As United States President Donald Trump continues to threaten Canada's economic and political sovereignty, some observers have floated the idea of Canada becoming a member of the European Union.

Since there is no feasible pathway to EU membership in the short term, current efforts rightly focus on strengthening Canada's existing trade relationships, most notably through the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement.

But something else is often overlooked: Canada should also learn from the EU how to cope with the monumental challenges ahead. Europe is not only less vulnerable than Canada due to its geographic position and economic power, it's also more resilient.

Unlike "Team Canada," "Europe United" has already crafted a multi-pronged policy framework to encounter the risks arising from a fundamentally changing geopolitical environment over the long term. The EU also has a more robust institutional framework for intergovernmental co-operation.

Under the leadership of President Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission has launched a cascade of relatively coherent policies aimed at facilitating three broad goals: decarbonization, economic sovereignty and national security.

Key pillars of this new policy framework are the European Green Deal of 2019, the European Industrial Strategy of 2020, the European Economic Security Strategy of 2023 and the 2024 European Defence Industrial Strategy.

These policy initiatives have been continuously updated, fine-tuned and aligned with each other. They have created an umbrella that enables the EU and its member states to simultaneously promote the green transition, strengthen the internal market and domestic industries as well as reduce economic and security risks.

The geopolitical and industrial changes in the EU resemble what used to exist in Canada as well: national policies - the conscious, nation-building initiatives of successive federal governments.

But Canada has lost the ability to plan strategically for the long term and now responds to every crisis in a reactive, punctuated manner. In doing so, Canadian officials address symptoms without tackling root causes.

The institutional architecture of the EU also furnishes governments with more capacity to collaborate. In all federal systems, most policies are largely shared, which is why intergovernmental co-ordination is important to buttress and consolidate such innovations.

Read more: Canada-U.S. history provides lessons on how Canada can deal with a hostile Donald Trump

Notably, the Council of the European Union plays a key role for co-ordinating and negotiating policies, in addition to its function as the main decision-making body (together with the European Parliament).

It is composed of ministers of the EU member states. Accordingly, it works in different configurations, depending on the portfolio. The head of governments themselves meet regularly through a separate institution, the European Council.

In Canada, by contrast, federal intergovernmental institutions are fragile or don't even exist, even though they're comparatively strong on the municipal level.

Municipalities co-ordinate through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), which was established in 1901. But it was not until 2004 that provinces and territories established the Council of the Federation. This body, however, has remained weak, with very little administrative support.

What's even more striking is that there is no formalized, institutionalized framework at all at the federal level. The First Ministers' Conference meetings are held at the discretion of the prime minister. In their communique following a Council of the Federation meeting in November 2023, premiers complained that "the prime minister has not convened a full in-person First Ministers' Meeting since December 2018 despite repeated requests from premiers."

Widespread tariffs against Canada may be on hold until March, but there is no way back. As Canadians experience their very own "Zeitenwende" - the end of an era - in the wake of Trump's desire to absorb Canada into the U.S., the country's leaders should draw two lessons from the EU.

On the policy level, Canada does need a new "national policy," as I have argued previously.

More than 40 years ago, the Macdonald Commission paved the way for a major transformative shift in Canadian policy-making, including free trade with the U.S. But since the global financial crisis of 2007-2008, it has become increasingly clear that this model of socioeconomic development is outdated.

Yet the model has never been replaced. Unlike the EU, Canadians have comforted themselves with patchwork policies instead of crafting a new, all-encompassing approach.

The challenges the EU and Canada face are similar, but Canada needs to find its own response. Forging a new model will require mobilizing and aligning key sectors like trade, infrastructure and industrial policy in a coherent manner.

On the institutional level, Canada must - finally - institutionalize Team Canada. It's a positive development that First Ministers' Conference meetings have resumed, but an ad hoc approach to intergovernmental collaboration is no longer sufficient.

Team Canada may work under pressure when facing a short-term threat. Without a stronger institutional foundation, however, Canada won't be able to consolidate a new national policy over the long term.

The EU has accomplished a remarkable resurgence, despite all remaining difficulties. Rather than chasing the idea of joining the EU, Canada should use the European example as a road map for enhancing its policy and governance capacities.