You know the economy is bad when politicians start needing a side hustle to get by.
Over the past few weeks, Canadians have watched a growing number of MPs test the boundaries of what it means to serve full-time in public office, and in doing so, expose how thin and outdated our ethics rules really are.
The issue gained attention following Chrystia Freeland’s decision to accept a role as an adviser on economic development to Ukraine while remaining a sitting MP. At the time of the appointment, Freeland was also serving as Canada’s special representative for the reconstruction of Ukraine and had already announced plans to leave federal politics later this year to become warden of Rhodes House and chief executive officer of the Rhodes Trust.
Freeland said the advisory role with Ukraine was unpaid and framed it as a continuation of her long-standing support for the country. She announced she would step aside from her Canadian government appointment and resign her seat in Parliament in the coming weeks. That timeline, however, drew sharp criticism from opposition parties and Canadians, who argued that advising a foreign government while serving as an MP created an immediate conflict of interest that should have been resolved without delay.
Opposition Conservatives were particularly vocal, with several MPs saying the situation raised concerns about divided loyalties and access to sensitive information. They argued that parliamentary service is a full-time responsibility and that holding a role tied to a foreign government, regardless of whether it is paid, crossed an ethical line.
Days later, reporting by The Globe and Mail raised similar questions within Conservative ranks. The paper reported that Chak Au, elected in April as the Conservative MP for Richmond Centre Marpole, continued to serve as a municipal councillor in Richmond, British Columbia, after winning his federal seat.
Au, who had served on Richmond city council since 2011, initially said he planned to delay resigning from council in order to avoid the cost of a municipal by-election. It was later reported that he had decided to remain on council until the fall municipal elections. A spokesperson for Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said Au intended to resign once confirmation was received that no by-election would be required, citing concerns about taxpayer costs. Which given the Conservatives recent history with unnecessary by-elections, is a bit rich.
Though the episode is prompting renewed scrutiny of federal rules governing MPs’ outside roles. Under the Conflict-of-Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, MPs who are not ministers or parliamentary secretaries are permitted to engage in outside activities, including employment and other public roles, provided they disclose those activities and avoid conflicts in parliamentary business. The code does not explicitly prohibit MPs from holding another elected office. While many provinces, including Ontario and Alberta, prohibit provincial legislators from simultaneously holding municipal office, while British Columbia and the federal Parliament do not.
Outside roles for MPs are not uncommon and have long been part of parliamentary life. Many MPs maintain ties to family businesses, professional practices, or board positions, particularly those who enter politics later in their careers. This experience can strengthen representation by keeping officials connected to the real-world economy and is less of a barrier for successful people to enter public life.
These recent controversies highlight inconsistencies in how standards are applied and enforced. The Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has said that MPs are expected to disclose outside income and recuse themselves from votes or debates where a private interest exists. However, the system relies heavily on disclosure and judgment calls rather than bright-line prohibitions.
As Parliament resumes, there needs to be clearer standards that better reflect public expectations about the role of MPs, particularly when it comes to holding multiple public offices or roles connected to foreign governments. Whether that leads to amendments to the ethics code, new restrictions, or enhanced disclosure requirements remains an open question.
Parliament is not a side gig. And if MPs want to keep public confidence, the rules need to finally reflect that.
Daniel Perry is the Director of Federal Affairs at the Council of Canadian Innovators, leading national advocacy and engagement efforts. With experience in consulting and roles at the Senate of Canada, Queen’s Park, and the Canadian Criminal Justice Association, Daniel has helped political leaders and clients across various sectors achieve their public policy goals. A frequent media contributor and seasoned campaigner, Daniel holds a Master of Political Management from Carleton University.
