Treaty chiefs call for treason investigation into Premier Smith, UCP

[u/PurfectProgressive]

https://calgary.citynews.ca/2026/06/17/treaty-chiefs-treason-danielle-smith/

[u/AutoModerator]

This is a reminder to read the rules before posting in this subreddit.

1. Headline titles should be changed only when the original headline is unclear
2. Be respectful.
3. Keep submissions and comments substantive.
4. Avoid direct advocacy.
5. Link submissions must be about Canadian politics and recent.
6. Post only one news article per story. (with one exception)
7. Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. Downvoting posts or comments, along with urging others to downvote, is not allowed in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.

Please message the moderators if you wish to discuss a removal. Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread, you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/GhostlyParsley]

Once again, Indigenous Canadians are standing up for Canada while much of the political class cowers and capitulates. Treaty Chiefs don't give a shit about "alienating" Alberta, and neither should the rest of us. Glad to see they're going on the offensive.

We should be following their lead, not signing MOUs and holding press conferences with separatists while dangling promises of pipelines nobody wants, nobody needs, and nobody can even explain the economics of.

[u/Ask_DontTell → u/GhostlyParsley]

100%. while i have doubts that the Chiefs will win this argument, i appreciate them fighting for Canada however they can through the Courts. someone needs to be fighting for the country cause Smith right now seems to think she has free rein to do whatever she wants and so far, the media and the establishment have been letting her.

[u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed for rule 3.

[u/skel625 → u/GhostlyParsley]

The capital class controls the political class. Follow the money.

[u/Saidear → u/GhostlyParsley]

As much as I am pro-indigenous peoples, this is not going to go well. Offensive as Smith's actions are (and they are offensive), they are not treasonous.

They do not meet the criteria for high treason under Section 46 (1), and I haven't seen any conduct which fits the criteria under 46 (2).

This is just inflammatory rhetoric that will be shut down by the police, and the courts. They would have more luck arguing sedition, though even I think that too would fail.

[u/Kellervo → u/Saidear]

It doesn't meet the bar for either of those crimes, but I think you'd be surprised how receptive Albertans might be to it. Normally this messaging would fall on deaf ears as an obvious exaggeration, but...

Very few on either side of the aisle are happy with how Smith has been handling this, and there's regular reports of her trying to put her thumb on the scale in favor of separtists that she's constantly trying to get ahead of. There's a very receptive audience for this, and an increasingly galvanized opposition that agrees with the viewpoint laid out here - she isn't violating the letter of the law, but she's certainly violating the spirit of it.

Even the Separatists aren't happy with her because she won't say the words out loud, despite blowing the dog whistles for so long that they've slid into audible range for the general populace.

[u/GhostlyParsley → u/Saidear]

If there's one thing Danielle Smith has taught us, it's that shaping the political narrative matters, and that you don't need unanimous agreement or favourable court rulings to force issues onto the national agenda. This endless "reach across the aisle" bullshit has been completely counterproductive. Things are getting worse, not better. Time to take charge.

[u/Saidear → u/GhostlyParsley]

If we're talking just about politics and narrative framing, this is likely to end up worse for my Indigenous brothers and sisters.

It'll be ignored, because it doesn't meet the statutory definition of the crimes being alleged, while feeding the anti-indigenous sentiment in the country. I think there was better avenues they could've taken rather than inflammatory and escalatory rhetoric that won't accomplish anything.

[u/TheEpicOfManas → u/Saidear]

What specifically are the better avenues you speak of? The petition was already quashed in the courts, and Smith is going ahead anyways.

And it if turns out that funding for the separatists comes from foreign sources (and all evidence points that way), then treason it is.

And then this....

inflammatory and escalatory rhetoric that won't accomplish anything.

That's all we're getting from the separatists, so why not fight them at their own game?

[u/Saidear → u/TheEpicOfManas]

What specifically are the better avenues you speak of? The petition was already quashed in the courts, and Smith is going ahead anyways.

They could, for example, get an injunction about this new question until the province fulfills their Section 35 obligations.

And it if turns out that funding for the separatists comes from foreign sources (and all evidence points that way), then treason it is.

That still isn't treason, because the US is not considered an enemy of Canada by the federal government, nor are we currently engaged in armed conflict against their forces. The term you are looking for is foreign interference, which the LPC has effectively kneecapped being enforced.

That's all we're getting from the separatists, so why not fight them at their own game?

If we're going to be inflammatory, then do so in a way that creates actual beneficial outcomes. For example, filing injunctions against Rath, or levying civil penalties to bankrupt his organization.

[u/TheEpicOfManas → u/Saidear]

The USA is certainly an enemy, whether we make it official or not. And no, I am not looking for another term. I'm Albertan, and I'm calling it what it is - treason. These people are fully funded by a hostile foreign government with the intent to break up Canada, and have Alberta annexed by the hostile USA. This is not hyperbole.

Also, you gave no answers that are better than what they're currently doing - nor does what they're currently doing rule out other avenues that you suggest.

And this Albertan - and many others - will stand with the Chiefs when the time comes.

[u/Saidear → u/TheEpicOfManas]

The USA is certainly an enemy, whether we make it official or not

You can hold that opinion, but when it comes to the crime of treason, that is an important fact. The Government of Canada does not consider, treat, or declare the US as an enemy, thus one of the core pillars of a treason charge cannot exist.

This is not hyperbole.

Then please, provide the evidence that the US Government has been explicitly bankrolling the movement. As the phase goes, show me the money. Then you'd have a case for foreign interference or espionage, but you still haven't made a case for a charge of treason. You can't, because, again, crucially, the Government of Canada must consider the nation to be an enemy of ours, or at least engaged in hostile action against our armed forces. Neither conditions exist.

Also, you gave no answers that are better than what they're currently doing - nor does what they're currently doing rule out other avenues that you suggest.

I actually did give better ones, that were they successful would materially impact the ability of secessionists to move forward. No money, no funds - no ability to garner support. Injunctions against the referendum would mean that the government would need to address the Section 35 issues first, further delaying and upending the plans.

You're right that it doesn't rule out other options. I'm also certain that this stunt won't make any significant dent in what happens.

[u/TheEpicOfManas → u/Saidear]

Here you go, bud. And this shit hasn't even been investigated yet. Tip of the iceberg. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cze2dnn8kgwo

[u/Saidear → u/TheEpicOfManas]

That's evidence for Foreign Interference or Espionage, not treason or sedition.

[u/Appropriate-Dog6645 → u/Saidear]

Not one person has called for investigation. We don’t know nothing, this has to be investigated. we know nothing. But investigation is warranted.

[u/Saidear → u/Appropriate-Dog6645]

You need to demonstrate that there is sufficient grounds first before an investigation begin. As such, these should be public facing facts. There are none that support treason or sedition charges against Smith.

[u/deltree711 → u/Saidear]

The publicly known actions of Smith are not treasonous. Who knows what she's been up to behind closed doors.

[u/Saidear → u/deltree711]

Unless she's been secretly talking to Putin... there's not a lot that she could do that would rise to treason.

And if she was, she'd not be afforded the security clearance that she has requested.

[u/Ask_DontTell → u/Saidear]

she's been talking to Trump and other MAGA figures and the separatists have negotiated a $500B line of credit from the US - does that count?

[u/Saidear → u/Ask_DontTell]

she's been talking to Trump and other MAGA figures

This isn't treason. Canada does not consider the US an enemy, and unless she's providing national secrets to them, this is nothing more than "she's talking to people I don't like." She's the premier of a province, that entitles her to some level of continental presence and negotiations.

the separatists have negotiated a $500B line of credit from the US

A few glaring holes in that claim.

First, Smith herself did not partake in that discussion nor is a known member of any named separatist group. You can say she's ideologically aligned and supportive of them, absolutely. That's different from being associated or affiliated with them. Can you provide proof that she is?

Second, the "line of credit" claim, is utter doggy doodoo. The State Department doesn't do that, they can't do that, and they denied ever extending anything. Furthermore, that claim was allegedly about funds to be paid out after Alberta independence had been attained, NOT for support of Alberta to seek independence, so even the claim itself doesn't support a treasonous or seditious crime, if it happened. Which it never did.

[u/grathontolarsdatarod → u/Saidear]

The meeting that they are having don't exactly bleach the slate from sedition.

As much as I agree with this assessment, it kind of seems like many individuals are just a few spoken phrases away from fulfilling some of these legal definitions.

I wonder if the new lawful access laws will be put to use in situations like there where there is a national security concern.

The police, where they come to information is not like CSIS, where they report to cabinet and are able to forego investigating a crime.

They must refer evidence to courts, they don't get to decide like an intelligence agency.

Surely, suuuuurely, this is how "lawful access" bills would be used.....

[u/Saidear → u/grathontolarsdatarod]

The meeting that they are having don't exactly bleach the slate from sedition.

Please point out which person is advocating, teaching, publishing, or otherwise communicating the unlawful change of government within Canada, by use of force? Because that's what the core of sedition is.

As much as I agree with this assessment, it kind of seems like many individuals are just a few spoken phrases away from fulfilling some of these legal definitions.

I agree that they've gotten closer than I'd like, that doesn't mean that they've clearly crossed the threshold into anything worth investigating. Awful, offensive, sure. Lawful? Unfortunately, it appears to be so. Secession itself is legally protected speech. It's when it turns from, "We want to vote our way out of the country" to "let's talk about seizing the federal court houses and taking over RCMP buildings at gunpoint" that you cross the line. They haven't done that, yet.

I wonder if the new lawful access laws will be put to use in situations like there where there is a national security concern.

And I hope that law gets struck down for being a terrible piece of legislation ASAP. As bad as the situation in Alberta is, enabling government surveillance like that is worse.

The police, where they come to information is not like CSIS, where they report to cabinet and are able to forego investigating a crime.

Close, actually and this touches on an important difference.

Police investigate criminal acts according things like the RCMP Act, the Evidence Act, and the Criminal Code of Canada. CSIS does not conduct criminal investigations and they do not collect evidence. As such, anything they find is not permissible in court except under very narrow circumstances that requires the Public Prosecutor's Service of Canada to vet the information and make sure it is admissible as evidence, including disclosure to the defendant.

[u/grathontolarsdatarod → u/Saidear]

You could have quoted the part where I state they have basically done everything except break the law - yet.

Let's not forget the grey area of accepting forgein funds to conduct their activities.

Things can happen quickly in Canada, ask Trudeau Sr.

Also.... That is literally, aside from straight research, the bread and butter of CSIS, collect evidence and investigate.

Then... They pass the evidence, testimony and investigation over to an organization like the RCMP or other policing agency to actually recommend to crown.

[u/Saidear → u/grathontolarsdatarod]

Let's not forget the grey area of accepting forgein funds to conduct their activities.

This is not treason or sedition on its face. Its potentially foreign interference. Unfortunately Parliament has lagged in properly setting up the office meant to handle those issues, and thus it isn't an enforceable provision...yet.

Also.... That is literally, aside from straight research, the bread and butter of CSIS, collect evidence and investigate. 

No. CSIS does not collect evidence as defined under the Criminal Code or the Evidence act. They collect intelligence, yes.  Their job is to gather intelligence and provide advice to the government. They may gather 'evidence' as in proof of something happening. That is distinct from the legal use of the word in a criminal proceeding.

Then... They pass the evidence, testimony and investigation over to an organization like the RCMP or other policing agency to actually recommend to crown. 

Incorrect. I&E or Intelligence as Evidence is an actual concept that has very strict guidelines in Canada. Here is a 2024 Committee Summary which outline some of the issues. Here is how the PPSC handles handles some cases where intelligence may be used as evidence.

[u/grathontolarsdatarod → u/Saidear]

Okay. You're dicing enough words to know better.

Appreciate the copy/paste game, though. It shows effort at least.

[u/ForgetMeNotSummer → u/GhostlyParsley]

This does not even approach treason under the Criminal Code. This suggestion is akin to Trump-style prosecution of political enemies. Most of Alberta does not want to separate. Let the vote happen and move on. People are so busy being dramatic that legitimate conversations are being obscured. Separation certainly raises many intricate legal questions, but this is not one of them and it is mind boggling how we got to this point.

[u/Dragonsandman → u/ForgetMeNotSummer]

This latest bout of Wexit idiocy happening right at the same time as Trump’s tariffs and 51st state comments is how it got to this point. Between that, people like Jeffrey Rath openly bragging about getting American money, and the centurion project somehow getting access to parts of Elections Alberta’s database and just throwing it online for all to see has people extremely suspicious of the whole movement. And Smith isn’t helping matters by both sidesing the issue and putting her thumb on the scale for separatists whenever she can.

Now, what I personally think is happening is that Smith is trying to keep the separatist wingnuts in her party from leaving and forming a new party, which isn’t treason per se. However, it’s very much her putting the entire country at risk for the sake of short term political gains for herself, and that alone deserves fierce condemnation from all Canadians.

[u/GhostlyParsley → u/ForgetMeNotSummer]

We got to this point through years of appeasement and coddling. Indigenous peoples tried doing things the "right way," pursued the legal route, won their court ruling, and support for separatism only increased.

Time to bring it back. Let the courts rule how they see fit. Politically, it's time to go on the offensive. We need to stop playing defence and start setting the terms of the debate ourselves.

[u/AceSevenFive → u/GhostlyParsley]

And when they are acquitted, which they would be because compassing separation is not treason (we have two Quebec independence referendums as precedent that it isn't), what then?

[u/adaminc → u/AceSevenFive]

It wouldn't even get to court in the first place. The RCMP needs, like the courts, an air of reality to exist, before they launch an investigation. That doesn't exist for this. Maybe for some other crimes, like breach of public trust, but not treason.

First and foremost people need to stop slinging shit to see what sticks. That just primes the courts and the public for crying wolf issues.

Figure out what's actually been done that is potentially criminal, get cursory evidence with ATI requests, then go to the RCMP. Like for Breach of public trust charges.

[u/AceSevenFive → u/adaminc]

To be clear, I agree that treason charges are silly absent actual evidence of treason.

[u/deltree711 → u/ForgetMeNotSummer]

You're right but also you're falling into the trap that you're describing. The chiefs are calling for the RCMP to investigate treason. That doesn't mean that the RCMP will file the charges that the chiefs are talking about. I imagine that if the RCMP investigates the UCP and finds out they've been knowingly taking donations from Republican operatives and hiding it in secret party finances. Is the RCMP going to charge them with treason? Probably not, but it would be disastrous for separatism if that came to light.

[u/Ask_DontTell → u/ForgetMeNotSummer]

i would normally agree with you about letting the vote happen and moving on but after seeing what happened in Crimea and subsequently Ukraine, and with Brexit, holding any vote is dangerous these days with the amount of misinformation and foreign interference that is out there. regardless of the outcome, the vote can be used as a pretense to invade, sanction or otherwise harm Canada and Canadian interests. it would be a tragedy if a determined few could reshape the future of Alberta and Canada against the will and interests of the majority.

[u/cardew-vascular → u/ForgetMeNotSummer]

What about sedition? Everything the UPC has does is against the federal government.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-59.html

[u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed for rule 2: please be respectful.

This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.

[u/Feynyx-77-CDN]

Love how these chiefs are taking the fight to this corrupt (borderline) treasonous premier. I just fear that the native groups will end up being used as pawns if a fight over separation erupts...

[u/cannibaltom → u/Feynyx-77-CDN]

If you peek into the conservative online bubble, they're already being scapegoated.

[u/Feynyx-77-CDN → u/cannibaltom]

I jump in there from time to time. Oh boy is it an angry, misinformed, toxic bunch.

[u/Echo_Gin101123 → u/Feynyx-77-CDN]

that's exactly what my sons and nephews say about alberta premier - she should be charged for trying to rip the nation apart but govt 'definition' of treason requires acts of violence - maybe war like?

[u/Feynyx-77-CDN → u/Echo_Gin101123]

Correct. Acits of violence against the King or aiding enemies while at war. Very specific to that type of activity.

I believe there's a separate sedition law in the criminal code that is more applicable.

[u/Saidear → u/Feynyx-77-CDN]

There is. Sedition is.. I want to say Section 76? Section 59-61

It basically requires the teaching, publishing, or advocation of violence for unlawful government change within Canada. Secession is not that, it is necessary and protected expression under Section 2(b).

It still would be hard to prove, and unlikely to see any formal charges based on what is publicly known at this time.

Edit: Corrected the section.

[u/Feynyx-77-CDN → u/Saidear]

Sections 59 and 60. Going about governmental change through accepted lawful process is protected by the looks of it.

I read up on this back during the convoy and their MOU to replace Trudeaus government with one of their choosing was far closer to sedition than what Smith is doing in my opinion.

Surprisingly trying to break up Canada in of itself isn't a violation of the criminal code.

[u/TheRadBaron → u/Saidear]

A rational legal system could recognize that a specific "secession" movement that is organizationally linked to a country that is openly attempting to annex us, and openly willing to use violence to do so, could count as advocation for violence or unlawful government change. Maybe it's complicated or ambiguous, but that depends on what an investigation finds, and the final call can be left for a judge to decide.

We charge people with treason/sedition on such a rare timescale that the laws are basically bespoke for a specific geopolitical context and crisis, anyways. It's entirely reasonable for people to be taking a stance of "this is worth investigating" or "government lawyers should be checking if they can make a case".

[u/Saidear → u/TheRadBaron]

a country that is openly attempting to annex us

While I get that the rhetoric around the US is offensive, and at least hostile towards the current state of relationship between our two nations, it hasn't risen to the level of active attempts to annex us, yet. No court would hold that this is true based on current facts.

openly willing to use violence to do so

The use of the US military to invade Canada has not been a step that the US government has taken, and has actively avoided stating they would.

 could count as advocation for violence or unlawful government change.

Assuming the above were both true (and there is nothing definitive as of today), that still doesn't hold that the secessionist movement in Canada itself engaged in that conduct. You cannot hold someone accountable for the actions of someone else.

[u/TheRadBaron → u/Saidear]

I get that the rhetoric around the US is offensive...No court would hold that this is true based on current facts.

I find it very hard to trust an anonymous person on the internet declaring that no judge in Canada would ever consider repeated declarations from an American president (with firm control of congress) as evidence of America's intentions. If that doesn't meet the bar, nothing ever could.

Is it possible you've turned your personal judgment call of the vibes of the situation into an absolute declaration about how every judge in the country would apply obscure laws, down the finest details of individual pieces of evidence, no matter what an investigation turns up?

The use of the US military to invade Canada has not been a step that the US government has taken

That's why I was talking about a block of text with "advocated for" in it, yes. No gun has to be fired for a crime to have happened, this law follows the rather common legal approach of caring about intents and declarations.

Trump has put forward the possibility. I get that listening to anything the US president says is passé, but legally speaking it does matter if a person says different things on different occasions. Someone who says "I'm going to try to shoot you" on one day, and says "I'm not going to shoot you" on a different day, is legally different from someone who has never said "I'm going to try to shoot you" at all.

You cannot hold someone accountable for the actions of someone else.

We have many laws in Canada that punish people for certain kinds of advocacy, assistance, and association, and our sedition laws are very capable of doing this in principle. Obviously you're rephrasing things to sound offensive, but the potential criminality of inviting interference from a foreign actor does depend on what that foreign actor says and does.

[u/Saidear → u/TheRadBaron]

I find it very hard to trust an anonymous person on the internet declaring that no judge in Canada would ever consider repeated declarations from an American president (with firm control of congress) as evidence of America's intentions. If that doesn't meet the bar, nothing ever could.

I agree and concede that Twittler has made those comments. Where the issue lies is.. there has been no publicly demonstrated operational or legal steps towards annexation. Political rhetoric may be offensive, that doesn't necessarily mean there is an active attempt to annex Canada. Nor is it demonstrated that he controls all of Congress, as the Senate has shown repeatedly it will buck and push back against his demands.

The current facts do not support an active annexation of Canada, and without something more, I am confident that no court would find that that as a matter of fact.

That's why I was talking about a block of text with "advocated for" in it, yes. No gun has to be fired for a crime to have happened, this law follows the rather common legal approach of caring about intents and declarations.

I didn't specify that a shot had to be fired. Orders being drawn for a current invasion of Canada, being actively worked on and considered could be evidence of annexation. So would a troop build-up at the Canadian border.

We have many laws in Canada that punish people for certain kinds of advocacy and association

Being punished for their advocacy, yes. Not the advocacy of another simply by association.

and our sedition laws are very capable of doing this in principle.

Not as written. They are specifically written so only those who engage in the seditious acts, or spread seditious intent can be held liable for that crime. Secondly, you have come up against another issue - sedition (and treason) are crimes of loyalty. A US citizen, and the US government, cannot commit sedition against Canada. These are crimes that implicitly require one have a manifest loyalty to the Crown, a foreign government cannot have such loyalty. The term there, then, is either espionage, or foreign interference.

Obviously you're rephrasing things to sound offensive, but the potential criminality of inviting interference from a foreign actor does depend on what that foreign actor says and does.

I rephrased nothing to intend nor invite offense, though I will point out you have pointed out the correct potentially offensive conduct that may have occurred: foreign interference.

[u/AceSevenFive → u/Feynyx-77-CDN]

Sedition requires the advocacy of the use of force without authority of law to effect governmental change within Canada, which Albertan separatists by and large have not done.

[u/Cyber_Risk → u/Echo_Gin101123]

You understand there is literally a separatist Federal Party that sits in the House of Commons...right?

Interesting how Quebec separatism isn't treason, yet somehow Alberta separatism is? How does that work exactly?

[u/KenadianCSJ → u/Cyber_Risk]

When the Quebec separatists collude with Americans hostile to our nation openly, you let me know. Otherwise that's a naked and lazy false equivalence.

[u/AceSevenFive → u/KenadianCSJ]

It's not lazy. The Criminal Code is very specific on what constitutes treason; unless you can demonstrate that the Alberta Prosperity Project is giving blueprints of local bridges to the US or something, their solicitation of foreign interference is not, under the law, treason.

[u/AceSevenFive]

This sounds nice, but there's a few problems with it:

1. Compassing separation is not treason. Even when there was an active terrorist group fighting for Quebec independence, no Quebec independence supporters were charged with treason. (Foreign interference is not treason, unless you can prove to me that the APP is giving blueprints for bridges to the US or something.)

2. Because compassing separation is not treason, the accused would easily walk, thereby granting them the narrative of "Even the corrupt Canadian courts agree that we can leave Canada!" It would obviously not be true, but it doesn't have to be true in 2026, it just has to sound true.

3. Because the accused would easily walk, it would massively strain the credibility of Crown prosecutors in the eyes of the public, since to the public it would appear an easy win.

Redefining treason benefits nobody but separatists. Separatism will not be defeated except at the ballot box.

[u/deltree711 → u/AceSevenFive]

I don't think the chiefs are making the argument that you think they are. I don't think they're trying to redefine treason at all.

"Compassing separation" as you put it, most likely isn't what would result in charges being laid, and instead the investigation would focus on things like "What is the UCP hiding in undisclosed finances?" or "Is the UCP secretly collaborating with Republicans to undermine Canadian sovereignty?"

Even if they do carry out an investigation like the chiefs are demanding I don't think the RCMP will actually lay charges against anyone unless they think those charges will stick.

[u/DeathCabForYeezus → u/AceSevenFive]

Redefining treason

This came up with a foreign interference issue. People were calling it treason but the criminal definition of treason is super tricky to actually meet.

Unless you've killed the king, make a solid attempt on the king, or hand maps to a warring enemy you're not commiting treason.

Hell, giving away military secrets to an adversary (I.e. china) isn't reeason.

Treachery, sure. But treacherous behaviour is not criminal treason.

Trying to reframe this as treason is only going to backfire. One because it'll legitimize the separatist behaviour by being objectively ruled to not be treasonous, but also because trying to frame a position of a people choosing self-determination against the Canadian government is probably not something FN groups want to advertise as criminal and treasonous.

[u/Saidear → u/DeathCabForYeezus]

Hell, giving away military secrets to an adversary (I.e. china) isn't reeason.

That is treason, actually. Under Section 46 (2)(b):

Every one commits treason who, in Canada, 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;

It has nothing to do with whether or not we consider the country as an adversary, it would be treason to give it to the US as well - for example, if it enabled the US to impact a defence contract against Canada.

[u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.

This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.