When does freedom of expression and political opinion cross the line to Treason, an indictable offence under Canada’s Criminal Code with a prison sentence of 14 years to life?
When a Canadian advises a foreign government on how it can sway Canadian voters to that foreign government’s benefit, is that treason? If the government in question is the United States – a former ally now waging economic war on Canada with the stated intent of taking over Canada – is that treason?
My question is prompted by Alberta premier Danielle Smith’s interview with America’s Breitbart news, in which she said she advised the American administration. The context is twofold: the Canadian election, and the trade war that U.S. President Donald Trump launched against Canada with the stated intent of taking Canada over by economic force.
Smith, a conservative who is affiliated with or has worked with numerous institutions funded by America’s right-wing, told Breitbart’s Matthew Boyle: “the longer this dispute goes on, politicians posture, and it seems to be benefiting the Liberals right now. So I would hope that we could put things on pause is what I’ve told administration officials. Let’s just put things on pause so we can get through an election.” (My italics)
Smith has openly opposed Canada’s federal Liberals, now led by Mark Carney, and supported the federal Conservatives, led by Pierre Poilievre. Canada’s Conservatives were previously, repeatedly, praised by both Trump and Elon Musk, and the party includes officials who have been photographed wearing MAGA hats.
It’s important to note that Smith spoke to Breitbart on March 8, before the election was trigged on March 23. Had she done so after March 23, she might have been in violation of S. 282.4 (4) of the Canada Elections Act. Still, there has been intense discussion about a possible violation of the Elections Act. Stéphane Perrault, Canada’s chief electoral officer, suggested to reporters that Smith’s remarks were not unlawful.
Smith’s office has denied that she asked the U.S. to interfere in Canada’s election. In a statement to CBC News, the premier’s office called the allegation “offensive and false.”
It’s very unlikely that Smith violated the letter of Canadian election law.
But what about the Criminal Code? Canadian law against High Treason states that high treason is committed by a person “who assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.”
The U.S. has declared economic war on Canada. To have a provincial premier advising the U.S. government, apparently to help sway a Canadian election to a party friendly to the U.S. cause, is astonishing.
Image: Alberta premier Danielle Smith, screenshot from CTV News
Here’s what Canada’s Criminal Code says about treason:
- High treason
46 (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,
(a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;
(b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or
(c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are. - Treason(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;(b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;(c) conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);(d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or(e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) and manifests that intention by an overt act.
Canadian citizen
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) or (2), a Canadian citizen or a person who owes allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada,
(a) commits high treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (1); or
(b) commits treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (2).
Overt act
(4) Where it is treason to conspire with any person, the act of conspiring is an overt act of treason.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-46.html
Here’s what the punishment is for treason:
- Punishment for treason(2) Every one who commits treason is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
- (a) to be sentenced to imprisonment for life if he is guilty of an offence under paragraph 46(2)(a), (c) or (d);
- (b) to be sentenced to imprisonment for life if he is guilty of an offence under paragraph 46(2)(b) or (e) committed while a state of war exists between Canada and another country; or
- (c) to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years if he is guilty of an offence under paragraph 46(2)(b) or (e) committed while no state of war exists between Canada and another country.
- Corroboration(3) No person shall be convicted of high treason or treason on the evidence of only one witness, unless the evidence of that witness is corroborated in a material particular by evidence that implicates the accused.
- Minimum punishment(4) For the purposes of Part XXIII, the sentence of imprisonment for life prescribed by subsection (1) is a minimum punishment.
Notes:
Relevant excerpt from the Breitbart story:
“Smith also contended that the tariff war is harming conservatives’ chances in the upcoming election
Smith also contended that the tariff war is harming conservatives’ chances in the upcoming election that will be set by Trudeau’s successor.
“Are the Canadian people ready to go back the other way here and go away from the liberal side that we’ve seen under Trudeau and whoever replaces him?” Boyle asked Smith.
He noted in his question that a conservative prime minister would likely have a better working relationship with Trump than a liberal prime minister.
“Before the tariff war, I would say yes. I mean, Pierre Poilievre is the name of the Conservative Party leader, and he was miles ahead of Justin Trudeau. But because of what we see as unjust and unfair tariffs, it’s actually caused an increase in the support for the liberals,” Smith responded. “And so that’s what I fear, is that the longer this dispute goes on, politicians posture, and it seems to be benefiting the Liberals right now. So I would hope that we could put things on pause is what I’ve told administration officials. Let’s just put things on pause so we can get through an election.”
She told Boyle that Poilievre, as prime minister, would open the door to a number of opportunities between Canada and the United States.
“Let’s have the best person at the table make the argument… and I think that’s Pierre Poilievre, and I do agree with you that… if we do have Pierre as our prime minister, then I think that there’s a number of things that we could do together,” Smith detailed. “Pierre believes in development. He believes in low-cost energy. He believes that we need to have low taxes, doesn’t believe in any of the woke stuff that we’ve seen taking over our politics for the last five years.
“So I would think that there’d be, there’s probably still always going to be areas that are skirmishes or disputes about particular industries when it comes to the border, but I would say, on balance, the perspective that Pierre would bring would be very much in sync with, I think…the new direction in America,” she added. “And I think we’d have a really great relationship for the period of time they’re both in.”
~~~
There has been intense discussion in Canada about the optics and political ramifications of Smith’s actions.
“She’s talking about taking steps to harm the Liberals and to prevent tariffs in a political manner, to create a political outcome. She should be talking about stopping tariffs to protect Canadians, to just stop them entirely,” said NDP leader Jagmeet Singh. To me, it’s very shameful what she’s doing. She’s literally playing games with peoples’ lives. Like, this isn’t a game. The tariffs aren’t a game to win or lose elections.”
Pierre Poilievre, Conservative leader, said, “People are free to make their own comments. I speak for myself. Let’s talk about my agenda…”
Political columnists have unanimously condemned Smith’s statements.
“There’s nothing wrong with urging the Americans to suspend tariffs. Doing it with the goal of influencing Canada’s election is another matter entirely. In Canada’s current mood, Smith seems far too cosy with the adversary. Saying our national government should be in lockstep with Trump’s “new direction” could hardly be more tone-deaf. Now, she’s widely condemned on social media as a traitor to Canada. This isn’t the look Albertans deserve from their premier.” – Don Braid, Calgary Herald
~~~
“It’s a really ugly situation when a sitting Premier is trying to insert herself into the outcome of a federal election the way Ms. Smith appears to be. It’s offensive and wrong. It’s certainly no way for a provincial leader in Canada to behave in the midst of a national crisis” – Gary Mason, Globe and Mail
~~~
“Let’s state this plainly: a sitting Canadian premier says she asked our enemy — and there is no question, at this point, that America under the Trump administration is an enemy of a free and sovereign Canada — to alter policy in order to help elect a federal candidate who is better aligned with that enemy of the country. She didn’t even ask that the tariffs be removed, just paused.
It is the kind of astonishing carelessness of total political warfare with a resistance to reality. And the mistake would be to write it off as simple politics. You simply cannot argue that the United States is not the biggest threat to Canada’s existence in its recent history.” – Bruce Arthur, Toronto Star
~~~
Before the beginning of the trade war, Conservatives in the United States and around the world had been impressed by Poilievre.
Elon Musk, Trump’s powerful backer, repeatedly endorsed and praised Poilievre, giving him a crucial signal boost on Twitter.
And Trump also liked him. On Jan. 6, U.S. radio host Hugh Hewitt asked the U.S. president if he was looking forward to working with Poilievre.
“If that’s what happens, certainly it would be very good,” Trump said. “Our views would be more aligned certainly.”- Stephen Maher, Toronto Star
~~~
“If you were looking for an example of foreign interference in our elections, this is about as bad as it gets. Worse, Smith might not be alone in soliciting it. As journalist Stephen Maher noted in a recent Toronto Star column, “two unrelated sources close to the CPC war room tell me that Poilievre’s team had even floated going so far as trying to get a message to the White House in an attempt to persuade Trump to distance himself from Poilievre.” In what is surely a total coincidence, Trump ended up doing exactly that. In any sane and rational universe, Smith’s transparent treachery would be the end of her political career.” – Max Fawcett, National Observer
Links:
Breitbart interview with Smith, March 8, 2025: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/03/08/exclusive-canadian-premier-danielle-smith-trudeau-blew-tariff-negotiations-first-mar-a-lago-meeting/
Canada Criminal Code: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-46.html
Foreign interference, Canada Elections Act: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-2.01/section-282.4.html
Disclosure:
I am a retired reporter and very occasional opinion writer. After decades as a carefully non-partisan journalist, this year I joined the Liberal party in order to vote for Mark Carney in the party leadership election. Based on his book Value(s) and my own years of observing Carney in his various roles, I think he is the best leader to manage Canada’s multiple geopolitical, economic and environmental crises, and to defend Canada’s sovereignty.
–30–
You must be logged in to post a comment.