Review of Special Event By-laws

Survey 5 Results

Demonstrations are a fundamental aspect of democratic societies, allowing citizens to voice their concerns and advocate for change. Their impact on a city offers both challenges and opportunities. Demonstrations are a reality in the City of Ottawa and it is recognized that this is a sensitive subject for many.

In September, we asked residents to share their thoughts on demonstrations held in the City of Ottawa. Our goal was to assess various topics, including the application process, information sharing and participation. The survey aimed to strike a balance between the individual’s experience as a citizen in relation to demonstrations and the democratic right to peacefully protest. We set out to identify accessibility barriers, safety concerns, and negative impacts, such as traffic disruptions. Additionally, we sought to find ways the City can better support residents during these events.

This survey ran on Engage Ottawa from September 10, 2024, to October 15, 2024. In total, 150 residents responded to this survey. The total number of responses for each question is reported beside the question. For convenience, individual responses are reported as both a total and a percentage. Staff recognize that these survey responses may prompt an emotional response for some individuals, and encourage those affected to seek appropriate support.

Responses to open-ended questions have been reported in summary format. Individual responses have been cataloged and made anonymous for sharing with the project team and other City departments where appropriate.

Our First Impressions

The survey responses indicate strong support for requesting that demonstration organizers notify the City of their plans to gather, with 94 per cent of respondents agreeing. Participation in demonstrations is somewhat influenced by this notification, with 44 per cent reporting they are more likely to join if the City is informed. Nearly half of the respondents (48 per cent) have participated in a demonstration in the past 24 months, while 50 per cent have not and two per cent are uncertain. Only a small percentage of respondents have organized demonstrations recently, but those who did found the application process generally straightforward, though some noted difficulties in locating the online form and slow response times. Some accessibility barriers and safety concerns were highlighted, with specific issues including mobility challenges, health concerns, and dependence on public transport.

The survey responses reveal diverse perspectives on how residents learn about traffic impacts from demonstrations, with news and word of mouth being the most common sources. Safety at demonstrations is a concern, with opinions split on feeling safe. Violence and property damage are the top concerns, followed by noise and traffic delays. Contributors to the survey suggested better support could include designated areas for protests, clear communication, time limits and strict law enforcement.

Responses reveal that demonstrations have negatively impacted residents in various ways, with most respondents experiencing these impacts at varying frequencies. The most common issues reported include harassment or discrimination, violence or threats of violence, offensive views, noise and traffic delays. Other significant concerns are restrictions on mobility, impacts on mental well-being, and physical well-being. Additionally, some respondents mentioned property damage, litter, air quality and degradation of local parks due to large gatherings as issues. Specific incidents highlighted include fear and safety concerns from weekly protest situations and lack of accountability for masked protesters during demonstrations.

Overall, the feedback underscores the importance of balancing the democratic right to peacefully protest with the need to respect citizens’ experiences and their rights to protection and security. It highlights a focus on public safety and minimizing daily disruptions to ensure both are respected.

Next Steps

A detailed analysis of the feedback from this survey will be reviewed and factored into final recommendations to Committee and Council in early 2025.

Inquiries

If you have questions or comments about the survey results, please contact By-law Reviews at bylawreviews@ottawa.ca or 613-580-2424 ext. 29529.

Survey Results

Q1: When demonstration organizers notify the City of Ottawa of an upcoming demonstration, the information is shared with a variety of City services to ensure the continuation of those services. Do you think it is reasonable that the City asks demonstration organizers to notify the municipality of an intended gathering? (148 responses)

• Yes: 139 respondents or 94 per cent
• No: 4 respondents or 3 per cent
• Uncertain/ No Opinion: 5 respondents or 3 per cent

Q2: Are you more likely to participate in a demonstration that has notified the City of the intended gathering? (147 responses)

• Yes: 65 respondents or 44 per cent
• No: 9 respondents or 6 per cent
• Uncertain/ No Opinion: 33 respondents or 23 per cent
• I do not participate in demonstrations: 40 respondents or 27 per cent

Q3: Have you organized a demonstration in Ottawa in the previous 24 months? (148 responses)

• Yes: 10 respondents or 7 per cent
• No: 138 respondents or 93 per cent
• Uncertain/ I don’t recall: 0 respondents or 0 per cent

Respondents that answered “Yes” to question 3 were also asked:

Q4: Did you complete a Demonstration / March application form before your demonstration? (10 responses)

• Yes: 9 respondents or 90 per cent
• No: 1 respondent or 10 per cent
• Uncertain/ I don’t recall: 0 respondents or 0 per cent

The Respondent that answered “No” to question 4 was also asked:

Q5: Please detail why you chose not to apply for Demonstration / March application before your demonstration. The collected information assists City staff with considerations on how to improve the application/notification process: (1 response)

The singular response to this question indicated that applications were submitted, but the organizer was informed they were unnecessary. Instead, coordination with Ottawa Police and Traffic Services was advised.

Respondents that answered “Yes” to question 4 were also asked questions 6 through 7:

Q6: Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements: (9 responses)

The online application form was easy to fill out

• Definitely Disagree: 0 respondents
• Disagree: 0 respondents
• Neither agree nor disagree: 1 respondent
• Agree: 2 respondents
• Definitely Agree: 6 respondents

The information requested was straightforward and easy to provide

• Definitely Disagree: 0 respondents
• Disagree: 0 respondents
• Neither agree nor disagree: 1 respondent
• Agree: 2 respondents
• Definitely Agree: 6 respondents

There were no accessibility barriers to completing the application form

• Definitely Disagree: 0 respondents
• Disagree: 1 respondent
• Neither agree nor disagree: 0 respondents
• Agree: 3 respondents
• Definitely Agree: 5 respondents

The application process helped us better understand traffic conditions around our event and plan accordingly

• Definitely Disagree: 1 respondent
• Disagree: 2 respondents
• Neither agree nor disagree: 2 respondents
• Agree: 1 respondent
• Definitely Agree: 3 respondents

Completing an application was not a barrier to holding the demonstration

• Definitely Disagree: 0 respondents
• Disagree: 1 respondent
• Neither agree nor disagree: 2 respondents
• Agree: 2 respondents
• Definitely Agree: 4 respondents

Q7: Please provide any additional comments you may have about the application process: (3 responses)

Survey responses indicated that the application form is hard to locate through a Google search, and the confirmation process is slow, making planning difficult. While the form is manageable for planned demonstrations, especially large ones requiring traffic reorganization, it becomes a barrier for urgent, unexpected events where timely completion is not feasible.

Q8: Have you participated in a demonstration in the previous 24 months? (148 responses)

• Yes: 71 respondents or 48 per cent
• No: 74 respondent or 50 per cent
• Uncertain/ I don’t recall: 3 respondents or 2 per cent

Q9: Are there any accessibility barriers that impact your ability to participate in demonstrations? (146 responses)

• Yes: 10 respondents or 7 per cent
• No: 136 respondent or 93 per cent

Respondents that answered “Yes” to question 9 were also asked:

Q10: Please explain: (9 responses)

Respondents who identified accessibility barriers reported several challenges affecting their participation in demonstrations. These include difficulty and time required to get downtown, mobility issues such as difficulty walking and health and safety concerns like masking and disease spread. Dependence on OC Transpo for access to the city center and personal safety concerns at certain demonstrations were also noted. Additionally, respondents mentioned the inability to stand or walk for long periods, the desire to express opinions without causing disturbance, challenges with strollers and wheelchairs, and police interference, including perceived violations of Charter rights.

Q11: How do you currently learn about upcoming traffic impacts related to demonstrations in Ottawa? (Check all that apply) (147 responses)

• X (formerly Twitter): 24 respondents
• Facebook: 39 respondents
• Instagram: 14 respondents
• City’s Interactive Traffic Map: 10 respondents
• News: 89 respondents
• Word of Mouth: 73 respondents
• Councillor Newsletter: 27 respondents
• I do not hear about demonstrations ahead of time: 35 respondents
• Other: 11 respondents

Respondents that answered “Other” to question 11 were also asked to elaborate:

Q12: Other: (8 responses)

Residents reported learning about upcoming traffic impacts related to demonstrations through various other sources, including navigation aps like Google Maps or Waze, email alerts from the City, organizers of the demonstration, organizational emails, and community-specific emails. Some were unaware that this information could be found in advance.

Q13: How much do you agree with the following statement “I feel safe attending demonstrations in Ottawa.” (147 responses)

• Definitely Disagree: 32 respondents
• Somewhat Disagree: 32 respondents
• Neither agree nor disagree: 33 respondents
• Somewhat Agree: 31 respondents
• Definitely Agree: 19 respondents

Q14: Please rank the following issues related to demonstrations in order of concern, where “1” is most concerned and “16” is the least concerned. (147 responses)

Listed in order of average concern

1. Violence is the most concerning issue, with an average score of 2.45
2. Property damage had an average score of 5.00
3. Noise had an average score of 6.20
4. Litter/Garbage had an average score of 7.03
5. Traffic delays had an average score of 7.38
6. Police involvement had an average score of 7.39
7. Blocked entrance to businesses had an average score of 7.50
8. By-law enforcement had an average score of 7.90
9. Blocked sidewalks had an average score of 7.93
10. Graffiti had an average score of 8.33
11. Restricted mobility had an average score of 8.54
12. Permit compliance had an average score of 9.21
13. Loss of income had an average score of 9.78
14. Air quality had an average score of 10.71
15. Parking removal had an average score of 11.18
16. Size of signs had an average score of 12.26

Q15: Do you have suggestions on how the City can better support residents when impacts related to demonstrations occur? (Please explain) (110 responses)

The survey responses to the question about how the City can better support residents during demonstrations highlighted several key themes:

Regulation and Control

• Designated Areas: 10 per cent of respondents suggested restricting demonstrations to specific controlled areas, away from traffic and businesses, to minimize disruption and enhance safety.
• Time Limits: 7 per cent of respondents recommended setting time limits for demonstrations to reduce prolonged disruptions.
• Prohibition of Certain Demonstrations: 3 per cent of respondents suggested prohibiting demonstrations that are not directly related to national matters or that promote hate and violence.
• Restricting Demonstrations in Residential Areas: 19 per cent of respondents suggested that demonstrations should not be allowed in residential neighborhoods to avoid disruption and ensure safety.

Communication and Planning

• Clear Communication: 7 per cent of responses called for better communication regarding detours, emergency access, and plans for handling illegal activities during protests.
• Engagement and Planning: A few responses highlighted the importance of early engagement with protestors to ensure peaceful and organized demonstrations.
• Proactive Measures: Suggestions included adjusting regulations to limit the times and frequency of protests, prioritizing one-time events over recurring ones, and planning ahead for the size and type of demonstrations.

Law Enforcement and Accountability

• Law Enforcement: 24 per cent of respondents emphasized the need for strict enforcement of laws and bylaws, particularly against actions like blocking traffic, using amplified sound systems, and engaging in hate speech. Opinions varied, with some advocating for immediate action against illegal protests, while others emphasized minimizing unnecessary police presence.
• Breaking Up Disruptive Protests: There were 3 calls for breaking up non-permitted and disruptive protests, especially those that block traffic and transit during rush hours.
• Consistent Enforcement: 5 per cent of respondents emphasized the need for consistent enforcement of all bylaws and laws, without exceptions, to ensure the safety and well-being of local residents and businesses.
• Accountability and Free Speech: Respondents highlighted the fine line between free speech and hate speech, calling for greater accountability for what is said during protests.

Community Impact and Safety

• Community Impact: 14 per cent of responses highlighted concerns about the negative impact of weekly protests, mentioning feelings of fear and insecurity within the community.
• Safety and Security: Ensuring the safety and security of all residents, including during medical emergencies, was a recurring theme.
• Clear Access Routes: Ensuring that clear paths and access routes are maintained for local residents during demonstrations was a common suggestion.
• Noise Control: There were 7 calls for more enforcement to prevent excessive noise and prohibiting the use of megaphones and noise makers, to minimize the impact on residents and businesses.

Demonstration Dynamics

• Contentious Views: There were polarized views on the nature of protests, with some supporting only domestic concerns and others expressing strong opposition to specific groups or causes.
• Face Coverings During Protests: 17 per cent of respondents reported concerns about protestors wearing face coverings and masks, which some believe emboldens them to behave inappropriately as they cannot be identified.
• Peaceful Protests: While supporting the right to peaceful protest, respondents stressed that any violence, threats, property damage, or prolonged obstruction of public streets should be met with strict enforcement.
• Balancing Rights and Obligations: Respondents acknowledged the importance of the right to demonstrate but emphasized that it comes with obligations to respect all laws and minimize disruptions.

Overall, the feedback underscores the need for a balanced approach that respects the right to protest while ensuring public safety and minimizing disruptions to daily life.

Q16: Have you been negatively impacted by a demonstration on a city street in the previous 24 months? (148 responses)

• Yes: 88 respondents or 60 per cent
• No: 58 respondents or 39 per cent
• Uncertain/ I don’t recall: 2 respondents or 1 per cent

Respondents that answered “Yes” to question 16 were also asked questions 17 through 18:

Q17: How frequently have you been negatively impacted by a demonstration? (86 responses)

• Rarely: 16 respondents or 19 per cent
• Occasionally: 34 respondents or 39 per cent
• Frequently: 36 respondents or 42 per cent

Q18: In what ways have demonstrations negatively impacted you? (Check all that apply) (88 responses)

• Noise: 44 respondents
• Restricting mobility: 41 respondents
• Harassment or discrimination: 70 respondents
• Violence or threats of violence: 65 respondents
• Offensive views: 65 respondents
• Loss of income: 6 respondents
• Physical well-being: 27 respondents
• Mental well-being: 51 respondents
• Property damage: 21 respondents
• Litter: 23 respondents
• Air quality: 13 respondents
• Traffic delays: 49 respondents
• Parking removal: 9 respondents
• Other: 7 respondents

Respondents that answered “Other” to question 18 were asked to elaborate:

Q19: Other: (7 responses)

Survey responses indicated several negative impacts from demonstrations. Weekly protests were reported to cause fear and safety concerns, with accusations of hate speech and racial slurs. There were complaints about the lack of accountability and the emboldening of masked protesters. Specific incidents included disruptions during cultural events and discriminatory behavior. Additionally, residents noted a general decrease in personal safety, distrust in police and by-law enforcement, and insufficient legislation to protect against harassment. A significant occupation was highlighted as a turning point, with ongoing public disturbances and threats. Environmental degradation of local parks due to large gatherings was also mentioned.

Q20: Would you like to help us by answering some questions about yourself? (145 responses)

• Yes: 108 respondents or 75 per cent
• No: 37 respondent or 25 per cent

Q21: The City recognizes that not all neighbourhoods experience the same potential for impacts as a result of demonstrations. To help the by-law review team refine the assessment of feedback received, please select the City of Ottawa Ward you reside in. (City Wide Map) (Ward maps) (106 responses)

1. Ward 1- Orléans East-Cumberland: 3 respondents or 3 per cent
2. Ward 2 – Orléans West-Innes: 3 respondents or 3 per cent
3. Ward 3 – Barrhaven West: 6 respondents or 6 per cent
4. Ward 4 – Kanata North: 3 respondents or 3 per cent
5. Ward 5 – West Carleton-March: 1 respondent or 1 per cent
6. Ward 6 – Stittsville: 4 respondents or 4 per cent
7. Ward 7 – Bay: 9 respondents or 8 per cent
8. Ward 8 – College: 10 respondents or 9 per cent
9. Ward 9 – Knoxdale-Merivale: 8 respondents or 7 per cent
10. Ward 10 – Gloucester-Southgate: 2 respondents or 2 per cent
11. Ward 11 – Beacon Hill-Cyrville: 2 respondents or 2 per cent
12. Ward 12 – Rideau-Vanier: 10 respondents or 9 per cent
13. Ward 13 – Rideau-Rockcliffe: 2 respondents or 2 per cent
14. Ward 14 – Somerset: 5 respondents or 5 per cent
15. Ward 15 – Kitchissippi: 15 respondents or 14 per cent
16. Ward 16 – River: 2 respondents or 2 per cent
17. Ward 17 – Capital: 10 respondents or 9 per cent
18. Ward 18 – Alta Vista: 4 respondents or 4 per cent
19. Ward 19 – Orléans South-Navan: 0 respondents or 0 per cent
20. Ward 20 – Osgoode: 1 respondent or 1 per cent
21. Ward 21 – Rideau-Jock: 1 respondent or 1 per cent
22. Ward 22 – Riverside South-Findlay Creek: 2 respondents or 2 per cent
23. Ward 23 – Kanata South: 1 respondent or 1 per cent
24. Ward 24 – Barrhaven East: 2 respondents or 2 per cent

Q22: How do you identify or express your gender? (Select all that apply) (107 responses)

• Woman: 64 respondents
• Man: 43 respondents
• Transgender: 0 respondents
• Non-binary: 0 respondents

Q23: Are you a person with one or more disabilities? (100 responses)

• Yes: 22 respondents or 22 per cent
• No: 74 respondents or 74 per cent
• Prefer not to say: 4 respondents or 4 per cent

Q24: Please indicate your age from the categories below: (107 responses)

• 70 or older: 22 respondents or 21 per cent
• 55 to 69: 38 respondents or 35 per cent
• 35 to 54: 37 respondents or 35 per cent
• 18 to 34: 10 respondents or 9 per cent
• Under 18: 0 respondents or 0 per cent

Q25: Please select the groups you belong to: (104 responses)

• LGBTQ+: 8 respondents
• Racialized persons: 20 respondents
• Indigenous: 1 respondent
• Francophones: 6 respondents
• Immigrants: 14 respondents
• People living in poverty: 1 respondent
• People with disabilities: 5 respondents
• Rural residents: 1 respondent
• I prefer not to say: 12 respondents
• None of the above: 52 respondents