Experts say Canada must lock in EU gains through binding rules, not symbolic “associate” talk

Academic experts on European Union policy testified before the House foreign affairs committee on Monday, pressing Canada to entrench its recent gains with the EU in binding legal frameworks rather than leaving them exposed to political whim. The testimony followed a Montreal summit that gathered senior Canadian and EU officials and produced more fanfare than clarity.

University of Toronto professor Mark Manger said many of the existing agreements are “essentially expressions of intent” and demanded a concrete announcement, noting that Mexico already enjoys a range of EU arrangements that Canada is now still trying to secure. His point was that warm words and diplomatic optics are not a substitute for actual commitments.

The discussion highlighted ongoing confusion over the term “associate member,” which European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has used to describe a possible future status for Canada. Prime Minister Mark Carney had previously avoided the phrase, referring instead to an “alliance for the future,” but later affirmed the goal of associate EU membership, a concept that still lacks any official definition and risks becoming little more than branding.

Achim Hurrelmann, co-director of the Centre for European Studies at Carleton University, described the terminology as a distraction from substantive policy work, adding that both leaders appear eager to keep the phrase alive because of its symbolic appeal. He said any final arrangement will need to fall somewhere between a political declaration and a formal status, which would require treaty amendments in the EU and parliamentary approval in Canada.

Hurrelmann suggested viewing associate membership as a “symbolic affirmation” of deepening ties rather than a legal requirement, and warned that the proposals under discussion do not depend on that status to be implemented. He also noted the need for rapid action, given concerns in some European countries about far-right movements skeptical of external partnerships, a reminder that delay only helps reactionary forces.

Anand Sundar, a transatlantic defence adviser at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said the push for associate membership appears driven by the European Commission, despite resistance from member states such as Germany, which underscores how messy and top-down the process remains.

The experts called for restructuring the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) to improve economic outcomes, proposing changes to its “mixed agreement” status, which currently requires ratification by each EU member. Of the bloc’s 27 members, nine have not yet fully applied CETA, a telling sign that the deal still sits on shaky institutional ground.

Hurrelmann pointed to ongoing disputes over food regulations, including Canadian dairy quotas and the geographic labeling of products like feta cheese, and argued that while CETA introduced innovative regulatory alignment clauses, their limited success has restrained trade growth. In other words, the present framework is too cautious and too fragmented to deliver the deeper cooperation Canada needs.

Manger recommended enhancing the trade deal with clearer economic and legal parameters to give Canadian firms confidence in a long-term relationship, even suggesting that European mobile-network operators be allowed to operate in Canada in exchange for reduced Canadian food import restrictions. The broader message was that concrete reciprocity matters far more than symbolic declarations.

Both scholars emphasized that deeper cooperation should focus on areas where the EU has clear jurisdiction, such as research, academic exchanges, defence, and energy, and that cross-party collaboration in Canada will be essential for any progress.