Draft:List of controversies of the Trudeau-Liberal Government from 2016 to 2024

• Comment: Please translate it the Mandarin on the section Breach of Constitution - Emergency Act into English. Royiswariii Talk! 06:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

---

The controversies with the Government of Canada 2015-2024

Dispute of the Constitution - Emergency Acts

Dispute	Time Line	Participate	Summary	CIte
Dispute of the Constitution - Emergency Acts - Investigator of the Public Order Emergency Committee	Feb 2023	Paul S. Rouleau	Following the 2022 Canada Freedom Convoy protests, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appointed Judge Rouleau as the Public Order Emergency Commission Investigator to investigate the invocation of the Emergency Act. This decision has sparked a major debate about the appropriateness of the appointment and the conclusions drawn from the investigation. In February 2023, Commissioner Rouleau determined that the criteria for invoking the Emergency Act were indeed met. Some commentators have expressed skepticism about Rouleau's findings. Lorne Gunter, an opinion columnist for Toronto Sun, expressed concern that Rouleau's interpretation of the Emergency Act appeared to reflect a personal reading of the "noted" provisions of the Constitution. Meanwhile, Brian Lilley, who also writes for The Toronto Sun, pointed to Rouleau's historical ties to the Liberal Party, stressing that there has been no significant involvement in party politics for nearly 25 years. Nonetheless, Lilley's suggestion that it might be preferable to appoint someone whose impartiality would not be questioned underscores the importance of public perception in matters of judicial inquiry.
Dispute of the Constitution - Emergency Acts - Supreme Court of Canada	April 2024	Richard Mosley	In 2024, Justice Mosley of the Supreme Court made an important ruling on invoking the Emergency Act, concluding that there is no state threat to Canada's security that needs to apply. The ruling emphasizes that cities and provinces should take the lead in resolving the issue at hand rather than relying on federal intervention. The Emergency Act is intended to be used in situations that are classified as a "national emergency", particularly those relating to "a threat to the security of Canada". According to the legal definition, a national emergency is described as an emergency and critical situation that exceeds the capacity or authority of the provincial government to effectively administer it. In addition, such situations cannot be adequately addressed by existing Canadian law. Judge Moseley acknowledged the tangible harm caused to Canada's economy, trade and commerce and described the effects as serious and concerning. However, he clarified that these economic challenges do not rise to the level of threats to individuals or property or significant violence. This distinction is essential to understand the parameters by which the Emergency Act can be invoked. In light of this ruling, local and provincial authorities must take proactive steps to manage their respective challenges using the resources and frameworks available to them. The decision is a reminder of the importance of maintaining a balanced approach to governance, ensuring that emergency powers are reserved for situations that truly require federal intervention. Justice Moseley emphasized that for the Government to successfully invoke the Emergency Act, it must demonstrate that it is facing a "Canadian security threat" under the CSIS Act. The government argues that acts that harm Ontario's economy, and indeed Canada's economy, represent a form of "serious violence" in the context of the destruction of individual livelihoods and property for political purposes. Moseley J held that if the legislators of the Emergency Act intended to interpret threat-related terms differently between the Emergency Act and the federal government, then there would be no need to invoke the Emergency Act in the Emergencies Act itself. Based on this reasoning, he concluded that "violence for political purposes" should not be interpreted to include economic damage. Following this ruling, the Canadian government announced its intention to appeal a federal court ruling that found its conduct against the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests illegal. This appeal comes against the backdrop of the developments that took place in May 2024.
Dispute of the Constitution - Tamara Lich and Chris Barber Trial			Tamara Lich and Chris Barber are currently facing charges of prank, intimidation, and counselling others to violate laws related to the 2022 Ottawa Freedom Convoy protest, which lasted three weeks and attracted thousands of participants. Originally expected to last 16 days, the trial has been extended for more than a year due to complex legal arguments and delays in the disclosure of evidence. The prosecution's case relied on witness testimony describing the devastating effects of the protests on Ottawa residents, while the defense argued that Lich and Barber were exercising their right to protest peacefully. Prosecutions claim that their actions constitute a criminal conspiracy. The outcome of the trial will depend on the judge's assessment of the prosecution's alleged conspiracy and accountability for the impact of the protests. Lich had previously served 49 days in prison and sought fundraising help for her legal fees throughout the proceedings