The biggest benefit of the EU is the single market, but it's tricky to take advantage of that when Canada and the EU are 3000km apart from each other. The other potential benefits are relatively minor, and wouldn't really make up for all the potential downsides.
I think it makes sense. The EU is possible because the founding countries are of more or less similar size. You can't really make a fair balanced partnership with a country 10 times bigger, we've just learned that. So Canada joining the EU makes sense from a political perspective. Carney had a point when talked about "middle powers" in Davos.
From an economical perspective, it makes less sense because of, well, the Atlantic ocean. Nevertheless, Canada has what Europe needs - oil, LNG, minerals. To a certain extent, things can work out.
It's just silly because we're not a European country. I think Canada would benefit a lot from a CANZUK-type agreement though. The lack of a large single market makes Canada less competitve compared to the US/EU/China in many ways like scaling a business.
Australia, New Zealand, and the UK aren't on the same continent as Canada either, so I fail to understand why that type of agreement doesn't get labeled as silly as well.
The European Union is strictly meant for European countries. CANZUK is a hypothetical agreement that would only include the above. I'd also say that one challenge the EU has is the free movement of citizens of poorer EU countries to richer ones. It might work well for the EU but Canadians are very concerned about immigration and the idea of newcomers undercutting domestic wages. The CANZUK countries all have similar levels of wealth and cultural similarities so that would be much less of a concern. Also, none of the CANZUK countries are in a common market as large as the European or American unions so they would all stand to benefit from that.
> The European Union is strictly meant for European countries.
In the (non-binding) "Briefing No 23 Legal questions of enlargement" of the European Parliamentary Research Service, this criteria is described as follows:
The sole material condition laid down by Article O of the TEU is that the applicant must be a 'European State'. There is no unequivocal interpretation of that criterion. It can be read equally well in geographical, cultural or political terms.
In 1987 an application to become a Member of the Communities was received from Morocco. The application was rejected by the Council on the grounds that Morocco was not a European State [...]. In the case of Turkey, Article 28 of the Association Agreement signed in 1963 incudes the option of Turkey's eventually acceding to the Communities. Turkey in fact lodged an application to accede on 14 April 1987. Historically, Turkey has formed part of the so-called 'European concert'. Although part of Turkey's territory is located geographically in Asia, Parliament, the Council and the Commission have confirmed Turkey's eligibility [...]. This example shows that the term 'European State' need not be interpreted in a strictly geographical sense. It is at all events a criterion subject to political assessment.[1]
I would personally add Cyprus to the list. Geographically it is situated in Western Asia, but is considered culturally European.
In this perspective, countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. might be electible for membership. -- And there is always the option that the EU amends or officially clarifies its accession conditions.