The City of Ottawa is asking for feedback on a Vulnerable Social Infrastructure (or “bubble”) by-law. Horizon Ottawa has been fighting the implementation of this by-law due to its concerning implications for protest rights that are especially important for a capital city to uphold. You can read more about our concerns and our advocacy around this issue here.
The first 9 questions on the survey ask about your experience with demonstrations, so we don’t have any suggestions on how to answer them. We’ve included some comments under questions 1-9, and for question 10 onward we have also included our answers for you to consider.
Note: There seems to have either been questions removed or different versions of the survey being shown. Questions 7-9 shown below may not appear for some people, it is unclear why.
For more information and to give us feedback please contact [email protected]
1. How often do you use services at the following types of facilities in Ottawa?
(Never / Rarely / Sometimes / Often / Always / Not Sure)
- Cultural-based facilities (like community halls serving specific groups)
- Daycare
- Faith-based facilities / places of worship (churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, etc.)
- Faith-based schools
- Healthcare clinic or facility (e.g., doctor's office, hospital, specialized clinic)
- Retirement home or care home
- Schools (non-faith based)
2. Have you ever avoided accessing one of the above facilities due to concerns about demonstrations nearby?
(Yes / No / I don’t recall)
This question is very vague and captures a wide range of concerns. For example, being annoyed that a protest is taking place could be a reason that a respondent answers “yes”, and will contribute to data that will be used to justify the need for a bubble by-law despite annoyance not being anywhere near a valid reason to restrict Charter rights.
This needs to be more specific and refer to specific concerns that clearly cross the line, like legitimate threats against safety.
3. Have you ever changed your behaviour while accessing facilities from question 1 (e.g., route, timing, choice of facility) due to concerns about safety or comfort near these sites?
(Yes / No / I don’t recall)
Similar to the last question, this will include such a wide range of experiences that it cannot be used to make any valid conclusions. A person changing the timing of a visit based on being uncomfortable about a protest would fall under this description and this is not a significant problem we need to solve. Safety and comfort need to be separated for this question to get meaningful results.
4. Have you ever had difficulty accessing the facilities for the following reasons?
(Never / Rarely (only a few times) / Occasionally (a few times a year) / Frequently (more than a few times a year) / Not sure)
- Demonstration or protest outside the facility
- Behaviour that is abusive, intimidating, or harassing
- Discrimination based on race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or disability
- Obstruction of roads, sidewalks or entrances/exits
The second item in this question groups three different things together: abusive, intimidating, harassing behaviour. “Intimidation” is a subjective term that could simply refer to a person disagreeing with the speech they are hearing. Some people may even find the very fact that a protest is occurring to be “intimidating”.
5. When you encounter a demonstration, how often do you think the following thoughts?
(Please rate each statement: Never / Rarely / Sometimes / Always / Not sure)
- I am appreciative.
- I feel unwelcome.
- I am engaged.
- I am inconvenienced.
- I learn something.
- I am scared.
- I am supportive.
- I can’t access services I need.
“Inconvenienced” is not an acceptable reason to limit protest rights, so it should not be considered in the public consultation process.
6. How frequently do you participate in demonstrations in Ottawa?
(Never / Rarely / Occasionally / Frequently / Not applicable or prefer not to say)
(The following three questions may not appear on your survey)
7. Have you helped to organize or mobilize a demonstration in the past 12 months?
(Yes / No / Prefer not to say)
8. In the past 12 months, have you organized or participated in a demonstration at, or in close proximity to, any of the following types of facilities?
(Cultural-based facility (e.g., community hall serving specific groups), Daycare, Elementary or High School (non-faith based), Faith-based facility / place of worship (e.g., church, mosque, synagogue, temple), Healthcare clinic or facility (e.g., doctor's office, hospital, clinic), Community and recreational centers, Retirement, long term care, or care home, Not sure)
9. When you participate in a demonstration, do you consider the impact of your activities on individuals accessing nearby facilities?
(Never / Rarely / Sometimes / Always / Not applicable or not sure)
(Depending on whether questions 7-9 appeared for you, the following question numbers may be different on your screen)
10. Please indicate whether you believe the following activities are “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” during a demonstration near vulnerable social infrastructure.
(Acceptable / Unacceptable / Undecided)
- Behaviour that is abusive, intimidating, or harassing
Acceptable - This question groups three different things together: abusive, intimidating, harassing behaviour. “Intimidation” is a subjective term that could simply refer to a person disagreeing with the speech they are hearing. Some people may even find the very fact that a protest is occurring to be “intimidating”. For that reason, we selected “acceptable” – this does not mean, however, that we accept behaviour that we would consider abusive or unlawful harassment.
- Chanting/shouting (without amplification)
Acceptable - This has always been an essential part of expressing dissent.
- Discriminatory or hate speech
Undecided - This kind of speech is already unlawful in most cases. If we weren’t concerned about how this survey would be interpreted, we would say this is unacceptable. City staff’s preliminary research presented to council earlier this year cited an increase in the reporting of hate crimes, which is different than convictions. This has us concerned they could use flawed data to artificially inflate the prevalence of hate crimes at demonstrations.
- Distribution of leaflets/materials
Acceptable - This has always been an essential part of expressing dissent.
- Holding signs/banners
Acceptable - This has always been an essential part of expressing dissent.
- Intentional obstruction of emergency services
Undecided - This is another instance of grouping several items together that should be separate. In many cases where protestors may try to block the police, it is in defense of their fellow protestors to prevent police from using unnecessary force and intimidation to shut down dissent. This is a completely different situation than an ambulance or firetruck being blocked.
- Intentional damage to property
Unacceptable - We don’t believe this should be a part of protests or demonstrations. It is, however, already illegal. It is unclear why the city would include this in their list of behaviours when considering a bubble bylaw unless they are attempting to prime respondents to associate all of the listed behaviours with demonstrations.
- Marching/parading
Acceptable - This has always been an essential part of expressing dissent.
- Peaceful assembly/standing in groups
Acceptable - This has always been an essential part of expressing dissent.
- Issuing threats
Undecided - Simply saying “threats” is not specific enough to say this is unacceptable. For example, union workers often hold rallies that “threaten” strike action. Threat to further increase pressure is acceptable. Threatening violence against someone is already illegal, and once again raises questions about the goals of this survey.
- Preventing individuals or workers from accessing or leaving the facility
Acceptable - Labour action regularly involves blocking scab workers from entering facilities. There are other similar situations where this is a valid course of action.
- Use of fireworks or smoke devices (without permits) / Use of lasers pointed at individuals
Unacceptable - Another questionable thing to include here.
- Use of megaphones/loudspeakers (without permits)
Acceptable - This has always been an essential part of expressing dissent.
11. Do you support Ottawa developing a by-law to protect safe access to the sites listed in question 1?
(Please select one only: Strongly Supportive / Somewhat Supportive / Neutral / Somewhat Unsupportive / Strongly Unsupportive)
Strong Unsupportive - To read more about bubble by-laws and why we are campaigning against this, please see our breakdown page
12. Which types of facilities do you think should be included as vulnerable social infrastructure?
(Please select all that apply: Cultural-Based Facilities / Faith based facilities / Faith based schools / Healthcare clinic or facility / Retirement home or care home / Schools (non-faith based) / Other)
Other - This is not a necessary category to define for this purpose. It is questionable that the survey does not include an option to reflect those who do not support the policy.
13. Establishing a protective zone around a facility involves balancing the right for individuals to access the facility safely with the freedom of expression and assembly for those wishing to demonstrate. The borders and size of a protective zone directly impacts the ability of demonstrators to be heard and seen. When determining the appropriate boundaries and size of a protective zone, it is important to consider the impact of distance on both the auditory and visual environment. Based on these considerations, please consider the next question:
If a by-law established a protective zone around vulnerable social infrastructure, what distance from the property line would allow for meaningful demonstration while ensuring safe access?
(I don't know / 10m to 20m / 20m to 50m / 50m to 80m / Other)
10 to 20 m - This is one of the more problematic questions thanks to the biased preamble. They state that this “involves balancing [rights]”, which is an entirely subjective statement. We do not believe that any by-law restricting the right to protest would adequately balance rights, so our opinion is not represented by a question that pre-supposes this by-law has been passed.
14. Are you responding on behalf of an organization or interest group? (Please select one only)
We said yes, however we ask that you not indicate that your response has come from us, and not to answer the survey questions solely based on our interpretation. Give your own thoughts. It is unclear how the city plans to ensure that organizations' responses are verified. Otherwise, bad faith actors could fill it out on an organization's behalf without their permission.
15. Please provide any additional comments you would like to share regarding a Vulnerable Social Infrastructure By-law. (2000 characters maximum - Please do not include any personal information in your response.)
Our comments included a summary of the reasoning behind some of our responses. We also included the following: “A bubble by-law is unwarranted, severely damaging to the rights of Ottawa residents, and presents a significant legal risk for the City of Ottawa. Existing by-laws of this nature are being challenged by groups including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association due to their violation of Charter rights. There is no legal protection against being made to feel uncomfortable, and this is an essential aspect of expressing dissent. The City must not proceed with any kind of bubble zone legislation, and should also express this position to higher levels of government that have also expressed interest in this repressive policy.”
