As the EU-Canada Summit in Montreal on October 29, 30 approaches Prime Minister Mark Carney wants to forge a new “Alliance for the Future” by strengthening Canada’s economic, defence and social ties with the European Union. He says the shared values between the EU and Canada and how we could make our positive relationship even better with greater integration and alignment.

But while the PM rightfully talks up the positive possibilities of greater EU alignment, his government is actually racing in the opposite direction in key areas: climate action, environmental protection and the transition to clean transportation. In fact, on most elements of these files Canada looks to be aligning with the Republican administration in the US.

The Prime Minister has scrapped the consumer carbon price, the oil and gas emissions cap, and the EV fleet adoption rules. He also weakened our clean electricity rules. He told us not to worry. That we would get replacements that would work better.

He said that industrial carbon pricing would do the heavy lifting on emission reductions. But surprisingly, in late 2025 Alberta and Ottawa signed an MOU to actually weaken it and make carbon prices too low to be effective. New research from the Canadian Climate Institute reveals that these changes have put us about 20 years behind our goal of getting to Net Zero by 2050. 

Aside from the reality that climate action was needed yesterday, these changes could also hurt our plans of cozying up with the EU. They have a legally binding requirement to hit a 55% reduction by 2030 and to reach Net Zero by 2050. We may start to look less appealing as an “associate member” when they realize that Canada is looking more and more like the US, where emission rules for polluting industries like coal, oil and gas are being weakened all the time.

The Prime Minister also promised back in February that new Vehicle Emission Standards (to replace the cancelled Electric Vehicle Availability Standard) would ensure that 75 per cent of vehicles sold by 2035 would be electric. So far, we have seen no draft of these promised rules. Meanwhile, the US is busily rolling back their own rules, making them 32 per cent weaker than before.The EU on the other hand has standards for vehicle emissions that are 60 per cent more stringent. Whether or not we align with the EU or the US on this remains to be seen. But if we follow the US model, what will that tell the EU about our commitment to vehicle electrification and emission reduction? 

Canada’s environmental impact rules are also under threat right now as Bill C-39 is being pushed through Parliament. It proposes a broad and deep weakening of the rules used to evaluate the impacts of large industrial projects on the economy, communities and the environment. It also weakens the processes that were designed to ensure the mitigation of those impacts. Particularly egregious are the sections of C-39 that would make destroying the habitat of the most rare and endangered species in the country much easier. This is an approach that is also being gleefully pursued by President Trump’s administration south of the border. How will the proposals contained in C-39 align with the EU’s strict environmental impact rules and sustainability reporting? The bill proposes environmental-law-free “regions of national interest”. How will we be able to attract EU investors in these zones if they can’t meet their robust Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) rules?

There’s no doubt that Canada should enhance its relationship with Europe and protect itself from a flailing and declining US, but to do so we will need to pay attention to how the EU expects partners to align with its values and laws. If we want to advance this conversation, Canada needs to stop racing toward the US’s scorched earth model of environmental protection. We can’t pivot towards Europe unless we stop writing environmental laws like Washington.