Canadians are right to care about sovereignty. But sovereignty means more than resisting pressure from Washington.

It means that Canadians, not foreigners, make the laws that govern Canada. Canadians pass, repeal, and amend our federal, provincial, and municipal laws. Sovereignty means little or nothing when outsiders gain a say in how Canadians live or what rules govern our affairs.

Some Canadians are fair-weather sovereigntists. They suddenly rediscover their nationalism when President Trump pushes their buttons, but remained silent when Canada’s federal government accepted the International Health Regulations of the World Health Organization in Geneva.

Those regulations authorize the WHO to direct a worldwide response in a future “Public Health Emergency of International Concern.” In other words: foreigners in Geneva dictating our healthcare policy.

That undermines the constitutional principle of democratic accountability, under which Canadians, through our elected representatives, determine the laws under which we live. The Constitution Act, 1867 assigns exclusive jurisdiction over healthcare to the provinces, not Ottawa. And even if healthcare were a federal responsibility, our Constitution does not authorize the WHO or other foreign bodies to impose laws or regulations on Canadians.

Fortunately, the WHO has no army, police, or courts. It cannot force Canada to comply unless our federal and provincial governments voluntarily allow it.

It is therefore strange to see Canadians fiercely defending sovereignty against American pressure while showing little concern about surrendering sovereignty to another group of foreigners.

The same issue now arises with the possibility of Canada becoming an “associate member” of the European Union.

Britain’s experience should serve as a warning.

Citizens of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union (EU) in the 2016 Brexit referendum after 43 years of membership. The slogan “take back control” was central to the Leave campaign, because EU membership had required Britain to surrender much of its sovereignty.

The largely powerless European Parliament is directly elected, but real power lies with institutions such as the European Commission, whose Commissioners are appointed rather than directly elected by voters.

The Factortame litigation showed what this could mean in practice. Parliament passed the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, partly to stop Spanish-controlled fishing vessels from registering as British and exploiting UK fishing quotas.

But the legislation conflicted with European Community law, and British courts ruled that European law took precedence.

Britain spent nearly half a century discovering how difficult it could be to reclaim powers gradually surrendered to the European project. Canada would be foolish to begin the same experiment just as Britain’s “mother of parliaments” has reasserted its sovereignty.

The “associate membership” Prime Minister Mark Carney is discussing with the EU does not yet have a settled legal meaning. That is alarming. 

The attraction will be economic: easier trade, harmonized standards, integrated markets, and fewer regulatory barriers. But sovereignty is rarely surrendered in a single dramatic moment. It fades gradually through agreements and institutions that transfer increasing control over domestic policy.

Canada should understand that better than most countries.

Until 1982, the British Parliament still had to formalize changes to Canada’s Constitution, but Britain exercised no practical control over Canadian affairs. Yet Canadians still wanted complete constitutional independence.

After making such an effort in 1982 to escape the last residue of authority held by London, why would Canada now place itself under EU regulations and control by Brussels?

If Prime Minister Carney can negotiate freer trade with the EU without surrendering Canadian control over Canadian laws and policies, more power to him.

But in exchange for privileged access to European markets, the EU will surely demand some measure of influence over Canada’s laws, regulations, and policies.

If Canadians are serious about sovereignty and meaningful democracy, the principle should be applied consistently. Foreign control is unacceptable, whether it comes from Brussels, Geneva, Washington, or London.

John Carpay, BA, LLB, is President of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.

Read this column in the Western Standard