Fair Observer Editor-at-Large Ranjani Iyer Mohanty speaks with former Canadian Diplomat David McKinnon about Canada’s proposed closer relationship with the European Union. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s September 16 invitation to explore associate membership opens a discussion about economic security, sovereignty and Canada’s place in the world. For McKinnon, the opportunity extends beyond Europe: Canada must develop partnerships that strengthen its independence and international influence.

A partnership beyond trade

Mohanty asks what associate membership would add to the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has welcomed closer engagement, but the framework remains undefined. McKinnon sees genuine interest in deeper economic and political cooperation alongside an immediate tactical purpose.

Ottawa and Brussels are signaling that they have alternatives to excessive reliance on Washington. Developments under the current US administration have sharpened that motivation, but diversification also makes sense as a negotiating strategy.

The relationship should build on CETA rather than simply repackage it. McKinnon points to expanding trade in goods and services while noting that ratification remains incomplete. A broader partnership could encompass defense, Arctic security, energy, critical minerals, artificial intelligence and education.

For McKinnon, the test is whether these discussions produce substantive cooperation that improves security and prosperity while giving both partners greater freedom of action.

What Canada brings

Canada offers more than natural resources. Its territory, Arctic position, agricultural production and energy supplies complement European interests, while its technological and defense capabilities provide further opportunities.

McKinnon challenges Canadians’ tendency to underestimate those strengths, particularly their country’s significance as an Arctic power. Cooperation should reflect capabilities that already exist alongside resources that Europe needs.

Shared commitments to democracy, human rights and individual liberty underpin the relationship. Both partners, he contends, want a functioning international order. That outlook need not exclude countries outside the West: He presents India as seeking to update global institutions rather than overturn them.

Europe should therefore become one component of a wider diplomatic effort. McKinnon highlights Japan, South Korea, India and other Indo-Pacific partners, alongside efforts to connect Europe with the existing Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Getting young Canadians abroad

Educational exchanges could give the partnership practical meaning. Mohanty raises the possibility of building on Erasmus, Europe’s academic mobility program, to expand opportunities for Canadians.

McKinnon argues that Canada has attracted international students more successfully than it has encouraged its own students to study overseas. Hosting people from elsewhere does not automatically create knowledge of their societies.

“I think it’s complacency,” he says. Canadians need sustained experience abroad to develop international understanding, whether in Europe, Asia, Africa or Latin America.

He recalls the mutual respect between Canadian Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent and Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru during the 1950s. Their relationship illustrates the value of treating foreign counterparts as equals and learning directly from a changing world.

Sovereignty requires options

Mohanty asks whether McKinnon’s diplomatic experience in India and Sri Lanka offers lessons for Canada. He cautions against detailed comparisons between countries with different resources, scale and strategic circumstances. The broader principle nevertheless applies: Assess realities carefully and preserve options.

Canada’s geography and economic integration make its US relationship indispensable. However, McKinnon argues that decades of prosperity through continental free trade encouraged assumptions that Washington would reliably safeguard Canadian interests.

Stronger international relationships can increase Canada’s value to the United States by making it a useful partner beyond bilateral affairs. European and Indo-Pacific engagement can reinforce each other while protecting Canada’s capacity to make independent decisions.

Looking beyond established blocs

Mohanty asks whether associate membership might inspire a wider grouping or closer Canadian engagement with BRICS. McKinnon sees little basis for predicting either outcome while the European framework remains unsettled.

He notes that the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development already connects industrialized countries across regions. Australia, New Zealand and Ukraine also face distinct strategic calculations.

BRICS, in his assessment, functions primarily as a political forum, with uncertain economic benefits for Canada. Constructive dialogue and stronger bilateral relationships with its members remain worthwhile. The guiding question remains whether any partnership advances Canadian interests while preserving sovereignty.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/podcast are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.