Prime Minister Mark Carney should expect examination of his own foreign relationships when his government raises concerns about foreign interference in Alberta’s referendum.

Canadians deserve protection against outside manipulation. They also deserve a government willing to explain its own international agreements, appointments and business connections.

Transparency loses credibility when the people demanding accountability appear reluctant to provide it themselves.

Consider China.

Justice Marie-Josée Hogue’s public inquiry identified China as the most active perpetrator of foreign interference targeting Canada’s democratic institutions. The inquiry found interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections, although it concluded that it did not determine which party formed government.

That finding should make openness about Ottawa’s dealings with Beijing particularly important.

Before entering federal politics, Carney chaired Brookfield Asset Management. In November 2024, Bloomberg reported that Brookfield had secured a US$276-million loan from Bank of China as part of refinancing a Shanghai property complex. The reported terms included a 15-year loan at roughly four per cent interest.

This was corporate financing during Carney’s chairmanship. It does not establish that he personally negotiated the loan or received the funds. It does establish a substantial financial relationship involving the company he chaired.

Canadians are entitled to ask how potential conflicts arising from those former business relationships are managed when his government makes decisions involving China. A clear explanation would serve the public better than leaving people to connect the dots themselves.

The policing agreement creates a more immediate concern.

In January 2026, the RCMP signed an agreement with China’s Ministry of Public Security covering cooperation that includes information exchanges and investigative assistance.

The RCMP subsequently said it would not release the full agreement without Beijing’s consent.

That position deserves a hard question: why should Canadians depend on the approval of a foreign government to examine the terms governing their own police force’s cooperation with it?

Operational details may require protection. The public should still receive a meaningful account of what information can be shared, whose information is covered, what restrictions apply and who independently checks compliance.

Public Safety says Canadian legal requirements and risk assessments govern these exchanges. Canadians should be able to assess the safeguards, rather than simply accept assurances that they exist.

Tax information raises related questions, although the chronology matters.

Canada’s tax agreement with China dates to 1986. Automatic financial-account reporting arrangements also predate Carney’s government. These arrangements concern defined tax information and reportable accounts, rather than unrestricted Chinese access to every Canadian’s CRA file.

Their age, however, does not settle whether the protections remain adequate given China’s documented conduct.

Then there is Maia Johnson.

The Canadian Press reported in July that Johnson would become the Prime Minister’s Office’s chief operating officer while retaining her Canada-U.S. advisory responsibilities. Other reporting identifies her as American and a former Hillary Clinton campaign staffer.

Her nationality and political background do not establish wrongdoing. Her position does warrant a clear explanation of her authority, outside relationships and the safeguards protecting Canadian interests.

If foreign connections deserve examination in Alberta, Canadians can reasonably expect comparable openness about foreign connections inside the prime minister’s office. The standard should depend on the conduct and evidence, regardless of whose political interests are involved.

Carney’s concern about interference would carry more weight alongside a willingness to answer these questions fully.

Publish the policing agreement’s substantive terms, explain any necessary redactions and identify the protections governing information exchanges. Explain how potential conflicts involving former business relationships are managed. Clarify the responsibilities and safeguards attached to senior appointments.

Canadians should not have to choose between protecting their elections and questioning their government.

A prime minister asking the country to take foreign influence seriously should welcome scrutiny that reaches his own office.