Mark Lawson and Ben Woodfinden: Don't join the EU. Emulate it.
If Europe can have one market and free labour we should have the same.
By: Mark Lawson and Ben Woodfinden
In response to U.S. President Trump’s threats against Canada’s economy and sovereignty, we’ve seen lots of ideas put forward from all over the political spectrum on ways Canada can become more independent and self-reliant, and ways we can strengthen our relationship with other allies.
One obvious idea along these lines has been to suggest Canada should seek closer relations and ties with the European Union (EU). Some voices have even suggested that we should consider joining the EU. And while Prime Minister Mark Carney has ruled out membership in the EU, he has stated that he believes Canada is “the most European of non-European nations.”
Should Canada join the EU? No. But should we be more like the EU? In some ways, yes. That doesn’t mean taking August off or better cheese (as nice as that would be). But if we’re going to deliver on this “most European of nations” statement, we have some work to do.
Specifically, one of the truly remarkable achievements of the EU has been its creation of a single internal market. The 27 member nations of the EU (and a few others closely intertwined through the European Free Trade Association) have created an economic entity that guarantees the free movement of goods, capital, services, and people — known as “the four freedoms.” The GDP of this single market is roughly €18 trillion (close to $30 trillion CAD), the second largest in the world.
That the EU managed to accomplish this, despite the long and bloody history between European countries, and despite the differences in language, culture, and governments among member states, is genuinely impressive. And it puts Canada to shame. In many ways, the European single market is more economically integrated and freer than our internal Canadian economy. While the current government talks about building “one strong Canadian economy out of thirteen,” the EU has managed to build one European economy out of 27.
Canada is one of the most decentralized countries in the world, and our provinces are amongst the most powerful subsovereign entities on the planet. This is largely something to be celebrated and defended, as it devolves a lot of power more locally and lets provinces govern themselves according to their own needs and preferences. But it also has significant drawbacks.
In its design, the federal government is supposed to be a national government. But the way our system has evolved, national projects and ambitions often require provincial buy-in. That creates dysfunction and lots of roadblocks. This has led to frequent (though seemingly tolerable) problems in the past. But with Trump’s tariffs and the damage his trade policies can have on our country, the need to build one national economy and initiate more nation-building projects has become critical.
This is where we should look to the EU not for membership, but for inspiration. Ultimately, the solution is not to shift power from provinces to the federal government; that is both undesirable and politically unfeasible. Instead, we should be looking for ways to better coordinate policy between provinces and the federal government.
In particular, we have lessons to learn from the design and mandate of the European Council. The European Council is an EU institution made up of the leaders of all the member countries, such as presidents and prime ministers. It’s not a law-making body but rather a forum where these top leaders come together to discuss important policy issues, national interests, and the future of the EU. The European Council provides political guidance and sets the agenda, helping to coordinate the union’s overall strategy. Its decisions shape how the EU reacts to challenges and plans for long-term goals.
European Council meetings, often called EU Summits, are led by its president and happen at least four times a year, usually in Brussels. It’s where top EU leaders come together to discuss important issues and agree on key priorities. Most decisions are made by all leaders agreeing together, unless the EU treaties say otherwise.
Policy and political coordination require bodies like the Council, and given the power of our provinces, Canada needs something similar. Our existing Council of the Federation is the most natural place to get a European Council-style upgrade.
In the past, the Council of the Federation has largely just been a place where provinces get together to ask for more money from Ottawa. But its latent potential became evident in the past year, while it served as a coordination body for provinces facing the tariff challenge and during a federal election when Ontario Premier Doug Ford served as chair. Under Ford’s leadership, the COF became a body where coordinated policy and decisions were made. Even when provinces such as Alberta and Ontario had differences of opinion during the trade crisis, no one left the COF, demonstrating its resilience and further potential to serve as a coordinating body.
We should now try to build on this.
This doesn’t mean vesting any formal constitutional or legislative power in the Council. Instead both provinces and the feds should use the COF to coordinate priorities and policies that involve the national interest and national buy-in.
Provinces should take a hard look at the European Council’s early history. That body struggled whenever national governments felt their sovereignty was being chipped away, but it also found areas where cooperation made sense. Canadian premiers would do well to note the distinction — keep control where provincial authority is at stake, but be willing to let the Council of the Federation make real, collective decisions when consensus exists. Some useful changes could be agreed upon and made to the COF to help it achieve these goals.
One change could be to see the COF name its chair on timelines matching those of federal election cycles. As a strategic body in negotiation with the federal government, provinces should want consistent and strategic representation rather than multiple chairs over the course of a federal term.
Other changes would be needed as well to make sure the COF is equipped to perform its new role. The body would need more staff and the capacity to do its own research in support of the chair. More frequent meetings should also be required. Other changes such as the ability to (as the European Council does) nominate and name individuals to key national leadership roles would need to be examined. But every power of the European Council should be examined against how it could contribute to a more active, coordinated federation. Most importantly, a formal MOU or agreement that governs the COF would be needed to reflect this new role.
When the COF was created in 2003, it very much had aspirations of promoting collaboration and cooperation between provinces while preserving their individual policymaking autonomy. But the world and the federation have changed. A COF that existed largely to lobby the federal government for transfers does not fit this purpose. A new governing document signed by provinces and the federal government that explicitly calls for the COF to be focused on issues and challenges that impact the entire nation, but require federal/provincial cooperation, should be an explicit part of a renewed Council mandate.
This is the hardest part. The Council was created with grand aspirations, but inevitably became trapped by Canadian short-termism and inertia. Without granting the body formal constitutional powers, the success of any reformed COF would require the buy-in of provinces and the federal government. But augmenting the institutional capacities of the COF would at least allow it to behave like a body with its own interests and as an institution that explicitly exists to coordinate policy between provinces.
A similar organization that could provide some inspiration for this is the National Governors Association in the United States. The NGA has a dedicated staff, holds conferences around specific issues and produces policy options that states can leverage for their own circumstances. The NGA offers staff training, operates a Center for Best Practices for states to leverage and hosts standing committees on the biggest issues facing all 50 states. While lacking the ability to set strategic objectives like those set by the European Council, its ability to define and set an agenda is worth considering for an enhanced Council of the Federation.
A key question (and key difference from the European Council) for this new body would be to determine whether Canada’s federal government should serve as a member of it. There are good reasons for and against this; one reason to consider federal participation would be to experiment with making the Council a place to coordinate provincial-level policy and then shift to direct council-federal cooperation. But given Canada’s governing structure, there are also reasons to keep the feds involved if the body is designed to coordinate policy in the national interest, where such interests encroach on provincial jurisdiction.
If we’re serious about behaving like one country and actually getting nation-building projects and ambitions off the ground, we need a body to help coordinate these things. We aren’t the EU and aren’t going to join them, but to become “the most European of non-European nations,” we should seek to emulate the ways in which Europe has proven that multiple states can be bonded by a common economic approach. If Europe can have one market and free labour we should have the same; something like a Council of the Federation transformed into the Canadian Council might be a small step in the right direction.
Mark Lawson is the former deputy chief of staff to Doug Ford. Ben Woodfinden is the former director of communications for Pierre Poilievre.
The Line is entirely reader and advertiser funded — no federal subsidy for us! If you value our work, have already subscribed, and still worry about what will happen when the conventional media finishes collapsing, please make a donation today. Please note: a donation is not a subscription, and will not grant access to paywalled content. It’s just a way of thanking us for what we do. If you’re looking to subscribe and get full access, it’s that other blue button!
The Line is Canada’s last, best hope for irreverent commentary. We reject bullshit. We love lively writing. Please consider supporting us by subscribing. Please follow us on social media! Facebook x 2: On The Line Podcast here, and The Line Podcast here. Instagram. Also: TikTok. BlueSky. LinkedIn. Matt’s Twitter. The Line’s Twitter. Jen’s Twitter. Contact us by email: lineeditor@protonmail.com.
We should never try to emulate the EU, this bloated, bureaucratic mess that can't get out of its own shadow and is increasingly becoming more authoritarian.
The idea we should steal is what came before the EU, the EEC, which was the common market, border and tariff-free trade organization that helped Europe recover after the war.
That was a resounding success and I can see how we have much work to do to establish a similar framework within our own country.
For example, an Ontario-licensed architect cannot own an architecture firm in Quebec, at least not be a majority owner. This shouldn't exist within a single country.
Love this idea. Brilliant. Also something small-c conservatives and small-l liberals should, in theory, be able to get behind. It would strength the country's economy, would likely improve inter-provincial relations, would give us better options in negotiating international relations (especially economic ones) and would likely lead to better national defence. In short: it would mean Canada would at last grow up as a country.