In a heated debate at City Hall yesterday, councillors clashed over a contentious proposed bylaw that would create buffer zones around certain sites to restrict protest activities. The measure, informally dubbed the “bubble bylaw” by some critics, has divided council members along ideological lines while raising significant questions about freedom of expression versus public safety.
The proposed bylaw would establish 50-meter exclusion zones around hospitals, health clinics, schools, libraries, and daycare facilities, prohibiting demonstrations that could intimidate or harass people accessing these services. Mayor Mark Sutcliffe expressed support for the measure during yesterday’s committee meeting.
“We need to balance the right to protest with ensuring vulnerable residents can access essential services without facing intimidation,” Sutcliffe said. “This isn’t about limiting free speech but creating safe access to critical facilities.”
However, several councillors voiced strong opposition to the proposal. Councillor Shawn Menard called it “legislative overreach” and questioned whether existing laws weren’t already sufficient to address problematic behavior.
“We already have laws against harassment and intimidation. This adds another layer that could potentially criminalize legitimate democratic expression,” Menard argued during the three-hour debate at the Community Services Committee.
The proposal stems from increasing concerns about protests targeting healthcare facilities during the pandemic and more recent demonstrations outside schools regarding gender identity policies. According to data presented by city staff, Ottawa Police received 47 calls related to protests at these facilities in the past year alone.
Dr. Elizabeth Richardson, Chief Medical Officer at The Ottawa Hospital, provided testimony supporting the measure. “Healthcare workers and patients have reported feeling threatened when having to cross through protest lines. Some patients have even delayed seeking care,” she told the committee.
Civil liberties experts have raised red flags about the bylaw’s constitutionality. Cara Zwibel from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association attended virtually to caution council members about potential Charter challenges.
“While the goal of protecting vulnerable individuals is laudable, such broad restrictions risk infringing on constitutionally protected rights to peaceful assembly and expression,” Zwibel stated. “The courts have typically required evidence that less restrictive measures were considered first.”
The draft bylaw draws inspiration from similar legislation in British Columbia and Ontario’s “Safe Access to Abortion Services Act,” which established buffer zones around abortion clinics. However, Ottawa’s proposal extends the concept to a much wider range of facilities.
Councillor Catherine McKenney, who initially brought forward the motion last fall, defended the approach. “This isn’t unprecedented. Other jurisdictions have implemented similar protections, and they’ve withstood legal challenges when narrowly crafted with clear public safety objectives.”
Several residents shared personal experiences during the public comment period. Sarah Khalil, a parent of a child at Centretown Elementary, described feeling threatened when taking her daughter to school during recent demonstrations.
“My six-year-old shouldn’t have to walk through a gauntlet of shouting adults with graphic signs just to get to her classroom,” Khalil said. “There’s a difference between free expression and targeted intimidation.”
On the opposing side, Greg Thompson, representing a coalition of community advocacy groups, warned about unintended consequences. “Today it might be protests you disagree with being restricted, but tomorrow it could be causes you support,” he cautioned.
The city’s legal department acknowledged the bylaw would likely face court challenges if passed but maintained it could be defended if properly implemented. City Solicitor David White emphasized that enforcement would focus on behavior rather than content of speech.
“The bylaw doesn’t prohibit the expression of any particular viewpoint,” White explained. “It restricts where certain activities can take place, similar to noise bylaws or zoning regulations.”
The full council is expected to vote on the measure next month, with most observers predicting a close decision. In the meantime, both supporters and opponents have launched grassroots campaigns to sway undecided councillors.
As I’ve covered city politics for nearly a decade now, I’ve seen few issues generate this level of passionate debate. The outcome will likely set an important precedent for how Ottawa balances fundamental freedoms with community safety concerns in public spaces.
Whether this represents reasonable protection of vulnerable individuals or government overreach will ultimately be decided not just by council vote, but potentially through subsequent court challenges that could reshape the landscape of protest rights across the country.
