It is only natural that Canada has no interest in becoming the 51st U.S. state. However, attempting to become the European Union’s (EU) unofficial 28th member could also prove to be a rash decision for the country.
On Wednesday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen formally invited Canada to become the EU’s first “associate member.” The plan aims to align Canada more closely with Brussels—rather than Washington—by coordinating efforts in manufacturing, technology, security, and energy sectors. Detailed discussions and agreements on this matter are expected to take place at a summit next month.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has called for “middle powers” to unite against the United States. Driven by dissatisfaction with U.S. President Donald Trump, Carney is distancing Canada from the North American trade alliance that has brought immense economic prosperity to the region. This move toward detachment will harm the people of all three nations: Canada, the United States, and Mexico.
The EU presents itself as a more friendly alternative to the United States. Yet, the EU’s own approach to free trade is complex. While the bloc’s internal single market benefits its 27 member states by facilitating the movement of goods and commerce, the EU exhibits protectionist tendencies toward non-member nations. Beyond imposing various trade barriers, member states must also negotiate their trade agreements through Brussels.
Has Canada considered what might happen if the future of its relationships with countries like Japan or Australia were to depend on decisions made by bureaucrats across the Atlantic? Jonathan Wilkinson, Canada’s designated ambassador to the EU, stated that Canada would not agree to any pact that requires sacrificing its sovereignty. However, joining such an alliance always comes at a price.
Does the “technology alliance” proposed by von der Leyen on Wednesday imply that Canada would have to adopt the EU’s stringent General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)? Or should a digital services tax be introduced? Carney had shelved plans to impose such a tax just three months after taking office.
Last month, Icelandic voters rejected the government’s proposal to initiate talks on joining the EU. A primary concern was the possibility that fishing quotas applicable to Eurozone nations might be imposed on Iceland—a country that derives nearly 40 percent of its export revenue from the fishing sector.
The EU views itself as a “regulatory superpower.” There is hardly any area of public policy where the bloc does not seek to exert influence by imposing strict regulations. Critics argue that this often undermines national sovereignty. Such trends have sparked political backlash, most notably the 2016 Brexit referendum.
Von der Leyen’s eagerness to work closely with Carney highlights how Trump has alienated traditional US allies. However, political tensions may ease over time; indeed, there is scope for the US-Canada relationship to shift in just over two years.
A new US president will take office in January 2029. By then, if the adverse effects of tit-for-tat tariffs persist, they will become increasingly apparent on both sides of the border. Yet, by that time, Canada might find itself even more deeply entangled in Brussels’ bureaucratic regulatory web.
