Menard Protests Bubble Bylaw Proposal

This is an excerpt from Capital Councillor Shawn Menard’s newsletter:

Is a by-law that will curb legal protests coming to Ottawa?

On Wednesday, city council passed a motion directing city staff to “Consider the feasibility of implementing a Vulnerable Social Infrastructure By-law similar to Vaughan’s…in connection to special events or demonstrations”. 

Staff would report back in early 2025. This accelerated timeline would prevent them from speaking with several stakeholder groups, or following the city’s normal process of public consultation and engagement.

The so-called “bubble by-law” would prohibit protesters from exercising their constitutional rights within 100 metres of “Vulnerable Social Infrastructure” which could include such locations as daycares, schools, religious institutions, long-term care homes and whatever else the city decides to insulate from the democratic process.

(Of note, City Hall has a daycare, and is wedged in between a school and a church)

It should be noted that the motion directed staff to explore implementing a by-law similar to that of Vaughan, Ontario. That by-law allows for a $100,000 fine for someone demonstrating in a manner and location not pre-approved by the local government.

Though likely unconstitutional, the Vaughan by-law has not yet been challenged in court, so the threat of such a debilitating fine hangs over every person who advocates for change within 100 metres of any of these places.

This is a tremendous over-reach by the city. It is not a means to protect residents from harassment or violence as those are already legally outlawed.

I voted against this review, despite the motion passing. 

Below, you will find my remarks from city council. You can also watch them here.

Mayor, I have significant concerns about this motion, and I’m surprised it’s being raised here at the municipal order of government—in the capital of our country—where advocacy, protest and civil dissent are most welcomed and encouraged as a form of free speech in challenging policy or proposed legislation. That is a time-honoured tradition of respect for freedoms that have been hard fought for—like freedom of assembly—and there is a real risk that if we allow this to fully expand, the civic spaces that everybody in Canada can use to speak up and freely dissent and express ideas will slowly shrink.

The questions you really have to ask yourself are:

Is protesting religious authorities, residential schools or long-standing abuses now a non-starter?

What about students protesting their school administration?

What about protesting private long-term care facility owners where negligence may have cost the lives of our elders?

What about the rights of workers to advocate for new workplace rights, which, somehow, we say will be okay. Well, I don’t like the idea of the municipality being an arbiter on this, nor do I like the implication that a zone would be created that completely insulates a meeting place—let’s say a so-called vulnerable social infrastructure meeting place hosting a non-religious event for the sale of weapons of war—from any exposure to protest.

And mayor, this is a motion that doesn’t just ask for investigation. It promotes and advocates for a bubble by-law being implemented. Read the motion. The motion requests the feasibility of, and I quote, “implementation of a bubble by-law similar to Vaughan’s” where there is a $100,000 fine that hasn’t been challenged and resolved in court, and where the municipality has de facto become the arbiter of what it means to restrict people’s right to free expression, association and assembly, which are fundamental to who we are as Canadians.

There is a reason why so few cities have this on their books. It’s rightly considered an infringement on rights.

Authorities already have the tools to deal with this and, indeed, our own authorities have been working on this without this motion.  There are laws on our books against intimidation, inciting or promoting hatred, threats of violence, harassment, and other abuses. In some recent protests, offenders have been charged. There are also laws that protect health care workers from intimidation, which is fundamentally different from what we are talking about here.

My view is this proposed by-law would be an expensive and ineffective move; it would do little to solve the so-called problem. No government—let alone a municipal government—should want to put itself in a position to be the arbiter of which protests are acceptable and where, and which are not.

If there are acts of protest or civil disobedience we disagree with, there are better ways to deal with them and confront them than considering how the state can criminalize them and fine them. That should always be a last resort. 

This newsletter excerpt is courtesy of the city-wide community group Your Applewood Acres (And Beyond) Neighbours

For You:

Truth Tarnished At City Hall: WHOPPER WATCH

Toronto Offers Ford Mayor’s Job: BEAVERTON

City Hall Operates For City Hall: BENN

Bookmark The Bulldog, click here