There must usually be an arrest warrant or conviction in Canada. Extradition is for someone charged with, or convicted of, an offence in Canada, not just someone suspected informally. The Canadian Department of Justice says the Minister of Justice seeks extradition only at the request of the competent prosecuting authority, such as a provincial Attorney General or the Attorney General of Canada.
The conduct must generally be criminal in both countries. This is “dual criminality.” Canada’s guidance says most countries require that the conduct would also be criminal in the requested country.
For Canada–U.S. extradition, the offence must generally be punishable in both countries by more than one year of imprisonment. The amended Canada–U.S. treaty says extradition applies to conduct that is an offence under both countries’ laws and punishable by imprisonment or detention for a term exceeding one year, or a greater punishment.
Canada has to decide it is worth pursuing. Even if legally possible, prosecutors may not seek extradition for minor offences because of cost, proportionality, evidentiary burden, public interest, and whether the person can be dealt with another way.
Just read this quote by Max Fawcett from the National Observer, and I think it bears thinking about:
The phrase “our grievances are legitimate” has been uttered so often in this province lately that the separatists might want to try it out as their national anthem. … Albertans have some very legitimate — see, I can play this game too — grievances with their own provincial government. First and foremost, their government has failed to protect their shared finances from the wild oscillations in oil and gas prices, to the point that those prices single-handedly determine whether the province is in deficit or surplus.
So, what is protecting Alberta from the record breaking debt Canada is racking up? What is your argument here when you say that the Alberta government has failed to protect Albertans from energy price fluctuations? Has the Canadian government protected Canada from tariffs? That Canada somehow helped us when energy prices have dropped? Nope, still had to pay equalization when people were losing their jobs. That being our own country would somehow make it worse? Maybe instead of taking money from Albertans to support Quebec social programs, we could keep it here and build something to alleviate this issue?
Or, lets take what you said further. All those provinces that rely on equalization payments to balance their budgets, when will they do their jobs and balance their budgest themselves?
This, at least, is just a failure to understand what equalization is. Where do you think the federal revenues that are transferred to provinces as equalization come from? Mostly income tax. So any Albertans who lost their jobs were not contributing to equalization payments.
Provinces do not, and never have, “paid equalization”. Provinces do not send money to Ottawa. Individuals do.
Frankly, this is BS. Everyone knows where equalization comes from. Taxpayers which is why I said ‘Albertans’ and not Alberta. Albertans pay more because they make more. That’s the idea of progressive taxation, duh. Some of that money comes back in services. Some of it goes to the coffers of provincial governments depending on a formula that allows those provinces to avoid decisions to develop their own resources and actually raise the standard of living for their own citizens. You get votes for not building a plant when you know you’re getting the money anyways.
Your argument here makes as much sense as usual – namely, none.
Quebec, for example, is the recipient of such largesse in federal equalization payments – set to receive nearly $14 billion in fiscal 2026-27 – nearly half of the entire federal equalization budget – that they obviously have no interest in developing their own resources. So little interest, in fact, that by some magic they nevertheless somehow have one of the largest hydro-electric generating systems in the world, with over 60 generating stations producing over 37,000 MW of power – more output than that of entire nations – and the fourth-largest hydro-electricity producer in the entire world. I wonder how that could have happened in a world governed by your strange logic?
Quebec is also the epicenter of the Canadian pharmaceutical and aviation industry. Meanwhile Alberta continues digging up oil sands and polluting the land and atmosphere.
If Quebec has one of the world’s largest hydroelectric systems, a major aerospace industry, and a substantial pharmaceutical sector, then you’ve actually reinforced my question: why is Quebec still receiving roughly $13 billion a year in equalization while Alberta receives none?
If Alberta’s oil sands are so undesirable, why doesn’t Quebec develop more of its own oil and gas resources and reduce its dependence on transfers? Alternatively, if its hydro, aerospace, and pharmaceutical sectors are such overwhelming economic successes, why aren’t they generating enough fiscal capacity to eliminate the need for equalization altogether?
When can Alberta expect Quebec to not need equalization payments? What is the plan? The same for all other provinces that receive equalization. It isn’t too much to ask that we see a plan, is it?
Meanwhile, without the help of the PMO’s pet project office (ie. We’ll give some free advertising to your project, but won’t fix the underlying problems that prevent the project being approved office). $13B Meta DC announced in Alberta
“Our data centre will use a water efficient closed-loop, liquid-cooled system with dry cooling, which means there is no operational water use in the cooling system,” Meta wrote in a Facebook post, which links to the project’s website and a Meta website outlining its corporate plans for data centres worldwide.
“This means our annual operational water use is projected to be less than one typical golf course or a 50 acre canola farm in the region.”
Just to address the water issue pointed out in the some other thread.
When oil prices dipped and Alberta was experiencing economic difficulties and people were losing their jobs, Alberta didn’t get any help from the rest of Canada. I didn’t say people who had lost their jobs were paying ‘equalization’. Obviously, if you are unemployed you are not paying taxes.
Frankly, this is a red herring. Albertans don’t mind helping their fellow Canadians when they need help. They have a problem when those fellow Canadians aren’t appreciative of it or take it for granted that it will continue indefinitely, which it has. Canada, what is the plan to get the freeloaders off the dole?!
And now Rath (separatist leader) has his funds frozen in an ongoing lawsuit which alleges he stole money from a first nations band he was representing as a trustee.
summary
A judge has temporarily frozen more than $8.5-million in assets belonging to Jeffrey Rath, a lawyer and prominent voice in Alberta’s separatist movement, and his legal firm after a First Nation alleged misappropriation of money that he was overseeing as the band’s trustee.
Court documents obtained by The Globe and Mail show that the Tallcree First Nation alleges that Mr. Rath moved $8.5-million in November, 2025 from the trust to his private corporation – the same amount an Alberta Court of King’s Bench judge ordered him to repay Tallcree over a fee dispute that the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld last November.
In his decision, Justice Marion said he believed that there was reason to believe Mr. Rath’s assets will be “dissipated or removed” before any judgment in the proceeding is awarded.
But hey - let’s just ignore what the leaders of the separatists are doing, right? They’re probably being picked on by the “Deep State”. Or “Woke”.
(Is David Parker back in the country yet after stealing Albertan’s voter data and giving it to hundreds of petition collectors? Is he cooperating with the police investigation yet?)
Is Justin in jail yet for violating the rights of Canadians? How about Carney who was advising him at the time? How about the bribes given to floor crossers so Carney could get his majority? Anyone looking into that?
If the merits of the movement are to be judged on the actions of a few then by all means continue. Rath is one voice but because I have similar opinions I must be as guilty as him. I didn’t vote for him, though.
Justin was PM. You supported him so you give him a pass. The liberal party is just as guilty of wearing blackface, of violating the constitution, of driving away a trillion dollars of investment, of the many other scandals as he is based on your logic. Why would we want to be part of a country that thinks that is appropriate and supports that sort of behavior?
But I have to remember not to get upset. You only have denigration and fear as an argument for Alberta to stay.
It’s kind of interesting of you to say that, in a post where your entire argument is comprised of denigrating Justin Trudeau (who is retired from politics, not sure you’re aware of that) and Mark Carney.
No, because this is a fever dream, which sounds a lot like Trump’s bleat “lock her up” against Hillary Clinton. Even as a Tu Quoque, it is a lame argument. You are dressing up evidence-free grievances, and pretending they have legal weight. They do not - they are opinions.
Yes, the merits of the seperatist movement are going to be judged on what the LEADERS OF THE MOVEMENT do. If they are found guilty of stealing money from first nations groups by a court of law, then we will judge their behaviour and ethics accordingly. If they run and hide from investigations of a massive data breach, and refuse to cooperate with a legal RCMP investigation, then we will judge them accordingly.
If somone opines with no evidence that Trudeau is a poopy head who should be arrested, we will give that opinion the respect it deserves.
The accused is under no obligation to cooperate with the police. I’m under no illusions he probably did what they are saying he did, but it is up to the state to prove he did something wrong that warrants charges.
And you’re upset that people use the same criteria for judging you that your use on others? The irony. The fact that you hold loud mouthed snooks like Rath to the same standards as the leaders of this country is laughable. He’s not a politician, he hasn’t been elected to office, nor has he any responsibility to uphold the constitution, other than what is required as part of his legal profession, like the PM should be doing.
People say jd is now retired, but he was the face of the liberal party for 10 years. But you don’t want me to judge the liberals based on him? Fair enough. Parker is on the run from the police and isn’t a leader in the independence movement anymore, if he ever was.
Speaking of Trump, you sound a lot like him. Answer this: Did the liberals under Trudeau violate the rights of the truckers? Remember two court cases have already said they did. Has Trudeau at the very least apologized? No, he has continued to defend his actions?.. Pretty much Donald Trump saying he never lost the election.
However, had it been justified, we would be having different arguments around the degree to which the infringements on assembly and unreasonable search and seizure would be acceptable.
The argument of the CCLA and CCF was that existing laws were available and not used, and as such the declaration of the Act was unjustified.
Or at least, to me, they appear not to be used until after the federal consultation with the provinces and territories. The Ambassador bridge opened hours before the act was declared, and the Coutts crossing hours before it came into effect. Emerson and the Pacific Highway opened up literally the next day.
It’s a remarkable read the Federal decision. I think it actually raises a question around the Federal government’s obligation to maintain the peace when other layers of government (municipal and provincial especially in the context of Ottawa’s occupation) fail to act.
