Skip to main content
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and former European Council president Donald Tusk attend the signing ceremony of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), at the European Council in Brussels, Belgium, on Oct. 30, 2016.

Francois Lenoir/Reuters

Andrew Hammond is an associate at LSE IDEAS at the London School of Economics.

The European Union and Canada are holding a summit in Brussels on Monday and Tuesday, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau meeting EU counterparts after the NATO and G7 meetings. Centre stage in the discussion is the landmark bilateral trade agreement, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA, which has driven an increase in two-way commerce, including a 15-per-cent boost in EU exports to Canada in 2020 alone.

While the bilateral relationship is largely positive, there are irritants, including the EU ban on the import of seal products. Yet, relations are fundamentally co-operative, building from a series of economic agreements since the 1970s and joint membership of bodies such as the Group of Seven and Group of 20.

Story continues below advertisement

In 1976, the then-European Economic Community and Canada signed a framework agreement on economic co-operation, the first formal agreement of its kind between the European body and an industrialized third country. The Delegation of the European Union to Canada office also opened then in Ottawa.

In 1990, extending the scope of their dialogue, European and Canadian leaders adopted the Declaration on Transatlantic Relations. Most recently, in 1996, a new Political Declaration on EU-Canada Relations was signed at a summit in Ottawa, adopting a joint action plan identifying additional specific areas for co-operation.

Building from these agreements, CETA, which covers around a fifth of the global economy, and took the best part of a decade to negotiate, was signed in October, 2016. Ninety-eight per cent of all tariffs on goods traded between the two powers were eliminated, and the deal was billed as “the most ambitious trade agreement the EU has ever concluded.” Most tariffs were removed when the agreement came provisionally into force in 2017.

CETA assumed a particularly high profile during the Brexit negotiations between Britain and the EU. Many Brexiteers saw the deal as the template for what became last December’s EU-U.K. Trade and Co-operation Agreement.

The EU has negotiated a wide range of external trade agreements for member states, but for many Brexiteers it was this “Canadian model” that stood out. Part of the reason for this is that it allowed Britain to completely leave the Brussels-based club, including the customs union and single market, and allow London to do bilateral trade deals with other countries, plus multilateral ones such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

However, as glorified as CETA is by some Brexiteers, the model has also brought costs for Britain given the different starting positions of London (previously a member of the EU for more than four decades and embedded into many its structures) and Ottawa. Whereas CETA represents a net level of integration between the EU and Canadian economies, the new EU-U.K. deal has been a sharp break (or “hard Brexit”) between the entities.

Moreover, CETA does little to enable some key business sectors, including financial services. CETA also does not eliminate border controls – although it does incentivize use of advanced electronic checking to expedite customs clearance.

Story continues below advertisement

In a further potential challenge, the Canadian-style deal ended Britain’s preferential access to more than 50 markets outside Europe with which the EU has trade agreements. While many of these have now been renegotiated bilaterally, there were no guarantees that London would obtain terms as good as before.

While Brexiteers also suggested that negotiating a Canadian-style deal would be relatively easy, this belied the challenges involved initially with CETA. Indeed, in 2016, after about seven years of negotiations, there was a near complete breakdown of CETA talks. This came when the legislature in Wallonia – a region of Belgium with a population of around 3.5 million – indicated to Canada that its opposition to key provisions of the proposed deal were “red lines.”

While these concerns have since been largely smoothed, Canada’s then-international trade minister Chrystia Freeland asserted at the time that an agreement was now “impossible.” The EU’s then-trade commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom also said that “if we can’t make [a deal] with Canada, I’m not sure we can make [one] with the United Kingdom.”

Taken over all, it is CETA that sits at the heart of the renewed partnership between Canada and Europe. While this same agreement became a key point of debate in the Brexit dialogue, the balance of advantages and disadvantages of a Canadian-style deal with Brussels are different for London than Ottawa given the deep integration of the British and European economies in the postwar era.

Your time is valuable. Have the Top Business Headlines newsletter conveniently delivered to your inbox in the morning or evening. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies