Mitch Sylvestre, CEO of the Alberta Prosperity Project, gives a speech at the Eckville Community Centre in Alberta on Jan. 14.AHMED ZAKOT/The Globe and Mail
Suppose there were a country, let’s call it Outlandia, that declared its intent to annex Canada – to take over its territory and subject its people to its rule – if not by military means, certainly by economic.
Now suppose a group of fellow travellers within Canada offered to assist Outlandia with its hostile takeover. Nothing violent, mind you, but rather the kinds of measures, from psyops to sabotage, that would reliably weaken our ability to resist – that would divide the country, plunge it into political and economic disorder, and ultimately deliver it into the hands of Outlandia.
What would we call this kind of behaviour?
Now suppose that country were the United States; the group of fellow travellers, the Alberta Prosperity Project; and the measure on which they were jointly conspiring, a referendum on the secession of Alberta from Canada.
What do we call this kind of behaviour?
The Premier of British Columbia, David Eby, startled a lot of people by referring to it as “treason.” The immediate response in most quarters was to dismiss this as hyperbole. We have, after all, long experience in this country with secession movements. On occasion these have sought the support of other countries.
No one, certainly no one of such prominence, referred to these as “treason.” And with good reason. This is a free country. You have a right to propose changes to our system of government, even if these entail the dissolution of the federation. Certainly you do if you are not proposing to do so by violent or clandestine means.
Likewise, you have the right to seek support from other countries. This doesn’t extend to financial or logistical support – there are laws against that sort of thing – and certainly Canada would take strong exception to any country that offered even moral support.
What’s different about the APP’s activities? One, the meetings between the APP and the Trump administration are veiled in secrecy; the only reason we have any firm knowledge of what was discussed is because of media investigations.
Two, there is reason to believe the Trump administration would not be bound by Canadian law with regard to funding or otherwise aiding the secessionist campaign. It does not feel bound by its own laws; why should it be any more observant of Canada’s?
But three, and most critically: the United States, under Donald Trump, is not just another country. It must be considered, for the moment, a hostile power – one that has openly declared its intent to annex us. There can be few things more calculated to advance that aim than the uncertainty that would follow a successful secession vote, or the chaos and demoralization that would result if the country were actually broken up.
Not that I consider either event likely. But the intent of the Trump regime is clear: to divide and destroy the country, the better to facilitate the absorption of at least part of it into the United States. We must take this threat seriously.
This puts the talks between the APP and Mr. Trump’s officials in a different light. It is not merely the APP seeking Mr. Trump’s support for its project. It is the APP enlisting in support of Mr. Trump’s: assisting a hostile power to divide, destroy and devour the country, an aim of which the APP’s leaders cannot reasonably claim to be unaware.
That may not meet the Criminal Code definition of treason (for our purposes, “[assisting] an enemy at war with Canada”), depending on your definition of war: a definition that, in light of Russia’s “hybrid” assaults on neighbouring countries, is rapidly evolving. But it arguably fits the broader understanding of the term: if not treason, then treachery.
It’s the context that makes this historically unique. This isn’t like the Parti Québécois soliciting the support of France. Even under de Gaulle, France was not seeking to annex Canada. Its interest in Quebec is based on cultural affinity, not conquest. Indeed, its dalliance with the separatists has always been circumspect and ambiguous, mindful of the need to maintain good relations with Canada. France, it has been said, would be the first country to recognize an independent Quebec – right after Canada.
That’s quite a different matter than offering to serve as fifth columnists for the Canschluss. Still, the relative silence on the part of most of our political leaders, not only in response to the APP’s activities, but to the larger project of secession, which is to say the end of Canada – a prospect our leaders have accepted with equanimity for decades – does raise an interesting philosophical question:
Is it possible to commit treason against a country that does not believe it has a right to exist?