Former NDP MP Charlie Angus suggested that if Canadian citizens were invited to high-level meetings in China or Iran to discuss breaking up Canada, they would be guilty of treason. He made the comment while criticizing meetings between Alberta independence activists and American officials.

The comparison collapses under even basic scrutiny.

"Treason and conspiracy": Far-left former NDP MP Charlie Angus backs BC Premier David Eby's assertion that Alberta independence activists have betrayed Canada as he calls for an investigation into US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. pic.twitter.com/kRtyXQZF8m

— Rebel News Canada (@RebelNews_CA) June 8, 2026

The United States is Canada's closest ally

Canada and the United States share the world's longest undefended border, are partners in NORAD, cooperate through NATO, conduct joint military operations, and are each other's largest trading partners. The two countries have extensive diplomatic, intelligence, law-enforcement, and military relationships that span generations.

China and Iran are not comparable.

China has been the subject of multiple Canadian investigations and intelligence warnings involving alleged foreign interference, election interference concerns, and transnational repression activities.

Go Ad Free

Iran is designated by Canada as a state sponsor of terrorism under various sanctions regimes and has been accused of targeting dissidents abroad. Comparing routine contact with American officials to engagement with hostile foreign regimes is not a serious equivalency.

Canadian politicians meet American officials constantly.

If meeting American officials is inherently suspicious, then Canadian politics has a problem far bigger than Alberta separatists.

Prime ministers, premiers, cabinet ministers, opposition politicians, Indigenous leaders, municipal officials, business groups, labour organizations, environmental activists, and advocacy groups routinely meet American officials and diplomats.

In fact, even critics of Alberta independence have never suggested that every meeting with U.S. officials constitutes foreign interference.

Quebec separatists met foreign officials too.

This is where Angus's argument becomes especially difficult to sustain.

Before the 1995 Quebec referendum, Jacques Parizeau actively sought meetings with American officials and cultivated relationships with French political leaders. Foreign governments openly monitored and discussed the possibility of Quebec independence. As political scientists note, separatist movements around the world often engage in "proto-diplomacy" by seeking international recognition and understanding before a referendum.

No serious commentator argued that merely meeting American or French officials automatically constituted treason.

Treason has an actual legal meaning.

Under Canadian law, treason involves actions such as using force against Canada, assisting enemies at war with Canada, or engaging in violent attempts to overthrow the government.

Political advocacy, campaigning for constitutional change, or discussing independence through democratic and legal means does not meet that threshold.

If it did, every Quebec sovereigntist premier, cabinet minister, and diplomat involved in foreign outreach before the 1980 and 1995 referendums would have been facing criminal charges.

They weren't.

Perhaps the most remarkable part of Angus's argument is that he appears willing to treat contacts between Alberta activists and American officials as evidence of disloyalty while ignoring decades of Quebec sovereigntist outreach to American and European governments.

When Quebec separatists met U.S. officials, sought meetings with President Clinton, and courted support in France, it was generally described as diplomacy, international outreach, or preparation for sovereignty.

When Albertans do something similar, Angus calls it treason.

Reasonable people can oppose Alberta independence. Reasonable people can criticize separatists for seeking foreign support.

But comparing meetings with officials from Canada's largest trading partner, military ally, NATO ally, and NORAD partner to meetings with the governments of China or Iran is political theatre, not a serious factual comparison.