I mean sure, investigate away - but they're not likely to find anything, because the legal definition of "treason" is quite narrow. Mere "foreign interference and influence" ain't gonna cut it.

High treason

46 (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;

b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or

c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

Treason

(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,

a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;

b) 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;

c) conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);

d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or

e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) and manifests that intention by an overt act.

[–] swordgeek@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

She's been working with the separatist vermin who have directly been lobbying the US for the breakup of Canada. If they can show that Sylvestre et al have committed treason, then 46.2(e) might be applicable.

Honestly, they should have gone with sedition.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

If they can show that Sylvestre et al have committedntreason, then 46.2(e) might be applicable.

Maybe. Is there any credible reason to think that they have access to military or scientific secrets that threaten the government?

As for sedition, it is the use of force as a means of accomplishing governmental change, or advocacy thereof. I don't think that line has been crossed yet.

But as I said, go ahead and investigate. I just doubt there's anything there. Yet.

[–] swordgeek@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago

Thing us, planning to sell secrets (or commit violence) is sufficient cause, which implies that promises to leak secrets they don't (yet) have would be a criminal act.

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

So Charles is free game.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 2 points 3 days ago

Yeah, I guess there's some provision somewhere that doesn't require them to amend the entire criminal code every time there's a change in the monarchy?

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 4 points 3 days ago

They might want to update 46 (1) a).

[–] BrilliantantTurd4361@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Laws change..

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that we shouldn't change laws to retroactively target individuals.

[–] BrilliantantTurd4361@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You say retroactive like this is over. That's cute.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This is not an article about amending the criminal code, nor is it an article about having the RCMP investigate people for future crimes (at least, I hope not).

[–] BrilliantantTurd4361@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 days ago

👍