Treason meaning differs between Criminal Code and dictionary, experts say

B.C. Premier David Eby called Alberta separatists who met U.S. officials 'treason,' while legal scholars say Canadian criminal treason is narrowly defined in the Criminal Code and that concerns about foreign interference hinge on whether conversations were covert.

B.C. Premier David Eby said Alberta separatists who reportedly met with U.S. officials were committing treason after a Financial Times report about efforts to secure a $500-billion credit facility for a potential independent Alberta. The comment drew attention because experts note the word 'treason' can mean different things in everyday usage and in criminal law. Criminal-law specialists say Canadian treason offences focus on violent attempts to overthrow government or sharing military or defence intelligence with foreign powers. Other scholars described Eby's remark as political rhetoric intended to signal betrayal rather than the start of a criminal case. Key points: - David Eby publicly used the term "treason" in response to reports that Alberta separatists sought U.S. assistance. - The Financial Times reported advocates plan to seek a $500-billion credit facility in support of an independence plan. - Stephanie Carvin said criminal treason and related offences are historically tied to betraying Canada during wartime and involve specific acts such as using force or providing defence intelligence. - Canada's Criminal Code distinguishes treason and high treason, with high treason including attempts on the monarch or levying war from within. - Michael Nesbitt said the Criminal Code is specific in places but vague about what information would trigger criminal charges. - Jeff Rath, a lawyer for the Alberta Prosperity Project, denied that attending meetings with U.S. officials amounted to treason or criminal conduct. Summary: The discussion highlights a gap between a political use of the word "treason" and the narrower legal definitions in the Criminal Code. Commentators framed Eby's statement as blunt political language, while legal experts said criminal liability would depend on concrete acts and whether any contacts were covert. Undetermined at this time.