On Thursday, Prime Minister Mark Carney stood before the European Parliament and said that he welcomed the “ambition” to bring Canada in as an “associate member.” He framed it as a sovereignty-reinforcing move, but seeing how many strings and risks come with EU membership — and how little he’s told the public about his plan — it sounds like a slim prospect.

Because “associate member” isn’t a real type of EU membership, we’re stuck gleaning what it entails from Carney’s speech. “Seamless digital trade and non-agricultural goods and a wide range of services,” were mentioned, along with closer ties between our financial systems, more communications infrastructure and closer collaboration on AI rules. Even gas exports made the list.

Carney spoke of “deepening people-to-people ties,” giving the example of young people living, working, and studying wherever they want within the hypothetical union. On the studying front, he also suggested membership in Erasmus+, the EU’s multi-billion scholarship program.

The overall relationship between the two entities should be one of “deep co-operation,” he said. Woven throughout the speech was a nice motif about oak trees grown in Canada from acorns collected at Vimy Ridge, as well as their descendant saplings which were planted several years ago on the former battleground. It was speechwriting done well, and it tapped into exactly what elder voters love.

If you step out of the shoes of a person completely tuned out of politics though, it all starts to look drab.

For starters, it’s hard to trust the content of the speech given the contradictions emitted by the speaker in the days before. Remember that it was from American media that Canadians first heard of Carney’s push for EU “associate membership.” Then, the prime minister denied it.

“We’re not looking to become a member of the European Union,” Carney told a reporter at the Toronto International Film Festival on Sunday. “What we are looking and will begin discussion for is a unique alliance with the European Union, between Canada and the European Union.” CTV also reported that day that a senior government source said that Canada wasn’t seeking EU membership “in any capacity.”

Well, “associate membership” is EU membership in some capacity. We just don’t know what.

More problems: During his speech, Carney praised the existing trade deal with the continent — Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) — as “one of the world’s most successful trade agreements.” But this treaty isn’t even in full force because 10 EU member states haven’t ratified it since it was signed in 2016.

The French Senate actually rejected CETA in 2024, and the other holdouts are Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Poland and Slovenia. For all the nice metaphors about trees and World Wars, we have yet to complete the decade-old trade deal due to disagreements on rules about the climate, GMOs, cattle raising and so on.

As for Carney’s vision of associate membership, it’s important to account for the unsaid drawbacks when evaluating whether it’s actually in our interests. Banding together to push back against the big, bad AI companies might sound appealing to those who are unsettled by new technology, but Europe has alreadyfallen behind on AI in part due to tighter regulation. And if you’re already annoyed at the cookie pop-ups that are thrust into your face whenever you open a website, you should beware of what more could happen to our internet with greater collaboration. Expect an even greater effort to stamp out online anonymity for security reasons.

And while working together on energy sounds nice, remember that you’re talking about the same European Union that once considered livestock culls an appropriate means to mitigate climate change. Yes, we’d love to sell them more of our oil. No, we don’t want any of their environmental regulations.

Finally, the migration issue. Carney paints a picture of opening up a continent to our bright and promising youth, but it simply can’t be taken at face value given how poorly the Liberals have managed immigration and free-movement arrangements. Canada’s international study programs were supposedly merit-based and limited only to the global rich — and then we found out that middle-aged adults from poor countries were using them to move their entire families over, and that actual transnational gangs were using them to flood Canada with their members.

In Europe, the migration wave of the last decade has brought in large populations of foreigners, many of whom have struggled to integrate. Depending on the country of origin, they’ve committed crimes at higher rates and have also been much more prone to welfare dependency . And when they have kids, those kids are EU citizens, regardless of how integrated their families are. Given that many of these individuals are cleared to study, live and work in Europe, we should assume that they would be able to take advantage of any free-movement program with Canada.

To open our borders and accept EU rules on a wide range of subject areas would be a blight on Canadian sovereignty, no different than kneeling to the far-fetched demands of the United States. But Europe seems more polite and the vibe is more to our taste, so “associate membership” it is. Whatever the costs of Carney’s plan, he’s probably not going to tell you about them — it’ll be up to us to discern for ourselves.

National Post

• Jesse Kline: The conservative case for becoming an ‘associate member’ of the EU
• Carson Jerema: L’État, c’est Carney

For the first time in a generation, Quebec voters were presented this week with fundamentally different visions of the province’s future.

The framing for two televised election debates on Tuesday and Wednesday was a good environment for Parti Québécois leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon (PSPP) and Quebec Conservative leader Eric Duhaime, who both want to fracture the status quo: the former wants to separate from Canada, while the latter wants to break away from the Quebec model. And both of them offer a clear change and a real contrast to eight years under the Coalition Avenir Québec.

Before the debates, the Qc125.com polling average had the PQ at 28 per cent, the CAQ at 23 per cent, the Liberals at 22 per cent and the Conservatives at 16 per cent. The PQ looked like the favourite to win a minority government.

In recent weeks, CAQ leader Christine Fréchette was successful in using the tariff war and the constant presence of U.S. President Donald Trump in the news cycle to make stability the central issue of this campaign. She was able to recover from the disastrous poll numbers under her predecessor, former premier François Legault, especially among older voters. The debates were an opportunity for her to transform this momentum into durable gains.

Instead, the debates gave opposition leaders a chance to finally remind voters why the CAQ fell behind in the first place, exposing its damaging record. While Fréchette tried to borrow Prime Minister Mark Carney’s playbook and present herself as a fresh political figure, her opponents were quick to highlight that she held key positions in Legault’s government as immigration minister, where the province recorded historically high migration levels and later as economy minister, where she was left managing the fallout from the Northvolt fiasco.

The opposition did more than attack the CAQ’s record. They almost framed her as being responsible for leaving Quebec vulnerable to the economic uncertainty created by the tariff war. While it was cacophonous at times, Fréchette, for the first time in the campaign, had to face the music.

Fréchette’s other problem was that she sounded scripted and out of context on multiple occasions, clearly trying to create clips to be used online afterwards. Viewers could see the strategy unravel in real time. For example, during a cost-of-living exchange during the TVA debate on Tuesday, while Duhaime was talking about tax cuts and putting more money back into people’s pockets, she awkwardly forced a play on his campaign slogan and claimed that financial autonomy under Duhaime would end with women. Rather than creating a memorable moment, the exchange highlighted how scripted parts of her performance felt.

The second debate gave Fréchette a chance to recover. After a difficult first night, she acknowledged, at the earliest occasion, the CAQ government’s mistakes before pivoting to the need to move forward and avoid a referendum. It was a better performance, but unfortunately for her, the Noovo/Crave debate was not her target audience considering it skews younger.

In that context, the PQ’s PSPP did not need a knockout. He needed to rise above the noise and go back to what made him the favourite going into this election. While he looked defensive at the beginning of the campaign and the weeks leading into it, voters again saw a confident and direct PSPP who embraced his convictions and defended Quebec sovereignty with assurance. They saw the leader who had taken the PQ from three seats to first place in the polls. The debates may have breathed new life into his campaign.

If PSPP reconnected with his base, Duhaime kept expanding his. He was prepared, disciplined and offered the clearest contrast with the other parties. Duhaime’s influence could be seen in the questions themselves. One question in the first debate explicitly asked whether Quebec’s social-democratic model should be preserved or reformed. The fact that the question was asked at all suggests Duhaime has shifted the Overton window. A debate on the future of Quebec’s model would have sounded odd just last election. A recent study shows that Quebecers are ready to question the traditional paradigm of higher taxes in exchange of public services. Duhaime is using this dissatisfaction to his advantage by forcing the discussion about competitiveness, a smaller role for the state and greater private-sector involvement.

While the Quebec Conservatives currently do not have a shot at governing, Duhaime made a strong case as to why his party could hold the balance of power in a minority parliament and be an efficient opposition to move the government to the right and help break with the status quo.

As for Liberal leader Charles Milliard, he set the bar high by saying the debates would be a turning point for his campaign. In both debates he landed a few good jabs and avoided mistakes. One of his best lines was when he asked Fréchette that if she was that good at managing the economy, how come her record is so bad. He was much more energetic and caught many opportunities in the second debate. Overall, he had two decent days. With one final debate next week, Milliard can still hope as he might be able to recover voters from the CAQ after Fréchette’s performance allowing him to rally federalist voters under his banner.

PSPP entered the week looking for oxygen while Duhaime sought to broaden his voter base. Both emerged from the debates re-energized. Fréchette comes out weakened as she was unable to escape the harsh reality of the CAQ’s record. The debates were the occasion to complete a comeback. Instead, they reminded voters why the CAQ needed a comeback in the first place.

More importantly, Quebec might be on the verge of part ways, after more than sixty years, with the current governing model. Whereas it is through sovereignty or a redefinition of the province’s social model, the conversation has shifted to a deeper conversation about Quebec status quo. Quebecers are increasingly willing to question assumptions that have long gone unchallenged. The fortress of the Quebec model might finally be about to crack.

Marc-Olivier Fortin is the former national Vice-President of the Conservative Party of Canada (2016-2018) and campaign manager for the CPC in Quebec (2021). He is now a regular commentator at RDI and on COGECO radio and works for Transfert, a firm specialized in social acceptability in mining, energy and heavy industry sectors.

• Marc-Olivier Fortin: The Parti Québécois cannot win a majority without putting separatism first
• Marc-Olivier Fortin: The once mighty Quebec Liberals are disintegrating

Mark Carney’s investment summit is a sign that perhaps, finally, after a decade of missed opportunities, our government understands that we have to get serious about our lack of productivity, per capita GDP growth and business investment. Among the Prime Minister’s remarks on Tuesday, we learned that the Liberals plan to privatize the operations of Canada’s four largest airports; operations at Toronto, Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver all up for grabs. With any luck, privatizing Canadian airports is a harbinger of further privatization efforts and efficiency in more areas of Canadian life.

Not everyone is happy. Unions oppose the plan almost unanimously, with Unifor releasing a strongly worded statement . In the letter Unifor National President Lana Payne said “Airport workers know from experience that privatization comes at a cost to them and the travelling public and creates worse working conditions across the aviation industry.” Some commentators have also decried the announcement as something the Liberals “have no mandate” for. On some issues an electoral mandate may be appropriate (Associate membership with EU as one potential example) but not for airport privatization. Privatization should be welcomed, not feared, as it should benefit both passengers and the country.

It is a well established fact that markets and private enterprise are far more efficient than government at running companies and organizations. The reason is simple: corporations and private companies have a clear profit incentive to which they respond. This benefits everyone and is the magic of the market at work. Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, recognized this in his totemic work, The Wealth of Nations back in 1776. “It is not,” Smith wrote, “from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love.” Smith’s recognition that by looking out for their own profit interests, individuals, without any formal coordination, would all move towards producing better products more efficiently and at a lower price. This is the famous invisible hand of the market which makes capitalist societies tick.

Yet somehow this observation, which has done more to produce wealth and prosperity than almost any other in the world, is offensive when applied to Canadian airports. Why? Canadian airport fees are high, and passengers are the victims. IATA, the International Air Transport Association, a trade association representing over 370 airlines worldwide, noted in 2024 that Canada’s air transport price competitiveness ranked 101st. On a typical round trip from Toronto to Montreal, Airport Improvement Fees of $70 were charged between the two airports. A domestic round trip in the United States, by contrast, had a passenger facility charge — the U.S. equivalent — of only approximately $12 Canadian dollars. While not all airports are the same — Vancouver is lower than Pearson’s $40 at $25 — the fact remains that Canadian airports are not as cost competitive as their United States counterparts.

Currently Canadian airports operate as non-profit entities, meaning any profit is reinvested in the airport, as there are no shareholders. In a private model the airport would have a profit mandate to create returns for investors. Critics will portray this as a downside, when is reality it is the profit incentive which drives efficiency and innovation.

Further, the upfront capital provided by companies wishing to operate the Canadian airports in question will be enormous. That capital, as Carney indicated in his remarks, will be “reinvested into infrastructure that Canada needs.” Carney has noted this could amount to tens of billions of dollars of unlocked value for the airport leases. By retaining ownership of the underlying assets and airport, the government seems to be following a model similar to Australia, which underwent the same process in the 1990s and early 2000s. In 2002 the long-term lease signed for the Sydney airport and netted $AUD 5.6 billion for the Australian government. That being the case way back in 2002, Carney’s comment of “tens of billions” in Canada today seems entirely realistic.

By handing over airport operations to profit driven companies Mark Carney is removing unwanted government involvement from an area it doesn’t need to be in, while unlocking significant asset value for Canadians. The fact that the idea has been met as though it is some kind of revolution, is indicative of the fact that Canada has gotten far too comfortable with government control in areas of the economy they should leave.

Airport privatization is a hopeful step towards reigniting Canadian potential and productivity. With any luck, the Carney government will soon take a similar approach to our healthcare system.

Adam Pankratz is a lecturer at the University of British Columbia’s Sauder School of Business.

• Adam Pankratz: Mark Carney’s elitist quest to turn us into Europeans
• Carson Jerema: L’État, c’est Carney

Mexico appears to be moving closer to an interim trade agreement with the United States. It was reported last week that negotiators are accelerating discussions in hopes of reaching a deal before the U.S. midterm elections in November.

No agreement has been announced, and significant differences remain. Talks reportedly focus primarily on automobiles, steel, aluminum, American content requirements and Chinese investment in Mexico. Nevertheless, Ottawa should be paying very close attention. If Mexico signs first while Canada remains embroiled in a tariff dispute with Washington, the consequences could extend well beyond automobiles and metals. Canada’s agri-food economy could become collateral damage.

Mexico would not be betraying Canada by reaching its own agreement. More than 80 per cent of Mexican exports go to the United States. President Claudia Sheinbaum’s government is protecting Mexican jobs, investment and market access. Canada should defend its own interests.

The immediate impact on Canadian agriculture might be limited if the agreement remains narrowly industrial. Canada and Mexico are not perfect competitors. Mexico dominates many categories of winter vegetables, fruit, beer and spirits. Canada is stronger in grains, canola, beef, pork and processed foods.

But the strategic risk is much larger.

Canada exported approximately $63.8 billion in agri-food and seafood products to the United States in 2024. Roughly 60 per cent of our agri-food exports go south. No alternative market can replace the United States quickly.

Even a small competitive disadvantage could become expensive. If preferential treatment for Mexico displaced just five per cent of Canadian agri-food exports to the United States, $3.2 billion in annual sales could be affected. After accounting for the Canadian value added contained in those exports, the direct impact could approach $2 billion annually.

That is not a forecast; it is a plausible risk scenario based on our data at the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University. Primary agriculture and food-and-beverage processing together account for roughly $85 billion to $90 billion of Canadian GDP. A $2-billion reduction would represent more than two per cent of the output generated by those sectors.

The larger danger is not what disappears from the export ledger when an agreement is signed. It is what happens in corporate boardrooms afterward.

Food companies deciding where to place their next processing plant will compare three markets. The United States offers more than 340 million affluent consumers. Mexico offers lower production costs and, potentially, more predictable American access. Canada offers just over 40 million consumers, high operating costs and uncertainty at the border.

If Mexico secures preferential access while Canadian products remain exposed to tariffs, production intended for the North American market will increasingly be located in Mexico or the United States.

Once processing capacity leaves, it is exceedingly difficult to bring back. Canada would export more raw commodities while importing a greater share of the processed foods made from them. Farmers would have fewer domestic buyers, communities would lose value-added employment and consumers would become more dependent on foreign production.

Food affordability could be affected. Initially, farm-gate prices might fall if products previously destined for the United States were redirected domestically. But consumers should not expect equivalent grocery-store reductions. Farm values are only one component of retail food prices.

Over time, lost investment, weakened economies of scale and higher costs for imported ingredients and packaging would push in the opposite direction. Canadian counter-tariffs on whey, milk proteins, baking ingredients, glass containers, aluminum foil and food packaging are counterproductive. They tax Canadian processors for importing inputs that often cannot be replaced domestically.

Canada is hitting its food industry from both directions: American tariffs constrain exports, while Canadian counter-tariffs raise domestic production costs.

Ottawa needs a more disciplined strategy.

First, Canada should return to substantive negotiations with Washington and seek an interim agreement rather than waiting for every CUSMA issue to be resolved. CUSMA-compliant agricultural products, fertilizer, ingredients, packaging and processing inputs should remain tariff-free during negotiations.

Second, Ottawa should remove counter-tariffs from essential food-production inputs. Retaliation may be politically satisfying, but taxing Canadian manufacturers and consumers is economically self-defeating.

Third, Canada must defend trilateral CUSMA while recognizing that Mexico may move independently. Diplomatic solidarity is useful, but it is not an economic strategy.

Agriculture cannot be an untouchable negotiating file. That includes a discussion about gradually modernizing supply management. Any concessions should be phased, compensated and exchanged for durable market access, not surrendered unilaterally.

Finally, Canada must become more attractive for food processing. Faster plant approvals, investment incentives, automation, interprovincial regulatory harmonization and improved transportation infrastructure would do more for resilience than another round of emergency subsidies.

Canada should preserve CUSMA if it can. But it cannot allow loyalty to trilateralism to leave the country without a deal while Mexico secures one.

The objective is clear: preserve American market access, stop taxing Canadian food-production inputs and ensure companies still have reasons to process food here. Mexico is negotiating with urgency. Canada must do the same.

Sylvain Charlebois is director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University, co-host of The Food Professor Podcast and visiting scholar at McGill University.