ADAMS: Jamil Jivani wants transparency from Carney? He should start with himself
Jamil Jivani wants Canadians to believe that Prime Minister Mark Carney is "auditioning for the leadership of the U.S. Democratic Party." It's a tidy little rhetorical trick, and it might even land with some of his base. The problem is that the man making the charge has been busy conducting his own freelance diplomacy in Washington, and the contrast is glaring.
In a National Post op-ed published yesterday, Jamil pointed to Prime Minister Carney's decision to bring in Maia Johnson, an American with ties to Hillary Clinton and Michael Bloomberg, as chief operating officer in the Prime Minister's Office. He treats the hire as proof of deliberate antagonism toward the Trump administration, yet never bothers to do the work of actually explaining how exactly this appointment has sabotaged Canadian interests or poisoned talks with the White House.
Jamil simply waves it around as if the mere presence of a Democrat is enough to convict. The same goes for Carney's meetings with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and Pete Buttigieg. Jamil painted those conversations as the Prime Minister laundering his ideology through the DNC, but again, the causal link to higher tariffs or stalled negotiations is asserted rather than demonstrated with facts or examples.
And what makes that particular part of this exercise especially rich is the special pleading on display—as Jamil himself has been playing American politics for months.
In February he announced a personal mission to Washington, citing his friendship with Vice-President Vance and his Yale Law School network. He met the President, VP, Secretary of State, and the U.S. Trade Representative. He framed his trip as non-partisan help for the Carney Liberals, he then came home and wrote about it.
I live in the same riding that Jamil represents in Parliament. I have said repeatedly, and I will say it again: Jamil Jivani is not the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He is not the shadow minister for Canada-U.S. relations and he was not invited to join any official delegation by Prime Minister Carney.
When an opposition MP decides to insert himself into sensitive bilateral talks, questions of protocol, mandate and accountability become unavoidable. What messages did he carry? What undertakings, if any, did he give? What exactly was discussed behind closed doors with Vice-President Vance and President Trump?
Taxpayers in my community have a right to know whether parliamentary resources, travel budgets or any other public funds supported the trip. There are rules governing House of Commons expenses, the Lobbying Act and the Conflict of Interest Code for a reason. A strong reprimand would be entirely appropriate if those rules were stretched or ignored.
As a lawyer, Jamil would understand these issues better than most, and I imagine that in any other context he'd probably agree with me; we do not need self-appointed meddlers freelancing on the most important economic relationship this country has.
Jamil's column also fails to grapple with why so many progressives look at the Conservative Party and see something adjacent to the American right-wing. It isn't only about personal friendships, but the signal sent when MPs openly oppose abortion rights in a country where the majority of citizens do not share that view.
Andrew Scheer learned that lesson the hard way. At the University of Calgary, I heard with my own ears; Jamil choose to raise what he called “transgenderism.” Combined with his longstanding pattern of hostility toward LGBTQ Canadians, it tells voters exactly where certain corners of the party stand.
Most Conservative voters are not looking to die on those hills, but when prominent Conservative Party voices keep climbing them, the comparison to the GOP practically writes itself, and that's the part Jamil ignores.
Jobs in Oshawa and across the auto sector are on the line as a result of these tariffs, which go against CUSMA. Canada needs people handling the relationship with the United States who take the issue seriously. What we do not need is backbench MPs writing columns that accuse the elected government of "American partisanship" while conducting their own parallel diplomacy and then acting surprised when his constituents ask for transparency.
If Jamil wants to criticize Carney for chasing applause south of the border? Fine. But should he want credibility while he does so, he must open the books on his own trips and explain what he was authorized to say on Canada's behalf. Until then, the charge of playing American politics lands with a dull thud.
This piece was written by an individual contributor and reflects the editorial position of The Provincial Times. Read our Content Policy here.
