Ok, but I don't see how that's corruption. Switching to some American examples, I've never heard anyone refer to the jailing of MLK [0], the shooting of Vietnam War protesters [1], or Stonewall [2] as "corruption", and these are all much more extreme than the 2022 Canadian protests.
> This was later ruled to be an illegitimate use of this act.
Do you have a source for this? Because §28.7 of the report from the independent commission [3] states that its use was legitimate:
For these reasons, I have concluded that Cabinet was reasonably
concerned that the situation it was facing was worsening and at risk of
becoming dangerous and unmanageable. There was credible and compelling
evidence supporting both a subjective and objective reasonable belief in
the existence of a public order emergency. The decision to invoke the
Act was appropriate.
It was a decision made by the Cabinet while acting in its official capacity, so parliamentary privilege [4] means that there could never be any criminal consequences, no matter how severe what they did was. Political actions generally only have political consequences, and considering that Justin Trudeau and much of the Cabinet resigned a couple years later [5], I'd argue that there were in fact some consequences.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_campaign#Martin_Lut...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots
[3]: https://publicorderemergencycommission.ca/files/documents/Fi...
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege#Canada
[5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024%E2%80%932025_Canadian_pol...