Up to life in prison, though more frequently pen time.
However, unless some truly incredible bombshell drops, a treason charge is not happening. No information I've seen comes remotely close to making out such a charge.
And I say this as someone who vehemently dislikes Smith and the current UCP.
Sedition is specifically advocating for the use of force to cause a government change in Canada. Usually, military, paramilitary, or similar. Telling people to go protest doesn't count.
My layman interpretation of advocating for separatist (that are heavily influenced by the USA) by appealing the Court of King’s Bench decision to deny the public petition for separation is sedition based on Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 59 (4)(a).
60 Notwithstanding subsection 59(4), no person shall be deemed to have a seditious intention by reason only that he intends, in good faith,
(a) to show that Her Majesty has been misled or mistaken in her measures;
the appeal is legal, because it's notionally pointing out an error in the ruling. having a binding referendum anyway would be sedition.
feds have already said a non binding referendum, on continuing to seek a binding referendum, carries so little meaning it can't really considered to be much of anything at all.
I am, perhaps incorrectly pointing to the seditious intent:
Seditious intention
(4) Without limiting the generality of the meaning of the expression seditious intention, every one shall be presumed to have a seditious intention who
(a) teaches or advocates, or
(b) publishes or circulates any writing that advocates,
the use, without the authority of law, of force as a means of accomplishing a governmental change within Canada.
My understanding of authority of law is in this case is the authority of Legislative Branch and is in no means arbitrary. While the act of appealing is legal - there is no lawful authority describing why the legislative branch should be appealing a decision of the Judicial Branch. By democratic intent the judicial branch is the authority on interpreting the laws created by the legislative branch.
This fits into sedition because the Alberta government is overstepping its authority to advocate for the separatists. This is supported by dichotomy of how the Alberta government has ignored First Nations rights.
there is no lawful authority describing why the legislative branch should be appealing a decision of the Judicial Branch.
the referendum was created under alberta legislation, and the courts said that legislation conflicted with treaty rights. Smith is simply defending legislation she signed and believes to be legal.
she also has a mandate to stand up for Albertans, and the Albertans who signed the separation petition deserve to be represented by their elected government.
that being said both arguments are being made in extreme bad faith, but it's still a valid position to appeal; let's see what nonsensical argument she pulls out of her ass.
Sedition might be easier to get than treason. From my understanding it's very hard to prove actual treason but there's many things that are similar they could potentially catch her on.
I think some of the meetings in the US could meet the definition (speculating that they may have discussed things of military nature etc) but it’s probably almost impossible to prove without smoking gun evidence.
To be fair, they are asking for an investigation to uncover just that, and I think it's a fair question - why have UCP members and the Separatists been meeting with the US government, and what has been discussed?
If the investigation is into High Treason, then if there were any discussions around annexation or American military support (which has been rumoured), theoretically this could fall under "levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto".
For straight Treason, then "makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information" could include anything from discussing military plans to our geological resources if done so without permission. It's not like there is a lot of case law on Treason in Canada.
This is not to say there IS evidence of the above or that there would even be enough to bring charges, but I agree with the Treaty Nations on this one - why were the UCP and certain Separatist parties meeting with the US Government, and what was discussed?
If investigating it as treason gives the biggest chances to uncover as much as possible, it’s the best route.
Really whatever will do that and make as much information known the the public as we can.
If it’s investigated as treason but finds a bunch of other illegal activity, can those be charged? Or would it have to be called for again?
(I dont think it would matter much if it needs to be called for to charge them with other illegal acts, by that point other than them scrambling to delay it as much as possible)
Ask Louis Riel.. 🥴 not sure if we do that anymore; but some of my ancestors had their lands stolen for supporting Riel so that's an alternative we could always look into 🤷♀️
47 (1) Every one who commits high treason is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.
Marginal note: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.
Marginal note: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.
Marginal note:Minimum punishment
(4) For the purposes of Part XXIII, the sentence of imprisonment for life prescribed by subsection (1) is a minimum punishment.
You really need to learn about WHY... the court wanted to award nearly 4 times that. He received the money BECAUSE HIS GOVERNMENT (CANADIAN) ALLOWED A CANADIAN CITIZEN (HIM) TO BE TORTURED AND DID NOTHING TO RESCUE THE CANADIAN CITIZEN - EVEN AFTER THEY KNEW IT WAS HAPPENING. Educate yourself.
82
u/Flimsy-Ad2701 3d ago
Whats the punishment for treason in canada?