Delay or plunge ahead? Councillors mull 2 options for 'bubble zone' bylaw

Ottawa city councillors are debating whether to proceed with the development of a bylaw that would restrict protests in the name of preventing harassment and hate speech — or to hold off until legal challenges against similar steps taken by other cities are resolved. 

The two duelling motions were presented Thursday during a joint committee meeting at Ottawa city hall.

In the first motion, Coun. David Hill echoed Mayor Mark Sutcliffe in calling on city staff to start developing a bylaw that would outlaw "nuisance demonstrations" near places of worship, schools, hospitals, and long-term and congregate care facilities.

Nuisance demonstrations would be defined as events that block access to those sites, and behaviour that a reasonable person would consider intimidating or obstructive — fairly broad parameters that were called into question by more than one councillor.

"That's a lot of weasel words," Coun. Jeff Leiper said of the definition suggested by Hill. "It's going to be difficult for two reasonable people to agree." 

Hill did not specify what distance should be maintained between demonstrators and a protected site, though more than one member of the public providing comments Thursday recommended a buffer of at least 100 metres. 

"Our experience is that even if the demonstration is across the road, which would be about 50 metres, it doesn't work," said Ragini Sharma, president of the Canadian Organization for Hindu Heritage Education. "What we're trying to avoid is face-to-face altercations."

Leiper, who is not a member of either committee, spoke in favour of clear physical parameters. 

"We keep ourselves out of trouble if we just pull out the ruler," he said during the joint meeting.  

Hill's 12-pronged motion, which would involve "time-limited protective zones," calls for the exemption of certain types of demonstration from the bylaw, including any protest that's part of a labour dispute or negotiation.

Regarding specific sites, city hall and Parliament would still be fair game for demonstrations, even if those buildings contain educational facilities, clinics or other care services.

Hill's motion asks that city staff conduct wide consultation and come back to councillors with a proposed bylaw in nine months. 

"I'm very confident, having talked to my community and folks around this city, that the conclusion we'll get to is that this is the right thing to do and now is the time to do it," Hill told CBC. 

The option to defer 

The second motion, presented Coun. Sean Devine, who sits on both the emergency preparedness and the public works and infrastructure committees, called for any decision about directing city staff to be delayed until two things happen:

• The federal and provincial governments confirm any plans of their own for safe access legislation.
• Current legal challenges against the City of Calgary for its own bubble zone bylaw have been resolved and "exhausted before the courts." 

If neither happens by Jan. 31, 2026, the city would report back to council and the development of a bylaw would be set aside for the next term of council, according to the motion. 

Speakers including Sharma and Richard Robertson, director of research and advocacy for the Canadian Jewish advocacy group B'nai Brith Canada, urged the city to take action now. 

"We have concerns about whether or not whatever is done at the federal level will be sufficient to properly protect access to these social infrastructure," Robertson said. "Amendments to the Criminal Code may offer some protection against intimidation and harassment, but oftentimes the behaviour of nefarious actors ... is not covered."

Waiting for other governments to act could be a losing proposition, said Mark Sandler, chair of the Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism.

"You may have waited to learn that nothing has happened, and as a result you've lost time when people in the community are significantly concerned," Sandler said. 

Speaker Kevin Meldrum, describing himself as an "everyday person" who is not an activist, spoke against pushing ahead with a bubble zone bylaw. 

"Protest has to be uncomfortable. If protest is comfortable, nobody's going to change anything," he said. 

Coun. Laura Dudas, who also sits on both committees, mentioned a recent incident in which protesters both for and against an issue congregated outside a local elementary school. 

"In a circumstance like that, do you not think that having something in place to at least keep the protest a distance away so that the adults can chat among themselves, but the kids aren't subjected to something they might not even be able to comprehend, would be a good manoeuvre?" she asked Meldrum. 

"Part of the problem is, who is judging whether this is an acceptable protest?" Meldrum replied. 

Coun. Ariel Troster, who sits on the public works and infrastructure committee, said giving Ottawa police the subjective power to decide what constitutes a nuisance is an "extreme grey area." 

Sandler said that while some police forces aren't doing what's already in their power to combat hatred, the Ottawa Police Service has done a "superior" job.

Lawyer Paul Champ spoke against a bubble bylaw — a position he said might seem paradoxical considering he obtained an injunction to prevent "Freedom Convoy" protesters from blasting their horns in downtown Ottawa in early 2022.

Nevertheless, Champ urged councillors not to forge ahead with an experimental bylaw, and instead wait to see how the chips fall in other municipalities such as Vaughan and Brampton that have already adopted similar measures.

"We're the national place of protest," Champ said.

Over 40 people signed up to address committee members Thursday — so many that the meeting will spill over to Friday, resuming at 10 a.m.

Whether councillors will actually vote on the motions Friday, or put off a decision until a later date, remains to be seen. Regardless, any final decision will require the approval of full city council.