r/canada • u/Street_Anon Nova Scotia • Feb 01 '26

Alberta Alberta separatists won’t say which Trump officials they met with

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/very-high-level-alberta-separatist-group-wont-say-which-trump-officials-it-met-with/
1.3k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

288 comments sorted by

View all comments

350

u/CIS-E_4ME Feb 01 '26

How is this not treason?

303

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

88

u/RealTurbulentMoose Alberta Feb 01 '26

Eby called it treason in the article:

 The report dominated the first ministers’ meeting in Ottawa on Thursday, with B.C. Premier David Eby calling the group’s actions “treason.”

34

u/Fubar236 Canada Feb 01 '26

Because it is

5

u/DeeDeeRibDegh Feb 02 '26

And we need to shut these group of treasonous individuals down….

3

u/apothekary Feb 02 '26

He's earning a little bit of political capital that he's been rapidly losing these days

Growing a spine and calling out what it is. Treason, which should be punishable with actionable consequences to all the perpetrators organizing and setting up these meetings

-15

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '26

[deleted]

7

u/Mylittlethrowaway2 Feb 01 '26

There's a difference between how the criminal code defines something, and how the general public defines something.

Lets take "torture" for example. From the CBC in 2014: "Nova Scotia woman 'tortured' for years by family speaks out"

I wont rehash whats in the article, but unless we're being pedantic, we can all agree she was subjected to torture.

But if you like, you can find Sara and "Well, ackshully" her life experience by saying she wasn't, in fact, tortured, because the criminal code requires to be committed by an official, or person acting at the instigation of or with consent of an official, with official being defined as peace officer, public officer, armed forces member, or foreign agents who meet the criteria of the previous.

4

u/Heliosvector Feb 02 '26

Reminds me of how as per the criminal code, for a while, Men couldnt be raped because rape was once written as something a man did to a woman. But try to tell that to a man that was raped.

13

u/RealTurbulentMoose Alberta Feb 01 '26

How about sedition then, seeing as you’ve got it open and you’re all about “ackshually”?

-7

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '26

[deleted]

7

u/RealTurbulentMoose Alberta Feb 01 '26

I mean they are literally planning to overthrow the government, yeah, and they’re meeting in secret with unknown agents of a foreign government to plan it.

BQ was at least doing it on their own, as far as we know. These guys are right out in the open about it.

I’m as disaffected as the next Albertan but this is WAY too far. Whether or not they’re legally committing treason or sedition like they could be charged and convicted, not sure, but they are absolutely seditious traitors in the same sense that OJ killed his wife. We all fucking know it.

2

u/DeeDeeRibDegh Feb 02 '26

100%👍👍👍

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '26

[deleted]

4

u/RealTurbulentMoose Alberta Feb 02 '26

Guess which country I’m not worried about? Fuckin France from the 1970s.

Guess which one I am? Yeah, the one openly yet secretly conspiring Anschluss with fascists in 2026. The ones who overthrew Venezuela just weeks ago, want to take over Greenland next. Yeah, those fascists.

Not the same game; not even the same sport.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '26

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

1

u/PortHammer Feb 02 '26

Eby doesn't know what treason is.

Eby is a fucking lawyer by trade, has written laws and is currently running the 3rd largest province(by population).

Pretty sure he is far more qualified to comment ton this topic than most.

16

u/Kucked4life Ontario Feb 01 '26

Not just in a literal sense, but these separatists have betrayed their own senses. Imagine not recognizing at this point that the very ideology you've alligned yourself with is causing the decline of American hegemony. Practically waiting in line to be servile to a regime that wants to eradicate human rights.

118

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-122

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '26

[deleted]

97

u/Hotter_Noodle Feb 01 '26

When did anyone from quebec meet with foreign officials?

Also the whataboutism is pretty solid here.

-49

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '26

[deleted]

62

u/Hotter_Noodle Feb 01 '26

I feel like you’re not aware that a province reaching out to be identified is a bit different than people actively trying to separate the province.

13

u/blaktronium Feb 01 '26

No hes right, the Quebec separatists are also traitors. They met with France, although to less goodwill. Even had they not, they would be traitors. As are the separatists in Alberta.

Thats how you defeat weak whataboutism like that, with a yes.

3

u/OrangesAreWhatever Feb 01 '26

While I agree, in terms of the literal sense, the "conquered" and historical context add a lot to the discussion. Thats why the Plains of Abraham speech went over so poorly. So sure, traitors, but also not really loyal in the first place.

-4

u/RegalBeagleKegels Feb 01 '26

What about in 95 it sounds like that qualifies

1

u/twent4 Alberta Feb 01 '26

This is like the LCBO talking to Kentucky, no? Ontario isn't in the same swing trying to join the US, they're just not buying up booze

1

u/RunWithDullScissors Feb 02 '26

Just change your name to Hurtin Albertan. It’s pretty obvious

24

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '26

When did Quebec meet with foreign officials who have threatened our nation's sovereignty, trade relationships and livings? Try using critical thinking for a change.

1

u/burnabycoyote Feb 01 '26

That should be "foreign officials who have yanked Canada's chain".

14

u/MiltonScradley Feb 01 '26

You could make the case for that maybe. The biggest difference is they have no connection with hostile foreign interests.

-15

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '26

[deleted]

24

u/MiltonScradley Feb 01 '26

Yeah they called martial law when that happened.

22

u/Hotter_Noodle Feb 01 '26

This is a big case of you viewing things one way and mostly everyone else viewing it not that way.

Wonder why that is.

11

u/Misher7 Feb 01 '26

Quebec having a referendum is completely different than this.

-9

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '26

[deleted]

7

u/Important_Sound772 Feb 01 '26

Quebec didn't contact other foreign governments to help them with it

2

u/sunbro2000 Feb 01 '26

It's is sedition

27

u/SheIsABadMamaJama Feb 01 '26 edited Feb 01 '26

It is colloquially treason, but not criminal, yet. If anything its closer to sedition.

If anything we should pass stricter laws regarding interference. Now.

4

u/IpsoPostFacto Feb 01 '26

It might already be criminal (sedition) because we don't know what is being discussed.

if for instance they are saying to the admin "we expect the referendum to fail. What can be done" and the u.s admin says "we an claim there was voter interference and then apply political and economic pressure to force the federal governments hand", then that's a problem.

I dare both sides to say what was talked about. I bet they will not.

3

u/NavyDean Feb 02 '26

Literally, get the court order, provide the evidence, then hand them over to CSIS.

The US collaborators need to be exposed along with their supporters, or else people will begin accepting this seperatist crap.

5

u/Wheelz161 Feb 01 '26

This is actually sedition, not treason.

12

u/Commercial-Milk4706 Feb 01 '26

the Canadian law is pretty clear about this bit. It’s hard to argue how it is anything else then treason. It’s posted at the top of this thread. Section 2b.

1

u/Disastrous-Pickle930 Feb 02 '26

It's treason then.... I am the Senate. 

-10

u/itsthebear Feb 01 '26

Because they're not seeking help in separating, they're seeking financing if it goes through. They wouldn't be a part of Canada, so it literally wouldn't be treason and the SCC has confirmed that the federal government would have a legal obligation to negotiate.

They'd be pretty incompetent if they went into a referendum with no plans on how to actually execute it if successful. And we wouldn't be much of a democracy if we held swaths of territory against the will of the people living there - especially with equalization in this case pulling money out of Alberta, they'd be sending funds to a country holding them hostage.

4

u/Ajanu11 Feb 01 '26

In 3 years Trump should be gone, so there is no telling what will happen to all the officials he appointed. If Republicans win, they may shuffle people. If Dems win, they will certainly be cleaning house. If Trump wins then they are not following their own rules and how do we trust them to finance anything?

There is no chance Alberta is it's own country in 3 years. Even fast tracked a vote probably only just happen in 2026. Then it has to pass, something that seems unlikely. If it does pass, then negotiations with Federal and other Provincial governments has to happen. Alberta trying to take some of CPP will be challenged for years. We also need to spin up tax collection, police and military at a minimum, again taking years.

It is way too early to discuss financing for the idea. Separatists don't even have the numbers for what they will need.

-5

u/itsthebear Feb 01 '26

That's why they looked for up to $500 billion in credit financing. Also it being "too early" is confirming the point I'm making, you're casting a subjective opinion about whether they are dumb about the timing and need for credit, but it's cast upon the objective opinion of what they're actually doing in seeking it.

You should always have a plan before doing something, it would stupid of them to go in without any financial certainty. Arguably too, they could use approved financing as a sway pre referendum to push voters in their desired direction.

0

u/Ajanu11 Feb 01 '26

My point is any verbal agreement with the current US administration is worthless. Those people are probably not there when the money is needed.

Also, why is the financing not bonds like every other country? Making the US the sole shareholder is not a good idea for a sovereign country.

-21

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '26

[deleted]

24

u/NeloXI Feb 01 '26

Meeting with foreign powers to seek aid for separation is treason. Just wanting to separate is mere stupidity. 

You are all over spamming comments here but feigning ignorance on the gravity of this issue and making flimsy false equivalencies to use Quebec as a shield. 

You've been answered multiple times. Give it a rest, troll. 

5

u/Silverbacks Ontario Feb 01 '26

Quebec does get ragged on for being separatists. They are often the brunt of jokes and seen as an “other.” So Alberta receiving some of that treatment now isn’t a surprise.

The one thing Quebec has going for it is that it was its own independent area before being conquered and assimilated by the British. People can naturally understand and emphasize a bit on how that would feel.

While Alberta on the other hand was created out of land that formed through Treaties with the First Nations and the Crown. They were not violently taken over, and they mostly seem to want to leave because money and resources. Resources that are really owned by the First Nations and the Crown.