Chrystia Freeland may still hold a seat in the House of Commons, but politically and geographically, she appears already gone. With her new appointment as CEO of the Rhodes Trust in Oxford beginning in July 2026, Freeland is positioning herself for a future far outside Canadian public life while continuing to occupy a taxpayer-funded parliamentary seat she no longer intends to defend or actively represent. It is a move that feels less like public service and more like a carefully timed exit from accountability.The Rhodes Trust has confirmed the role is full-time and based in the UK. That leaves little room for interpretation. A full-time job in Britain is not compatible with full-time representation of constituents in Toronto. .Yet Freeland has given no indication she plans to step aside, call a by-election, or allow her riding to choose someone willing to actually show up. Instead, she is set to spend the next year collecting her MP salary while preparing to relocate overseas.Freeland’s departure from cabinet in 2025 was framed with emotional language about gratitude and democratic renewal.At the time, she insisted she wasn’t leaving politics entirely and would continue to serve her riding.But now that she has secured a prestigious new position at one of the world’s most exclusive institutions, that promise looks like political theatre rather than commitment. She said the right things while negotiating her next opportunity, then walked away from responsibility once her future abroad was locked in..Some in government may be happy to pretend nothing is wrong. After all, Prime Minister Mark Carney’s minority Liberals are two seats short of a majority.Losing Freeland’s seat, even temporarily, risks triggering a by-election the Liberals might lose, further weakening the government. So politically, it is convenient for her to remain where she is.But what benefits the Liberal Party does not necessarily benefit Canadians, and it certainly does not benefit the people of University–Rosedale.Freeland’s defenders have already begun building a narrative that her global experience justifies her continued presence in Parliament..They point to her work as a Rhodes Scholar, her international career in journalism, her time as a senior minister, and her ongoing role as Canada’s special envoy for the reconstruction of Ukraine.The implication is that she operates on a higher plane than ordinary MPs, and her value lies in symbolism and influence rather than constituency service.But representation is not symbolic. It is practical. It requires being present, being accountable, answering to the people who elected you, and doing the unglamorous work of responding to concerns about housing, transit, taxes, crime, immigration bottlenecks, and day-to-day governance. A riding does not need a celebrity ambassador. It needs an elected representative. That basic expectation is now in question.Freeland’s move reflects a growing pattern among political elites, particularly within the Liberal Party.Elected office is treated less as a responsibility and more as a pipeline to international organizations, corporate boards, and exclusive fellowships. When political careers end, the next stop is rarely retirement.It is usually Davos, the UN, the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, or, in Freeland’s case, a centuries-old scholarship foundation rooted in Britain’s most powerful academic network..In this context, her refusal to resign immediately feels less like service and more like entitlement. If she knows she is leaving, and if she admits she will not run again, why hold onto the seat. The answer is unpleasant but likely accurate. The Liberals need the number, and Freeland prefers a quiet, dignified glide path to her next role rather than answering to voters who might reasonably feel abandoned.Her riding deserves better. Even those who supported her have a right to expect an MP whose primary loyalty remains local, not international. Freeland’s political legacy is now overshadowed by the perception she is leaving Canada behind while continuing to draw from its public purse. At minimum, she should be transparent about whether she intends to serve her full term from Oxford, remotely, through staff, or merely on paper. So far, she has avoided answering those questions.Chrystia Freeland built her career as a champion of democracy, institutions, and responsibility. Yet she now appears prepared to represent Canadians from another country while advancing her own international career. That contradiction speaks louder than her farewell speeches.If she is finished with politics, she should say so plainly. She should resign, call a by-election, and allow her constituents to choose someone fully committed to being present in Parliament and in the riding. Canada can no longer afford absentee leadership, and University–Rosedale should not be represented by someone already packing their bags for Oxford.If public service truly matters to Freeland, she will step aside rather than linger as a lame-duck MP collecting a salary from a country she is preparing to leave behind.
