Canada, the 28th EU member state? Don't forget about the provinces

Johannes Müller Gómez, McGill University & Université de Montréal

johannes.mullergomez@mail.mcgill.ca 

April 4. 2025

The new U.S. administration has put Canada and its economic and political system under significant pressure. With its southern neighbor and closest partner no longer as reliable, Canada must deepen its relationships with other allies, and the European Union seems like a natural option. While strengthening ties with the EU is certainly the right direction, applying for full EU membership is not – especially given the complex nature of Canadian federalism and the unique role of its provinces.

Provincial autonomy

Canadian provinces fiercely guard their autonomy. While the new Trump era may have (temporarily) strengthened national unity, provincial autonomy remains a defining feature of Canada’s political system. As (one of) the most decentralized federation(s) in the world, Canada has a long history of provinces resisting both the transfer of power to higher levels of government and federal interference in their areas of jurisdiction. Alberta’s constitutional challenge to the federal carbon tax and Quebec’s unwavering defense of its laicity bill against constitutional concerns illustrate this persistent opposition.

Canada isn’t even a fully integrated single market domestically. Provinces and the federal government still struggle to eliminate trade barriers, recognize professional qualifications, and harmonize regulations. Expecting them to suddenly embrace the EU’s acquis communautaire is simply unrealistic. Even in areas where provincial leaders align with EU policies, such as Quebec’s support for carbon pricing, there is little appetite for ceding authority to a supranational institution. While Quebec’s cultural ties with Europe might foster some alignment, Western provinces lack this connection, making the idea of accepting EU decision-making even more improbable.

Sensible provincial interests across policy areas

Canadian provinces not only hold significant authority in key policy areas but also have strong and divergent interests, making EU membership particularly complex. Environmental protection, natural resource management, and immigration are just a few examples where provincial priorities diverge – not only from Ottawa but also from EU standards.

Take natural resources: Alberta, a major oil producer, would strongly resist EU environmental policies like the Emissions Trading System (ETS). Quebec’s immigration policies, including its recent freeze on permanent residency applications, would directly conflict with the EU’s principle of free movement. Add to that Quebec’s ongoing efforts to protect the French language, and it becomes even harder to imagine the province accepting such fundamental shifts. Given these domestic political dynamics, it is difficult to envision a broad consensus forming in favor of binding EU rules in these sensitive areas.

Internal coordination challenges: not ready for Brussels

Unlike federal EU members such as Germany or Belgium, Canada lacks permanent (and efficient) mechanisms to coordinate its position on international issues with its provinces. To participate meaningfully in EU negotiations and to comply with binding EU decisions, Canada would first need to build the institutional capacity to do so.

As an EU member, the federal government couldn’t go it alone. It would rely heavily on the provinces to implement EU legislation across numerous policy areas. This would require the regular and formal involvement of provincial governments in EU policy-making procedures to ensure their interests and expertise are taken into account – and that they can be held accountable when it comes to implementing EU decisions.

In Germany, the Länder are directly involved in shaping the country’s EU position, especially when their areas of jurisdiction are affected, and in some cases, they even represent Germany at the EU level. Despite these mechanisms (along with coordination processes between federal ministries and between the federal government and the Bundestag), Germany is still often criticized for arriving late to the negotiating table in Brussels. If Canada were to join, the famously sluggish “German vote” would suddenly look like a fast-track procedure compared to what Canadian coordination might resemble.

After all, even today, the Canadian federal and provincial governments struggle to coordinate on international negotiations or to implement treaties they’ve signed. While the CETA negotiations showed that federal-provincial cooperation is possible, Canada is still far from having the kind of institutional structure and political culture needed for the continuous, complex demands of EU membership. Canada would require not only new institutions but also a new mindset around shared responsibility in foreign and EU policy.

Yet another complicated member?

The EU just said goodbye to one (very) complicated member, and it currently struggles with internal cohesion and rule-of-law issues among several of its current members. In this context, the EU is hardly in the mood to welcome another challenging partner. Let’s be clear: Canada would bring its own set of complications: geographic distance, divergent economic structures, and a highly decentralized political system, to name just a few. Canadian membership would almost certainly require a series of opt-outs and special arrangements, further complicating EU decision-making at a time when unity and efficiency are already under strain. Before opening the door to another complex member, the EU must focus on reforming its own institutions and addressing its internal challenges.

Conclusion: best friends, not spouses

A stronger alliance between Canada and the EU is undoubtedly valuable and worth deepening – but not through accession. Full membership simply isn’t the right next step. Sometimes, staying best friends is better than getting married.