A sitting Member of Parliament (MP) should not be serving a foreign government. That principle ought to be uncontroversial in a parliamentary democracy.Yet it is now being tested by Chrystia Freeland’s decision to accept an advisory role with the Ukrainian government while continuing to hold a seat in Canada’s House of Commons.Freeland was recently appointed by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as an adviser on economic development. The role has been framed as supportive and technical, focused on investment attraction and postwar reconstruction.Regardless of how technical or well-intentioned the role may be presented, the core fact remains unchanged. A sitting Canadian MP is now formally advising a foreign government. Not an NGO. Not a multilateral body. A foreign head of government. That crosses a line Canada has long understood, even if it has rarely been forced to articulate it so explicitly..MPs swear an oath to serve Canada and their constituents. They are entrusted with access to sensitive briefings, confidential policy discussions, and national decision-making processes. That trust rests on undivided loyalty. Parliament functions on the assumption that MPs serve one public interest only, the Canadian public interest.Advising a foreign government, even one widely viewed as an ally, introduces an unavoidable conflict of interest. It creates divided obligations where none should exist. An MP cannot simultaneously owe advisory duties to a foreign executive while claiming to act solely on behalf of Canadian voters.Support for Ukraine as a country is not the issue. Canada has rightly provided diplomatic, military, and humanitarian assistance through formal government channels..Those decisions are debated in Parliament, scrutinized by committees, and justified to taxpayers. That is how democratic foreign policy is meant to operate. It is carried out by the Canadian state, not by individual MPs acting in personal advisory capacities abroad.The problem is not whether Freeland will act improperly. The problem is that the arrangement itself erodes the ethical boundary Parliament depends on.Even if she avoids direct overlap between her advisory work and her parliamentary duties, the perception of divided loyalty is unavoidable. Politics is not only about rules. It is about trust..Can Canadians be confident that advice given to a foreign government will never shape positions taken at home?Can constituents be sure their MP’s priorities remain local when her professional obligations increasingly point overseas. These questions are not partisan attacks. They are reasonable expectations in a representative democracy.The situation becomes even more concerning in light of Freeland’s upcoming move to the United Kingdom to serve as chief executive officer of the Rhodes Trust beginning in 2026..That role is full-time and based in Oxford. Taken together, the trajectory is clear. Freeland is transitioning out of Canadian public life while continuing to occupy a parliamentary seat.Canada’s conflict-of-interest framework was never designed for this scenario. It assumes MPs serve Canada exclusively. It does not contemplate MPs serving foreign governments directly. That should not be interpreted as permission. It should be understood as a gap Parliament now needs to confront.If Freeland wishes to advise Ukraine, she should do so as a private citizen. If she wishes to pursue international roles, she should step aside from Parliament and allow her constituents to choose a representative whose primary loyalty is undivided. What should not be acceptable is attempting to do both at once..Public office is not a transitional holding pattern or a networking platform. It is a responsibility.Serving a foreign government while holding a Canadian parliamentary seat undermines that responsibility, regardless of intent or sympathy for the cause involved.Canada should draw a clear line now. MPs serve Canada, or they step aside. Anything else risks normalizing divided loyalty and absentee representation, and Parliament cannot afford either.
