Ottawa city council on Wednesday approved a controversial motion requiring city staff to consider the feasibility of a so-called “bubble” bylaw aimed at protect vulnerable social infrastructure.
Kanata South Councillor Allan Hubley introduced the motion to consider the implementation of a vulnerable social infrastructure bylaw, similar to the one recently adopted by the City of Vaughan. It was seconded by Mayor Sutcliffe.
The motion cited a 19 per cent increase in hate crimes targeting Muslim, Jewish, LGBTQ2S+ and other minority groups in Ottawa and said Ottawa’s mosques, churches, synagogues and related institutions provide onsite services to vulnerable or targeted members of the community.
The motion said it does not intend to prohibit peaceful gatherings, protests or demonstrations. Vaughan implemented its bylaw this past June and defined vulnerable social infrastructure as religious institutions, schools, childcare centres, hospitals and congregate care facilities.
The motion requests a feasibility study but does not require a recommendation for the by-law specifically — just a study on whether or not a by-law of this nature is possible to implement.
But the motion was met with plenty of discussion as councillors debated how much of an impact the bylaw would have and whether it could tread on protest rights.
Couns. Shawn Menard (Capital Ward) and Riley Brockington (River) shared their concerns about the by-law, arguing that there are already bylaws and enforcement protocols in place to address hate speech and violence during protests.
“If people are breaking the Criminal Code, let police do their jobs,” said Brockington. “Police already have the tools.”
On the other side, Kanata North Coun. Cathy Curry said she would support the motion and “don’t know why anybody wouldn’t.”
Meanwhile, Somerset Coun. Ariel Troster said “this kept me up at night.” She said that while she is unsure if she would support a bubble bylaw, it “isn’t black and white” and “warrants conversation”.
Similarly, Orléans East-Cumberland Coun. Matt Luloff said he felt the motion had “noble intent” and despite claiming to be “as close to a free speech absolutist as you can be,” he “will hear staff out”.
In College Ward, constituents have been asking for support from the municipality and for the “exploration” of such a bylaw, said River ward Coun. Laine Johnson.
Staff will consider the feasibility of implementing a similar bylaw, in addition to other approaches to address preventing harassment and hate speech, and report to council in Q1 of 2025.
Given the short timeframe, a full consultation with the public will not be possible, city staff told council. Couns. Marty Carr (Alta Vista Ward) and Johnson raised concerns that the motion was not brought before committee for debate before being tabled at council.
Speaking to reporters after council adjourned, Sutcliffe said he was expecting public consultation to ensure there is proper engagement with the community during the feasibility study, but did not elaborate on why staff was given such a short timeframe.
“I have deep respect, especially as a former journalist, for everyone’s right to free speech and everybody’s right to demonstrate. It’s vitally important in our democracy,” Sutcliffe told reporters.
“At the same time — and that’s why these issues often bring a lot of internal conflict and and a lot of thought that I think you saw reflected in the day today.
“I have heard from many residents in our community of concerns they have about a number of different events that have taken place or could take place in the future, near schools, near places of worship, and near other important cultural and community institutions in our city,” he continued. “So we must strike the right balance going forward.”
