membership” actually mean regarding immigration?

For now, the details remain uncertain because the arrangement is still taking shape. In his address to the European Parliament, Mr. Carney spoke of greater mobility between Canada and Europe. What concerned some Canadian legislators was his suggestion that EU citizens should be able to live, work, and study in Canada—a potentially significant policy direction that had not first been presented to Parliament or clearly explained to Canadians.

When questioned about the details and proposal in question period, the Immigration Minister refused to provide any answers.

For anyone following the mass riots, looting and vandalism that has escalated in Europe over recent weeks, it leaves Canadians with questions.

Conservatives have expressed concern that EU open-border policies went so badly that it adopted a migration pact requiring member states to take asylum claimants or pay instead. The EU has also been forced to revise what it means to be an asylum seeker as the inflows were simply too much.

How many more non-citizens or asylum seekers will this deal bring to Canada, and will they count toward immigration targets? Will expanded mobility apply only to EU citizens or anyone with EU residency? Will CETA’s immigration safeguards remain intact? What additional strain will this place on housing, healthcare, jobs, and social services?

These are not arguments against closer relations with Europe. They are questions about the terms of the relationship, and the responsibilities Canada may be accepting.

Reports indicate some European leaders were blindsided by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s agreement with Canada. The uncertainty is further compounded by the fact that the category of associate membership does not exist and is not defined.

There are very reasonable questions that call for answers. With the prime minister sitting down with European leaders at the Canada-EU Summit on Oct. 29 and 30, Conservatives are calling for these answers “before” a deal is signed. This is a reasonable expectation in a democracy. Before Canada makes any commitments, Parliament and Canadians deserve to know exactly what is being proposed. It would be nice if the prime minister would actually show-up in Parliament to answer those questions.