Experts say treason definition depends if you’re holding Criminal Code or dictionary

CALGARY – B.C. Premier David Eby made headlines Thursday by saying Alberta separatists reportedly meeting with U.S. officials are committing treason — but experts say the word means different things in different contexts.

From a criminal standpoint, such a meeting wouldn’t be considered treason, says Stephanie Carvin, an associate international relations professor at Carleton University and former national security analyst.

“Treason and sedition and other similar offences, or even subversion, they’re really tied to the idea of betraying Canada during a time of war,” said Carvin, also referring to them as “medieval laws” because of their aged origins.

As for being subject to other laws, like those related to foreign interference, it depends on the conversations being covert.

“The activities that we’re talking about, if they’re being discussed in the newspaper, they’re not covert; they’re right there,” she said. 

In Canadian law, treason means using force in an attempt to overthrow the federal or a provincial government or providing military or scientific intelligence to foreign officials that threatens Canada’s defence or safety.

In contrast, high treason means attempting to or successfully killing or injuring the reigning monarch; levying war against Canada from within; or assisting an enemy at war with Canada.

Michael Nesbitt, an associate law professor at the University of Calgary, said Canada’s Criminal Code is both specific and fuzzy on the topic.

For example, he said, the code is vague as to what type of information one would provide to a foreign entity for it to amount to criminal charges.

Stewart Prest, a political science lecturer at the University of British Columbia, said Eby’s use of treason is appropriate, because it’s a “moment for blunt talk.” 

Prest said Eby isn’t trying to launch a criminal prosecution but show that the separatist group is “betraying” the principle of Canada. 

“They are trying to work with another foreign power, an unfriendly power to bring about the dismemberment of Canada. And so by any dictionary definition of the term, that is certainly treasonous.” 

Eby, citing a report in The Financial Times, told reporters that it’s inappropriate for a group to ask a foreign power for help breaking up Canada.

“To go to a foreign country and to ask for assistance in breaking up Canada, there’s an old-fashioned word for that. And that word is treason,” Eby said.

Jeff Rath, a lawyer for the Alberta Prosperity Project who attended the meetings with U.S. officials, denied his actions amount to treason or are criminal.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Jan. 29, 2026.

— With files from Wolfgang Depner in Victoria