The emergency economic measures order violates section eight, and that neither breach can be saved under section one. We adopt the submissions of the CCLA has already made on the charter, including their submissions on Section seven. Mr. Chung yesterday has already made a lot of the submissions I had intended to make. So I'm simply going to reiterate a few key points on sections two and eight. And make a few additional arguments on section one. And by way of a roadmap, what I intend to do today, Your Honor, is that instead of waiting until the end to talk about section one, what I'm going to do is first talk about the regulations and explain why they amount to a section two breach. Explain why it's not saved by section one. An offer some ways that the Parliament could have the regulations and minimally impairing and I'm going to go through the same exercise with Section eight and the economic order. So turning to section two, the first point I want to make is that although the Attorney General claims that there was no breach of Section two, I say that the real issue for your honor, is the section one analysis and not whether a breach occurred at all. And I say this because we believe that a section two breach is pretty clear. The Attorney General says that the purpose of the regulations was to clear out the blockades and to prevent new blockades. But the regulations are drafted so broadly, that they capture people who haven't created the blockades, who have no intention to create the blockades and who may not even support the creation of a blockades. And I want to take your honor to the regulations. Which is found a tab 27 of our Compendium.
I can take your honor to section two one of the regulations which is found at PDF page 61 of our Compendium here is how the prohibition is described to one A person must not participate in a public assembly that may reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace by and they define breach, breach of the peace in three specific ways. A, the serious disruption of the movement of persons or goods or the serious interference with trade be the interference with the functioning of critical infrastructure or see the support of the threat or use of ash ox of serious violence against persons or property. And there are two things that I want to point out about the scope of this prohibition. First of all, it prohibits participating in a peaceful assembly where a B or C is happening, even if you are not doing anything that amounts to a B or C. The Attorney General and their thought and describes a b and c as specific harms. So to put this another way, it prohibits a person from going to an assembly where these specific harms are taking place. But you're not doing anything to do those specific harms. The second thing I want to point out about the prohibitions is that it prohibits participating in a public assembly where these specific harms aren't even happening yet, but that they could happen. So who gets caught by this prohibition? Does it capture the truck driver who is parked on Wellington Street, refusing to move and disrupting the movement of traffic? Yes, it does. But it also catches the person who is standing peacefully on Parliament Hill, holding a sign that person isn't doing anything to disrupt the movement of traffic or to interfere with the functioning of critical infrastructure or to support the threat or use of acts of serious violence. They're just standing there expressing their dissatisfaction with the government and their policies. But because they are participating in a public assembly, where someone else is disrupting the movement of traffic a move they may not even agree with. But because they're at the same protests as this other person, they are violating the regulations and face the risk of five years in jail. What the regulations do is they also prohibit travel and I want to take your honor to that section which is section four.
And this is page PDF page 63. So at the top it says travel four one, a person must not travel to or within an area where an assembly referred to in subsection two one is taking place. And again, this is similarly broad. It catches the person who simply walks over to a public assembly where someone else is disrupting the movement of traffic. The truck driver parked on Wellington Street, but this person that's walking to this public assembly has no intention of helping the person parked on the street. Or joining the person disrupting the movement of traffic. All they want to do is to peacefully stand on Parliament Hill and hold their sign.
The regulations also prohibit providing property to those who participate in the public assembly. And that's section five also at PDF page 63. And here's what that section says. A person must not directly or indirectly use collect provide make available or invite a person to provide property to facilitate or participate in any assembly referred to in subsection to one or for the purpose of benefiting any person who's facilitating or participating in such an activity. This is what I'm going to call sort of the aiding provision doesn't describe the kind of property you need to provide. It doesn't commit it to people that are engaged in the blockades. It's just anyone that is caught by attending the peaceful the attending the prohibited assembly. You know, the prohibition catches the person who gives water or food not to the person disrupting the movement of traffic, but to the person who is peacefully standing on Parliament Hill. holding a sign at a protest where someone else is disrupting traffic. It also catches the person who provides water or food to the person walking to this protest. We're disrupting of traffic hasn't even happened yet. But it are caught by this prohibition. So these people are all caught by the regulation. The peaceful protesters standing on Parliament Hill, the person walking there, the person walking to the assembly where disruption of traffic hasn't even happened yet. The person providing the food and water to the peaceful protester. All of these people are caught up in the regulations. These are people who are engaged in peaceful political expression and whose only relationship with the people doing these so called specific harms is simply being at the same event. And we say that the regulations clearly violate the freedom of expression of these peaceful protesters. And the question of whether the regulations needed to capture these peaceful protesters in order to achieve the purpose of ending the blockades and preventing the new ones? That is a question that's reserved for the section one analysis and not a question on whether a section should breach happened at all. So this takes me to the next point that I want to make, which is that the regulations failed the minimal impairment requirement under section one. The regulation could have been drafted in a way to meet the objective of ending the blockades and preventing new ones but while minimally impairing the freedom of expression of those who were not involved in the creation of the blockades, and you had no intention of creating blockades and what I want to do is offer the court three ways that the regulations could have been narrowed to be minimally impairing. So the first thing I say is that the regulations could have carved out a zone of peaceful political activity and distinguished protesters who were causing those specific harms from the peaceful protesters who weren't. And by way of analogy, I want to take your honor to the Khawaja case and this is found at tab 32 of our Compendium actually want to take your honor to the provision that was issued in that case and that's found at a PDF page 113 of our Compendium
so when you look at that particular provision provision, I want to point to is at 3.0. What that says is you know, it terrorist activity means an actor admission in, in or outside Canada that's committed a for a political, religious or ideological purpose be in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public describes that further to that intentionally. This is what I want to focus on. A causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence, be in danger as a person's life. See, causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public. D causes substantial property damage whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to an ADC. And the provision that I want to focus on is the provision under E. So what that says is that terrorist activity that's committed for these purposes that intentionally and we've got to see causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service facility or system whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent, or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of the clauses AC and the reason why I'm drawing your honors attention to this particular provision, is that here, there prohibit prohibiting a certain activity, but they are carving out a zone of allowable expression in the form of advocacy, protest dissent, so long that it is not intended to cause the harms that are listed in A to Z HSC. That's not the kind of prohibition that we have here. Here. We've got a prohibition that groups in everyone together whether you have the intention to cause the harm specified in ASC or not. There's no zone of allowable political expression that's allowed for in the way that these prohibitions have been constructed.
The second way that I say that the regulations could have been minimally impairing is if they had just limited the prohibitions to blockades. So instead of creating a prohibition for participating in a public assembly, where a blockade could happen, Parliament could have prohibited the creation of the blockade itself. And on this point, I want to take your honor to our Compendium at tab 30.
So what this is, is if this is a highway blockade ban, that the Province of Nova Scotia created pursuant to their emergencies legislation, and what they've done here is they have prohibited the contact involving blockades the creation of blockades participating in the blockades, eating in the blockades. So the safer example, you know, effective on and our end after January 28 2022. All persons are prohibited from stopping parking or operating a vehicle or putting any item in such a manner as to create or contribute to a partial or complete blockade of the normal flow of vehicle traffic on a roads street or highway in the province. Similarly, the way that they've described participating here is participating in financing organizing, aiding, encouraging or supporting an interruption of the normal flow of vehicle traffic at a location on or near Highway One to four in Cumberland County, Nova Scotia, or the Nova Scotia New Brunswick order. So what they've done here in this provincial legislation is that they've typed the word participating, as well as the aiding provision to the specific harm that they're trying to target, which is the creation of a blockade. That's not what we see. In the prohibition that's before you. As similarly, you want to take your honor to tab 31 of our Compendium
so what this is, is this is Ontario legislative regulation created pursuant to the critical infrastructure and highways. So what this is is this, again, is another regulation that is being
created a coalition getting access for egress regarding critical infrastructure, impeding access or egress highways. It has narrowed this actual problem and not criminalized people that are just tangential to it. Related to this, other ways they could have limited the regulations to the actual problem of the blockades is for example, with respect to the travel prohibition, they could have narrative say you can't travel to a public assembly with for the purpose of creating a blockade participating in the blockade itself. They could have similarly narrowed the aid provisions by saying you can't provide aid to those that are creating the blockades or had the intention to create blockades.
And this takes me to sort of the final way in which I say they could have made this these regulations minimally impairing. And that is a big could have defined the word. What does participate? Right? There's no definition that is offered in these regulations. It simply says you can't participate in a public assembly. We're reasonably were a breach of the peace could reasonably define what a breach of the thesis.
captures its position wants to peacefully protest on Parliament Hill, and it has no intention of participating in the blockades the specific harms that are described. A, B and C are to help those that are doing the harms outlined. A B or C me shows that people that have a legitimate ability and shouldn't be allowed to engage in peaceful protesting.
Do steps away
analysis to be reprisals.
within the precincts peacefully protesting does not encourage those who may be carried away by zeal to create an enriching
if Parliament is going to make the decision to make sort of care presence there. I say that you know, it's not fair to the peaceful respond no intention
to be fair, I understand at that point, certainly not occur to most people. But fortunately, is it not a consequence of their presence their added presence to us?
But guess what the onus is on the Attorney General to explain why they needed to group in the peaceful protester to get at the particular harm of the blockades and what cheaper causing to even if sort of facts the unintended effects of the peaceful protesters currently parked on who is peacefully called encourage the person that's doing. The persons is actually doing installations wrong. Specific. A, B and C is the
opposition during question period everyone. I'm here in my office on Parliament Hill, which is where I get a lot of work done a whole lot of meetings. Just a few steps away is the house of contents, which is where we have debates pass legislation to talk about the issues of the day. Answer questions from the opposition during question period, and a lot of work gets done, but there's a lot going on in politics and sometimes it's hard to keep track of it, which is why we're launching this YouTube. This will be an opportunity for you to see some of the things that we're doing and why we're doing it whilst.
Forget to Subscribe.
Jeremy he's going
Hi Jeremy. It's Justin Trudeau. Today I'm doing very well. I'm just so excited to be talking to you right now. Congratulations on Artemis two. It is such a big deal.
Thank you so much. I really appreciate you taking the time to
call in the fact that the Canadian will be the first. The first non American to go to the moon is is a huge, huge thing and it's just so exciting.
And I'm very honored. It just circumstances that I'm here but we know for a while that this is the result of a lot of our work and 1000s of people and really the tribute to Canada. What we can accomplish. And then again yesterday that
this is the new budget we just put four I want to draw your attention to something we put it on page 34 A new grocery rebate for Canadians. You're a couple of the two kids, we could get over $450 Let me take a minute to tell you why we created it and how it's going to support
inflation which is higher prices on every even though inflation is starting to come down. We see prices remain stubbornly high, which is why we needed to take action. In the fall we move forward with the GST tax credit, which put hundreds of dollars in the pockets into the class families and grocery bills on delivery.
