In trying to address his inability to strike a trade deal with the US, Prime Minister Mark Carney’s alternative to gain access to the European Union (EU) market is something I wanted to argue poses a threat to Canada’s sovereignty. That’s how I feel, particularly about Canada joining the EU as a member state. But, while I found that Carney’s solution to perceived overreliance on the US does indeed contain a serious threat to Canada, it’s not from the EU.After reviewing expert opinions from a group called the European Community Studies Association — Canada (ECSA-C), I have serious doubts that EU membership could ever truly materialize for Canada, even if we really pushed for it.There are just too many ducks to get in a row. The federal government would need to grow widespread support across the country. And, if you believe the polls, that’s already begun. Support for Canada becoming an EU member state stands at 57% in April, according to Nanos. That’s up from 46% reported by Abacus last year.But whether Canada should join the EU is not the only important question. Instead, we might first want to ask, “Do Canadians really understand what EU membership entails?”In becoming an EU member state, Canada would need to accept yet another level of government: the supranational laws of the EU atop our Westminster parliamentary system, which would overwrite a good deal of our existing common and codified law, including Supreme Court of Canada decisions. Trade regulations would have to change to match the EU. Our infrastructure would need to be vastly upgraded to be capable of shipping more products — including Alberta’s crude oil — to Europe. Canadian products would need to meet EU production standards..Then there are the issues on the EU’s side.Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) would have to be repealed because it states that an applicant for EU membership must be a “European state,” which precludes Canada’s accession. All twenty-seven EU member states would have to consent to Canada’s membership and any negotiations on individual agreements, such as if Canada were to join the Schengen area, the borderless zone of free movement of labour within twenty-five EU member states (plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland). .The Schengen area is where the 450 million EU citizens can travel freely for work, study, and living. But it already has inherent issues according to Dr. Willem Mass, professor of political science at York University, who warns, “EU free movement has always existed in tension with national welfare states and the desire of member states to control access to their territories, labour markets, and related institutions.”I don’t believe Canada’s accession to the EU is going to happen.Several of the experts at the ECSA-C opine that, instead of chasing membership, Canada should aim for strengthening trade with the EU by following in the footsteps of the Swiss. Switzerland has obtained partial access to Europe’s internal market through over 100 bilateral agreements. The goal for Canada would ostensibly be to gain as much access to the EU’s internal market as possible while foregoing many of the strings attached that might diminish Canadian sovereignty. This could be done by pursuing the full potential of the Canada-Europe Trade Agreement (CETA). But this approach is complicated, perhaps even more so than applying for membership..It seems Mark Carney has considered all these issues already. That’s why he answered overtures from Finnish President Alexander Stubb and France’s foreign minister Jean-Noël Barrot, who both suggested Canada join the EU, with a simple “no.” If Carney’s plan to address Canada’s perceived overreliance on the US is not to join the EU, then what is it?It’s an option considered by one of the ECSA-C experts, in a short article entitled “O Canada” by Dr. Kurt Hübner, a political science professor at UBC. In that article, Hübner considered three possibilities for Canada to address its deteriorating relationship with the US: launch a common market with them, join the EU to access a new market, or “to stay put and to drastically change the current growth regime.”Carney has demonstrated no overt inclination toward starting a common market with America. It seems that, despite some attempts to integrate with the EU, there is more evidence that he is pursuing Hübner’s third option.From the very beginning of his time as Prime Minister, Mark Carney pushed for Canada as a resource economy, especially for energy and critical minerals. He prioritized “nation-building” projects to strengthen the economy, provide energy security, and bridge over Canada’s quicksand of regulatory framework.But Hübner is worried because, as he writes, “we know that resource economies tend to foster clientelism and high levels of economic inequality.”.Clientelism occurs when politicians give jobs, funding, and/or favours in exchange for receiving political support. It’s a corrupt practice. Might any evidence exist, however, that Carney grants favours to other politicians and the ridings that lend political support to him?Let’s consider Carney’s cavalcade of floor-crossers who have helped him build a majority government.Although we cannot see what kind of political appointments or special favours Mark Carney has given to the five floor-crossers who have joined him so far, it’s plausible that some of them, like Nunavut’s sole MP, Lori Idlout, could be accused of clientelism. In the first four months of 2026, MP Idlout and Nunavut have already completed five deals with the federal Liberals, receiving approximately $500 million in federal funding. Idlout crossed the floor on March 10.Although quid-pro-quo isn’t proven, it’s debatable whether Carney is promoting the good of Canada overall or a special “clientele” and their ridings. That could prove Dr. Hübner’s concerns over clientelism prescient. It would also explain some of the floor-crossers’ reasons given for defection, such as that of MP Michael Ma, who confessed that “My values haven’t changed, and I’m continuing to fight crime and push for well-balanced immigration policies, and obviously for the benefit of infrastructure investment into Markham Unionville.”Oh boy.I think the potential for clientelism in Canada appears to be a much more tangible problem than any threat that EU membership poses to our sovereignty at the current time. Carney’s solution may have avoided one problem only to invite another.
