Terry Burton is a retired veteran of Alberta’s oil and heavy construction industry, and a former member of the Alberta Apprenticeship Board.Here we go again. Years after the federal government unleashed extraordinary powers against its own citizens during the 2022 Freedom Convoy, Canadians are once more confronted with an uncomfortable truth: the abuse has been legally acknowledged, yet no one in power will be held to account.The Trudeau government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act against a largely peaceful trucker protest remains one of the most significant civil liberties failures in modern Canadian history. It was not merely a policy misjudgment or a momentary lapse under pressure; it was an overreach that trampled the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, divided the country, and exposed how fragile constitutional protections become when political expediency takes precedence over principle.The consequences were immediate and severe. Protesters were subjected to aggressive policing. Bank accounts were frozen without warrants. Individuals were ostracized socially and professionally. Careers were destroyed. Neighbours were turned against one another. Canada’s reputation as a measured, rights-respecting democracy was diminished on the international stage. And at the centre of it all stood a federal government that chose coercion over dialogue, spectacle over restraint, and force over constitutional fidelity.Tamara Lich and Chris Barber became the most visible faces of this response, dragged through an agonizingly slow justice system that has compounded punishment through delay alone. Years later, their legal battles are still unfolding, underscoring a bitter irony: while ordinary citizens endure prolonged legal uncertainty, those who authorized the overreach remain insulated from consequence.In January 2024, the Federal Court confirmed what many legal scholars and civil libertarians had argued from the outset. Justice Mosley ruled that the Trudeau government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act was unreasonable and unlawful. The threshold for a national emergency, as defined in legislation, was not met. Existing laws were sufficient. The government failed to demonstrate justification, transparency, or intelligibility in its decision-making. Most damningly, the court found that measures such as warrantless financial surveillance and asset freezes violated core Charter protections, including freedom of expression and protection against unreasonable search and seizure.Rather than accept responsibility, the federal government appealed..That appeal, finally resolved in January 2026, only deepened the indictment. The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the original ruling, reaffirming that emergency powers are a last resort — not a tool of political convenience. The court rejected the government’s argument that the lower court relied on “20/20 hindsight,” confirming instead that the legal deficiencies were evident at the time of invocation. Peaceful protest, even disruptive protest, does not constitute a national security threat.And yet, despite this clear judicial rebuke, nothing of substance has changed.No minister has resigned. No official has been disciplined. No restitution has been meaningfully offered to those whose rights were violated. No legislative guardrails have been strengthened to prevent a future government from repeating the same abuses. The Charter was breached, acknowledged as breached, and then quietly set aside as an unfortunate but consequence-free episode.This is the most corrosive lesson of all.Canada’s constitutional framework depends not only on courts identifying wrongdoing, but on governments respecting those findings and accepting accountability. When illegal actions carry no penalty for those in power, the law ceases to function as a restraint and becomes a procedural inconvenience. Justice delayed may be justice denied for citizens — but for governments, delay often functions as absolution.The silence from many self-styled defenders of civil liberties during the crisis remains equally troubling. Too many Canadians rationalized the suspension of rights because they disagreed with the protest or found it inconvenient. Rights, however, are not conditional. The Charter does not protect only popular speech or fashionable causes. It exists precisely to restrain the state when public pressure tempts it to overreach..What makes this episode particularly dangerous is not only what happened, but what did not follow. There is no binding precedent that prevents another federal cabinet from invoking the Emergencies Act under similarly dubious circumstances. There is no personal liability for ministers who authorize illegal actions. There is no meaningful deterrent. The message is unmistakable: if you hold federal power, even egregious constitutional violations are survivable.So the questions linger. Will those harmed ever be made whole? Will convictions tied to an illegal invocation be revisited? Will Parliament impose stricter safeguards on emergency powers? Will Canadians who applauded the crackdown reflect on the precedent they endorsed? And can Canada credibly reclaim its role as a global advocate for democratic norms while failing to uphold them at home?The honest answer is uncomfortable but clear: probably not.This is not merely a failure of one government, but a systemic failure of accountability. Courts can declare actions unlawful, but they cannot force contrition. Without political consequences, judicial findings become historical footnotes rather than corrective mechanisms.The moral of this episode is stark. In Canada today, the greatest risk to democratic governance is not protest, dissent, or civil disobedience. It is the normalization of unchecked executive power — and the quiet acceptance that those who abuse it will walk away untouched.That should alarm every Canadian, regardless of political stripe.Terry Burton is a retired veteran of Alberta’s oil and heavy construction industry, and a former member of the Alberta Apprenticeship Board.
555.jpg?w=480&auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max)
