Ian Holloway: Separatism isn't treason, but it's still a betrayal
Any Alberta government politician who supports a referendum ought to resign
By: Ian Holloway
Separatism is having a moment in Canada again. After shying away from the issue for almost a decade, the Parti Québécois is on a bit of a roll and has won back to back to back by-elections since placing the issue on their front burner once more.
But the real heat these days is coming from Alberta. The Republican Party of Alberta claims that an astonishing 40 per cent of the government caucus supports the Alberta independence movement. This is almost certainly wildly exaggerated, but it seems clear that some MLAs have signed the petition demanding a referendum on independence. CTV has reported that lawyer Jeffrey Rath, who has become a self-anointed spokesman for the separatist mob, has asserted as much: “It shouldn’t surprise anybody that UCP MLAs are signing the petition”. And, he claims, more are to come: “We’re confident that more of them will [sign], because they believe in allowing Albertans to have a say in their future.”
Predictably, some people have raised the T word — “Treason”. So what’s the score? Have the elected Albertan independentistes been conducting themselves like latter-day Lord Ha Ha’s? The short answer is no. These legislators need not fear any legal consequences from being outed as being in favour of breaking up the country. Section 46 of the Criminal Code of Canada says that the crime of Treason must involve either acts of violence or providing military or scientific information to hostile foreign powers. Simply signing a petition, however ill-founded it may be, doesn’t meet the threshold of Treason with a capital “T.”
So that’s the law — the “lock ‘em up and throw away the key in cases of Treason” kind of law, that is. But there is a deeper legal issue at play here. And in some ways it is even more troubling than the provisions of the Criminal Code. And that is whether, by signing the independence petition, these MLAs have violated their oaths of office.
To many, including undoubtedly many of the separatists who say that they want to make Alberta a republic, the idea of an oath having any real legal meaning seems at best quaintly anachronistic. But the reality is that the whole of our legal and governmental system depends upon it.
When a witness gives evidence in court, the principal safeguard against perjury is requiring them to swear or affirm that they will tell the truth. It may seem archaic in 2026 to ask witnesses to put their hand on a Holy book (as most still do; relatively few affirm) and swear that they will tell “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. But that’s how we do it. The ritualistic public affirmation that one will do one’s duty to the rule of law is the glue that holds the adjudicative system together.
If that’s true, why should it be any different in the political system? Again, it may sound old-fashioned, but what basis do we have for believing that our elected legislators will serve us, rather than themselves, other than that having them publicly promise to do so in an ancient ceremony?
Which leads us back to the Alberta MLAs who apparently want to see Alberta quit Canada and become a republic. When they took their seats, each of them promised, as required by the Oaths of Office Act, that they would be “faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty the King”. The King of Canada, that is. Does signing a petition that asks, “Do you agree that the Province of Alberta should cease to be a part of Canada to become an independent state?” fulfil that obligation? Call me naive, but it seems pretty obvious that the answer is no.
The only conclusion is that these MLAs are either hypocrites for knowingly violating their oaths, or stupid for not understanding them in the first place. In either case, they have shown themselves unfit to sit in the Legislature. It may not be Treason with a capital “T”, but it is disloyalty to the solemn oath they took all the same. Instead of continuing to live a parliamentary lie, what they should do is have the courage to resign their seats and fight for what they say (or the Alberta Republican Party, anyway, says) they believe in.
When asked about this, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith told CTV’s Vassy Kapelos that her MLAs can say or do what they like. “I don’t police the responses of my MLAs, they can sign whatever petition that they want,” she said.
With the greatest of respect to the Premier, this is a terrible answer. Of course, they cannot “sign whatever petition they want”. If the petition were one to institute, say, a system of apartheid in Alberta, then I’m certain that she would care about that. So why is this petition any different? It isn’t, of course, and Ms. Smith is failing in her duty for not calling it out.
The truth is that the Premier is trying to ride two horses at once. “A sovereign Alberta in a unified Canada”, which she tells us is her goal, is an oxymoron. It’s also a thinly-disguised attempt at blackmail. When CTV’s Kapelos pressed her on whether she wants Alberta to remain part of Canada, Smith replied: “We need to see some action on the part of the part of the federal government” and “I’m sympathetic to the million Albertans who have lost hope that this isn’t a real change of heart on the federal government’s part.”
No offence, Madam Premier, but that’s not how patriotism works. You don’t make your love of country conditional on the vicissitudes of the political party in office in Ottawa. I happen to share the view that Alberta has been given a raw deal by successive federal governments and by the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal elites. But that doesn’t mean that I hate Canada and want to break it up. No, what I want to do is change how the rest of the country sees us, and to make it truly value what Alberta brings to the federation.
The bottom line is that Ms. Smith needs to pick a lane. If she favours independence for Alberta, she owes it to Albertans to say so, and then to make that case. But if she truly believes in Canada, then she needs to say that clearly and unequivocally, and then set the ground rules for her caucus. If that results in her getting bounced by her Party, so be it. At least then, she can say that she was loyal to her own oath — unlike her fellow MLAs who have signed the petition.
The Line is entirely reader and advertiser funded — no federal subsidy for us! If you value our work, have already subscribed, and still worry about what will happen when the conventional media finishes collapsing, please make a donation today. Please note: a donation is not a subscription, and will not grant access to paywalled content. It’s just a way of thanking us for what we do. If you’re looking to subscribe and get full access, it’s that other blue button!
The Line is Canada’s last, best hope for irreverent commentary. We reject bullshit. We love lively writing. Please consider supporting us by subscribing. Please follow us on social media! Facebook x 2: On The Line Podcast here, and The Line Podcast here. Instagram. Also: TikTok. BlueSky. LinkedIn. Matt’s Twitter. The Line’s Twitter.Jen’s Twitter. Contact us by email: lineeditor@protonmail.com
As usual, one standard for Quebec and a different one for Alberta.
Rather than root around looking to denounce the UCP and currently our provincial government why not a serious article discussing the alleged issues of alienation and abuse that form the basis for this movement. Is there validity to the claims made for instance and if so how does one counter those claims? Why a segment of Albertans are supportive of separation is a big question that demands answers not vilification of them for their position.