Mask Bylaw

A huge area of current public debate: whether or not masks should be mandatory in public spaces.

Municipalities across Alberta have been instituting Face Covering Bylaws. And this topic has receive significant public attention here in Grande Prairie. So it has been a topic of conversation at our Council. Following is more information about what is being discussed in Grande Prairie, and my take on it.


NOTE 1: This is my personal page. Any mistakes or opinions within it belong to me and me alone, not to our City staff or the rest of City Council.

NOTE 2: This page was last updated on Sept 4th. As this conversation moves forward in our community, I’ll be periodically updating it. However, we are in a quickly changing situation. So, some information may be out of date when you are reading this.

ON THIS PAGE

Following is basic information about COVID-19 and the potential for a Face Covering Bylaw.

Any mistakes or opinions expressed here belong to me and me alone.

If you don’t want to read this whole page, you can click on section links below:

Where Grande Prairie Is at Right Now

• Bylaw

Assumptions I Carry Into This Conversation

Expert Medical Advice

• The need for (and limits of) expert medical advice

• General information I’m hearing from the medical experts

• Specific information from Alberta scientists and the World Health Organisation

About Rights

• What is legal?

• What is right?

• Right not to wear a mask vs other rights

My Take

• Masks shouldn’t take away from more important measures

• Voluntary decisions

• There is a spectrum of government response and experts should determine when we move on it

• The City should let the province take the lead

• The importance of public health indicators, system capacity and goals

• Masks should not be mandated by the City right now

• Mandating masks makes sense if the Provinces moves us to enhanced status

• How I voted on the Bylaw

• Masks on Transit and in City facilities

• Extra community support on Watch status

Let Me Know What You Think

Since March, the City has put significant effort into COVID-19 response. It has supported public health efforts. Made major adjustments to staffing and service delivery. Helped residents in isolation get food, medicine, and other basic needs met. And worked to support businesses and non-profits who have been hit hard.

Throughout this time, the City has worked closely with the County and other regional municipalities.

The City has also worked hard to support the province.

The province is the order of government responsible for healthcare. It has doctors, epidemiologists, and other scientific experts working for it. It is also the government collecting data on COVID-19 cases, including where they were transmitted, how they were detected, and their impact on hospital capacity. The Government of Alberta is the only government with the full suite of tools needed to create appropriate health responses for Albertans.

When it comes to public health responses, the City’s approach so far has been to support the province. Since we don’t have medical health experts working for us, we’ve followed the lead of the provincial experts. The City has followed provincial recommendations in operating its own facilities and services. And it has helped local businesses and organisations navigate provincial recommendations, guidelines and restrictions. But it has not imposed restrictions of its own.

As part of its efforts to work with other municipalities and support provincial health efforts, the City is currently working with the County on a public education campaign relating to voluntary mask usage. It encourages residents to wear masks when social distancing is not practical. And it provides information on how to use masks safely.

This education campaign is consistent with what the City’s approach has been so far. It is just boosting what the province has been saying about voluntary mask usage.

However, there are many in our community who would like the City to go further by mandating mask usage in indoor public spaces. So, there is a Face Covering Bylaw currently being debated by Council.

In September, Council passed a Face Covering Bylaw. You can read it for yourself here.

If passed as-is, this Bylaw does not immediately mandate masks.

Instead, it will require face coverings in indoor public places if one of two conditions are met:

• There are 100 total active cases in the City and County combined

• The province changes the status of the City or County from “Open” to “Enhanced” status. This status change will happen if the province determines that cases are spreading to such a degree in our region where there is significant risk level in the community, so additional public health measures are needed. The province hasn’t shared full information about what would cause it to declare a region to be “Enhanced.” But it would not just consider number of active cases. It would also consider information such as where the active cases came from, how quickly they are spreading, how severe they are, and local hospital capacity.

The Bylaw will cease to be active if the number of cases went below 100 and both municipalities were out of Enhanced status for 14 consecutive days.

The Bylaw contains a number of exceptions, including young children, people with a reason to refuse protected by the Alberta Human Rights Act, caregivers of people with disabilities where a face covering would hinder care, and people undertaking fitness or athletic activities.

This Bylaw has a sunset clause in it. It would expire in January, 2021 unless Council votes in a public meeting to amend its expiry date.

This has been an incredibly divisive and complicated conversation. Following is how I’ve approached it so far:

As anyone forms their opinions on an important topic, there are a number of assumptions that shape their thinking. Here are some assumptions I have that are shaping my take on mandatory masks:

• We should be listening to bodies of experts to evaluate the science. Doctors, epidemiologists, and other scientists are the people who we should be listening to when it comes to evaluating the risks of COVID-19 and the likely health impacts of various behaviours. And peer review is an important part of science. When it comes to answering scientific questions, we should be listening to the organisations representing many experts, or to research from peer-reviewed sources. I’ve got more information about my view on expert advice below.

• There is a huge difference between encouraging and mandating behaviour. There are all sorts of behaviours that government encourages but doesn’t require. And that is ok. For example: the City encourages people to get to know their neighbours as an important part of crime prevention. But it doesn’t have a law mandating you exchange names and phone numbers with everyone who lives around you.

• Government does have a role to play in regulating public safety. The City has the responsibility and authority to introduce reasonable Bylaws to mitigate significant risks to public safety.

• Instituting a new regulation is a VERY big deal. Anytime government mandates a new behaviour, that is limiting the rights of residents. And preserving rights is important. Government has to have incredibly good reasons and use a very public process if it wants to mandate something new. I’ve got more information about my view on this below.

• EVERY person matters, no matter their age and medical conditions. Some have suggested to me “COVID-19 isn’t a big deal because it only kills the old and those with pre-existing conditions.” This isn’t what I’m hearing from the medical experts. But even if it was true: it’s a tragedy when anyone dies a preventable death, no matter their age and medical condition.

• Any new regulations should be tied to concrete health outcomes. If the City institutes new rules in response to COVID-19, they can’t be indefinitely in place. They should be tied to a concrete outcome we are trying to achieve, and should be removed when that outcome is reached.

• The City should be taking its lead from the province. The province is the order of government primarily responsible for health. Unlike the City, it also has medical experts working for it and access to data about local COVID cases and hospital capacity. The City should be working to support provincial public health initiatives, not to lead this effort.

Human bodies, viruses, and public health are VERY complex topics. And COVID-19 is still a new virus whose spread and long-term impacts are not known. It takes incredibly specialized knowledge to understand the likely risks associated with this pandemic.

I have spent a lot of time doing my own research and reading about COVID-19. However, I will never have anywhere approaching the expertise of people with decades of medical education, experience, and research. I am relying on what reputable bodies of experts say to inform my approach to COVID-19. These medical experts should be trusted to tell us what the medical impacts or consequences of different actions will likely be.

But:

Medical experts provide a medical perspective. Different perspectives are needed to weigh medical risks against things such as loss of social connection, erosion of rights, quality of life, economic impact, etc.

Medical experts should be informing, not setting, policy. As various approaches are considered, we should turn to the experts to learn what potential risks may be faced. But other perspectives and voices need to shape what risks are acceptable and how medical advice should be translated into government action.

When it comes to masks, we should turn to medical experts to evaluate the consequences of catching COVID-19, and to what degree masks are likely to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in various situations. Then the risks and benefits laid out by these experts should be carefully weighed against the non-medical impacts of mandatory masks.

As I consider the pros and cons of a potential Face Covering Bylaw, I’m spending a lot of time taking in information from bodies of experts to consider what medical impact it would likely have on our community. But I’m listening to many other voices to decide on if this impact would be worth mandating masks.

As I evaluate medical impact, the primary sources I am listening to:

• Doctor Hinshaw and her Provincial colleagues

• Organisations representing a body of medical experts

• Peer reviewed studies appearing in academic publications

• Doctors and other medical professionals I personally know to be experienced, caring, level-headed people who are keeping up with current research

Some things I am hearing from these experts that I take seriously:

• COVID-19 does NOT just kill elderly people and people with medical complications: it has killed young, healthy people, too. And it might have life long health consequences for some people who catch it but don’t die. It is also highly communicable. COVID-19 poses a significant risk to our community.

• COVID-19 sometimes gets spread by people with no symptoms who have no idea that they are carriers.

• Active cases are going up in our province at a concerning rate. If this continues, there is still a significant risk that we might see our medical system overwhelmed in part or all of Alberta.

• Face coverings can prevent someone who has COVID-19 from infecting others.

• Social distancing and frequent hand washing are the most important components to stopping the spread: masks are primarily important for situations where both of these are not possible.

• Face coverings are not about protecting the person wearing them. They are about preventing the wearer from spreading COVID-19 to others.

• Face coverings are primarily about stopping droplets leaving the nose and mouth. They do not need to be air-tight or medical grade to have benefit.

• Masks don’t lower oxygen levels or pose other significant health challenges to most people. However, there are some people with very real physical or medical challenges that make wearing a mask impossible or extremely uncomfortable.

• Someone who is immunocompromised or otherwise highly vulnerable is best protected if we limit community spread. It is not enough for them to just isolate themselves.

Based on what I’ve heard from reputable medical experts, I am convinced that we should be taking reasonable efforts to control the spread of COVID-19. I am also convinced that there times where wearing a mask is a reasonable effort.

Medical experts have convinced me that, in some situations, wearing a mask is the responsible thing to do. Even if we think we are healthy, wearing a mask can protect others in our community. Because of this, I would love to see more people voluntarily wearing masks when social distancing is not practical.

However, this does not mean that the City of Grande Prairie should mandate masks. What I’ve heard from medical experts needs to be carefully weighed against other factors, such as the rights of residents and the jurisdiction of municipalities.

There are two documents that have been especially foundational to my view on masks. One is from Alberta scientists, and the other is from the World Health Organisation.

Alberta Health Services’ Scientific Advisory Group Report

Alberta Health Services has a Scientific Advisory Group (SAG) made up of medical practitioners from a variety of disciplines. This group has put together a number of guidance and recommendation documents relating to COVID-19. They can be found here.

There is one document especially relevant to this conversation: Effectiveness of Wearing Masks to Reduce Spread of COVID-19 in the Community.

My take away from reading this report: masks likely have some impact on community transmission, but it isn’t clear how big an impact they have. There is no direct evidence that they significantly reduce risk, and they are less important than social distancing and hand hygiene. Due to split opinions between members, the SAG doesn’t have firm recommendations on community mask usage, but does think they should be “encouraged” where social distancing is not possible. I do not see strong evidence in this report that masks should be “mandated” in most community contexts.

Some highlights of the SAG’s summary of available evidence:

• “Community mask use is now either encouraged or mandatory in over 80 countries, with many jurisdictions encouraging but not mandating the use of cloth masks; however, some countries such as Australia and New Zealand continue to not recommend community masking and have achieved low rates of COVID activity despite the lack of this particular intervention.” (pg 1)

• “Laboratory studies investigating the efficacy of masks in filtering viral particles as well as studies in medical settings with laboratory based endpoints for bacterial respiratory pathogens (Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Mycobacterium tuberculosis) point to a theoretical benefit to medical mask use as a form of source control (protecting others from the wearer). There are no laboratory studies with SARS-CoV-2 and only one looking at other human coronaviruses.” (pg 2)

• “Based on lab-based bioaerosol and NaCl aerosol studies, medical masks are superior to homemade cloth masks, but non-medical masks and optimally constructed home-made masks may offer some protection in reducing dispersion of droplets. Laboratory-based studies are of highly variable quality, with only a few studies using industry approved filtration efficiency testing methods.” (pg 2)

• “There is limited evidence of harms related to community mask wearing with no studies identified that have systematically looked at potential harms. Such harms could include behavioral modifications such as risk compensation/non-adherence to social distancing or optimal hand hygiene practices, self-contamination, induction of facial rashes, and increasing real or perceived breathing difficulties. There are also concerns about poor compliance or tolerance of masks in children or those with cognitive challenges and communication difficulties.” (pg 2)

• “Pre-symptomatic transmission and asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 have been described but the degree to which they contribute to community spread is unclear, At this point, there is no direct evidence that the use of a medical or homemade cloth mask or the wider use of masks in the community significantly reduces this risk. For more information, refer to the Asymptomatic Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 rapid review.” (pg 3)

Some key sections capturing the discussions had by the SAG:

• “There was agreement that there is insufficient information to make a firm recommendation for the use of home-made (non-medical) masks in the community. In the face of difficulties in quantifying risk of asymptomatic transmission and potential benefit outweighing the harms of wider use of home-made masks in the community, several committee members felt strongly that we should carefully balance the recommendation for community use to reflect the precautionary principle as well as evidence gaps.” (pg 3)

• “In settings where social distancing cannot be maintained, medical masks or high-quality nonmedical masks should be encouraged as a form of protection for those vulnerable to severe COVID-19 infection outcomes.” (pg 4)

• “In light of widespread interest in masks and anecdotal evidence of potentially harmful, inappropriate use by the public, health officials should widely communicate the need for both optimal mask construction and mask “etiquette”. It is important to strengthen the messaging that their use not replace the need for maintaining social distancing and hand hygiene as more important strategies to prevent transmission of COVID-19; and the need to not touch the mask, to replace when soiled or wet and ensure appropriate laundering.” (pg 4)

It’s also worth highlighting that the SAG mentions split opinions on masks in other reports. For example, here is a quote from a report discussing COVID-19 transmission in schools:

• “Discussion of the use of masks highlighted differences of opinion predicated on the lack of data directly describing COVID-19 transmission reduction with cloth mask use in community settings, and a lack of data around the potential negative developmental, social and learning effects of non-medical masks in school settings, with specific concerns regarding adherence challenges and potential negative effects in younger children.” (pg 3)

World Health Organisation Recommendations

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has created a document entitled “Advice on the Use of Masks in the Context of COVID-19.”

This document does not recommend masks be worn by the general population in all situations. Instead, it advocates for a “risk-based approach” where masking is encouraged in high risk situations. For most community settings, it highlights a situation that I don’t think we’ve yet seen in Grande Prairie: “areas with known or suspected widespread transmission and limited or no capacity to implement other containment measures.”

This report begins by looking at general information about masks and the transmission of COVID-19. Some relevant quotes:

• “The use of masks is part of a comprehensive package of the prevention and control measures that can limit the spread of certain respiratory viral diseases, including COVID-19. Masks can be used either for protection of healthy persons (worn to protect oneself when in contact with an infected individual) or for source control (worn by an infected individual to prevent onward transmission). However, the use of a mask alone is insufficient to provide an adequate level of protection or source control, and other personal and community level measures should also be adopted to suppress transmission of respiratory viruses. Whether or not masks are used, compliance with hand hygiene, physical distancing and other infection prevention and control (IPC) measures are critical to prevent human-tohuman transmission of COVID-19.” (pg 1)

• “According to the current evidence, COVID-19 virus is primarily transmitted between people via respiratory droplets and contact routes. Droplet transmission occurs when a person is in close contact (within 1 metre) with an infected person and exposure to potentially infective respiratory droplets occurs” (pg 1)

• “Current evidence suggests that most transmission of COVID19 is occurring from symptomatic people to others in close

  contact, when not wearing appropriate PPE.” (pg 2)

• “There is also the possibility of transmission from people who are infected and shedding virus but have not yet developed symptoms; this is called pre-symptomatic transmission… Viable virus has been isolated from specimens of pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, suggesting, therefore, that people who do not have symptoms may be able transmit the virus to others.(26) Comprehensive studies on transmission from asymptomatic individuals are difficult to conduct, but the available evidence from contact tracing reported by Member States suggests that asymptomatically-infected individuals are much less likely to transmit the virus than those who develop symptoms. ” (pg 2)

The report then has a section giving guidance on masks in health care settings. That section isn’t very relevant to the City. But the following section with guidance on masks for the general public is important. Some quotes:

• “At the present time, the widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and harms to consider (see below). “ (pg 6)

• “WHO has updated its guidance to advise that to prevent COVID-19 transmission effectively in areas of community transmission, governments should encourage the general public to wear masks in specific situations and settings as part of a comprehensive approach to suppress SARS-CoV-2 transmission (Table 2). WHO advises decision makers to apply a risk-based approach.” (pg 6)

• As part of its risk-based approach, the WHO recommends mask use by “general population in public settings, such as grocery stores, at work, social gatherings, mass gatherings, closed settings, including schools, churches, mosques, etc.” in “areas with known or suspected widespread transmission and limited or no capacity to implement other containment measures such as physical distancing, contact tracing, appropriate testing, isolation and care for suspected and confirmed cases.” (pg 7)

• A number of potential benefits/advantages and harms/disadvantages of mask use are listed on pages 7-8

Many have wondered: does the City have the authority to pass a Mandatory Mask Bylaw?

All municipalities institute Bylaws that limit rights. Sometimes these are to promote safety, sometimes they are to promote a better community. Municipalities prohibit certain activities on both public and private land. They institute business licensing to regulate certain industries. And they pass Bylaws which penalize nuisance behaviour.

The province’s Municipal Government Act makes municipalities responsible to “develop and maintain” safe communities. It also gives municipalities the right to make Bylaws respecting “the safety, health, and welfare of people” and “people, activities and things” in public places.

My understanding is that the City does have the legal authority to mandate masks in public places. This is consistent with the legal advice municipalities across the province have received as they debate Face Covering Bylaws.

Even if the City has the legal authority to mandate masks, that isn’t something that should be done flippantly. It might be a reasonable and legal limit on personal rights. But it would still be an incredibly significant one. And I’m very concerned about potential erosion of rights coming out of this pandemic.

I strongly believe that all levels of government have been acting in good faith throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. That their only interest is what they see as being best for residents. However: the significant curtailment of rights we’ve seen could be bad precedent for future governments with different intents. That concerns me. Contributing to this potential erosion of rights cannot be done without good reason and serious consideration.

To pass Face Covering Bylaw, Council shouldn’t just be convinced that it would have some impact on public safety. It needs to be convinced that our community’s current risk is high and masks will have a significant enough impact to justify putting a new limit on the rights of residents and visitors in our community.

Important to note: as we talk about a Face Covering Bylaw, we aren’t just talking about someone’s right to choose whether or not to wear a mask. We’re also talking about other rights people in our community have.

Everyone has a right to be safe. And the province’s Municipal Government Act says that one of the primary roles of a municipal government is to create a “safe and viable” community. When municipal governments debate Face Covering Bylaws, they aren’t considering them for the sake of limiting the rights of people who choose not to wear masks. These Bylaws are being considered to protect the right of other people to be safe. Remember: in this conversation a mask isn’t meant to protect the person wearing it, but to protect others.

And there are other rights that need to be considered too. Such as the right to run a business, obtain an education, travel, and attend public gatherings.

In March, the province locked down our economy and shut down most gatherings. This was the biggest curtailment of individual rights in my lifetime. It bankrupted businesses, put people out of jobs, threw kids’ education into chaos, stressed families, and created lots of other suffering.

And the province has said that it will consider locking down regions again if their cases of COVID-19 grow too big or too quickly. I do not want to see this happen in Grande Prairie.

As I consider mandatory masks, my primary concern is “would the likely safety benefits justify a Face Covering Bylaw?” However, I’m also considering “will it likely help us prevent another lock down in our region?”

So, what’s my take? Should the City of Grande Prairie mandate face coverings in public places?

While I support voluntary masking when social distancing is not possible, I do not think that masks should be mandated in all public spaces at this time.

I hope that people in our community continue to do a good job of staying home when sick, social distancing when possible, and washing their hands. I also hope that they voluntarily wear masks when social distancing isn’t practical. We’ve kept our numbers low, and I hope we will continue to do so.

However, if we see a very significant change to our local situation, I can imagine scenarios where I would support mandatory masks. If our provincial health experts see changes in local data (rate of spread, places of spread, ICU capacity, etc…) that have them place our community in a high risk category, then mandated masks might become a reasonable response. They might be an important component of public health. And I’d much rather see the City mandate masks than see the province shut down businesses, schools, and other services again.

More details about my thinking:

My understanding of the medical expert’s advice on masks: they can provide an additional layer of protection when other measures fail. But on their own, masks are not a good way to prevent outbreaks of COVID-19.

More important than wearing masks are measures such as staying home when sick, social distancing when possible, and washing our hands frequently.

And a big worry I’ve got about the conversation around masks: that it is detracting from those other measures. I’m worried that we are spending so much time debating masks that we aren’t spending time re-enforcing the need for other safety behaviours. And I’m worried that masks are making COVID-19 conversations so polarized that they are causing people who would otherwise socially distance and practice good hand hygiene to to not do so.

As we have this conversation about mandatory masking, we need to make sure that it isn’t causing other behaviours to go to the wayside.

Our Premier and other officials responsible for health have advocated for the voluntary usage of masks because masks might help reduce the spread of COVID-19 in our community. Unlike Council, provincial leaders have medical experts working closely with them. They also have access to medical data that I do not have access to. If they are advising the use of masks in some situations, I take that advice seriously.

I personally am taking several precautions relating to COVID-19. I’m staying home if sick. I’m washing my hands, social distancing, and getting regular asymptomatic testing. There are also times when I am wearing a mask.

When I am going into a place (ex: a busy store) where I will be surrounded by people I don’t regularly see and where I cannot physically distance from them, I will wear a mask. My wife and kids are doing the same.

My family’s use of masks isn’t about a sense of personal safety. While everyone has some risk if they catch COVID-19 and I’d rather not have our family catch it, I’m also not overly worried about what happens if we do. Also, my understanding of what the medical experts say is that wearing masks does little to nothing to protect my family.

We wear masks because we want to protect others in our community. There are some in Grande Prairie who will almost certainly have serious or deadly complications if they catch COVID-19. And if I am a carrier without knowing it, I would hate to pass the virus on.

I also know that there are many in our community who are more personally afraid of COVID-19 than I am. I want people not just to be safe, but also to feel safe around me. If I’m in a situation where wearing a mask is likely to make others more comfortable, I’m willing to wear a mask.

Finally, I really don’t want to see our businesses, schools, and other services shut down. If wearing a mask might lead to the province keeping all of these places open, I’m happy to do so.

I think that, in some situations, wearing a mask is the right thing to do. I would love to see more people using them in our community.

However, there is a big difference between encouraging mask use and mandating it. There needs to be a higher bar of potential benefit and of risk to mandate masks.

I have not heard strong enough recommendations from medical experts to have me support mandatory masks at this time. Our community isn’t in high risk right now, I don’t know if we’re seeing COVID-19 spread in public places in Grande Prairie, and the scientific experts haven’t made firm recommendations about community mask usage.

I’m convinced enough about the importance of masks to wear one myself and want to see voluntary usage. But I’m not convinced that there is justification for mandatory usage in the current context of Grande Prairie.

There are a wide variety of responses governments can and have taken in response to COVID-19.

On one end of the spectrum, we have “no response.” This is like where we were a year ago. There are no restrictions on businesses, no campaigns to increase hand hygiene, and no modifications to how public services are delivered in recognition of the pandemic.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have “full lockdown.” This is like where we were in March. Most businesses and services are shut down. And outside of accessing vital services, people are asked to only physically interact with their immediate household.

There are very few people who think we should be in a state of “no response.” At the very least, almost everyone agrees that it makes sense to be washing our hands more than we used to and staying home when sick.

And I’m not aware of anyone who thinks we should currently be in “full lockdown.”

Most people agree we should be somewhere in the middle of the possible spectrum of responses. And we are.

In Alberta, the provincial government is allowing most businesses and services to operate but with limitations. It’s prohibited some activities, and put mandatory guidelines around others. It is also working to encourage businesses and citizens to take voluntary actions to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

There are provincial Medical Officers of Health closely monitoring the province’s response. They are examining daily data about new and existing cases of COVID-19 in communities across the province. Because of their experience and access to data, we should be trusting these experts. Politicians shouldn’t work to increase government restrictions unless there is indication from Medical Officers of Health that we need to move up the spectrum of response.

COVID-19 response should be a provincial, not municipal, decision.

Provinces are the level of government responsible for health care. The Province is the only level of government with full data about active cases (where they were transmitted, how severe they are, what impact they’re having on hospital space, etc…). And unlike municipalities, the Province has teams of doctors, epidemiologists, and other medical experts working for it.

In contrast, the City has no doctors or medical experts working for it and the provincial experts are difficult for us to access. We have no more data than the public has about local cases (so, for example, we don’t know how many current active cases were transmitted in locations that would be covered by a Face Covering Bylaw). And we aren’t the level of government responsible for health care.

Throughout the pandemic, the City’s response has been to follow the Province’s lead. We’ve followed provincial recommendations and guidelines. We’ve helped local businesses and organisations navigate provincial restrictions. But we haven’t introduced new public health rules of our own.

I strongly believe this should continue to be our approach. We should be supporting the efforts of provincial authorities. We should not be creating new responses divorced from the direct input of medical experts and from local epidemiological data.

We don’t know how long COVID-19 will be a public health concern.

My understanding of the current science: we don’t know if people who recover obtain permanent immunity. We don’t know if a vaccine will be possible. And if a vaccine is possible, we don’t know how long it will take to develop, produce, and distribute.

We could be dealing with this pandemic for many years to come. I’d have very serious concerns about the erosion of rights that mandating masks for years to come would entail. And I’m worried about the social and mental health consequences. Masks make it difficult to have many types of personal interactions, especially when combined with social distancing.

It is not reasonable to mandate masks for an indefinite, potentially very long, time.

This is a big reason why I appreciate the WHO’s risk-based approach. Masks shouldn’t be mandated throughout the duration of this pandemic. Instead, they should be tied to public health indicators, such as the number of regional cases and the current rate of spread. They should also be tied to our medical system’s capacity to trace, isolate, and treat cases.

We should not have politicians arbitrarily and indefinitely imposing mandated masks. Any potential mandates should be brought in when local medical experts and local data suggest that there is significant risk that would be mitigated by masks. And they should be phased out when that risk has subsided to a level the experts are confident can be handled.

I do not support mandated masks right now, in our community’s current state (I’m writing this on September 4). Here are some reasons I don’t think an immediate mandate is reasonab;e:

• The province hasn’t indicated we should have increased restrictions in our community. As the level of government with access to medical data and experts, the province has instituted a number of restrictions on public places. It is monitoring the outcomes of its efforts, and has not indicated that it sees additional restrictions as necessary.

• Provincial health authorities have not even expressed concern about our community. Not only has the province not recommended increased restrictions in our community, it hasn’t even put us on its Watch list. This means that local data has led medical experts to conclude that risk in our community is relatively low.

• While encouraging voluntary masking, Medical Officers of Health have not recommended mandatory masking. Dr. Hinshaw has strongly encourage all Albertans to wear masks when they cannot social distance. However, I’m not aware of her providing a recommendation to any level of government to mandate them. And the Grande Prairie Bylaw was reviewed by a provincial Medical Officer of Health. This Officer of Health thanked us for considering one and provided feedback on the impact of specific provisions in our Bylaw if it were to pass. However, we were not provided advice one way or the other to pass it.

• We do not meet criteria established by the World Health Organisation. The WHO encourages masking for the general population in “areas with known or suspected widespread transmission and limited or no capacity to implement other containment measures.” This does not describe Grande Prairie at this current time.

• Instituting mandatory masks now would not be tied to any sort of goal or concrete public health indicator. I do not support indefinitely mandating mask without some concrete outcome we are hoping to achieve. Instituting mandatory masks now would be divorced from any type of public health indicator that would be used to determine when mandatory masking might be phased out. I’m unclear on what the goal of an immediate mandate would be.

Right now, the province has our community in Open status. That means that it has decided there is a relatively low risk associated with COVID-19 in our community.

If we hit 37 active cases (50 per 100,000 people), then the province will move us to Watch status. This means that it is getting concerned enough with our community to start paying closer attention to local data and epidemiology.

If cases continue to grow, the province may move us to Enhanced status. It has not yet moved any community to Enhanced status, so we don’t know everything that would go into this decision. But it would likely include data such as: the number of cases, the rate of case growth, how many cases are attributable to traced sources, how severe the cases are, and local hospital capacity.

If the province ever moves us to Enhanced status, it will be because it has deemed there to be a high risk in our community. And at this point, it will likely start instituting new restrictions of its own.

My current understanding is that provincial politicians have no say in whether or not a community is moved to Enhanced. That is a decision of professional, non-political Medical Officers of Health. However, it is up to provincial and local politicians to decide what additional restrictions and measures to implement in response to being in Enhanced.

If the City or County move to Enhanced, it makes sense to me for us to mandate masks for two big reasons:

• The medical experts will have deemed us high risk and we’ll be more in alignment with the situation in which the WHO recommends masking for the general population. At that point, introducing new restrictions and regulations until our community is taken out of Enhanced status is a lot more reasonable than introducing them now.

• The province will be considering a partial or total shutdown of our economy. Many businesses won’t survive another shutdown. And it would not be good for residents to again lose access to school, recreation, and other services. Mandating masks is worthwhile if it prevents the province from shutting down some activities that would be shut down without a mask mandate.

  
  

If you haven’t already, please read my description of the Bylaw above. It does not mandate masks at this time. But wwill mandate them if active cases in the City and County combined reached 100, or if the province moved the City or County Enhanced status. Masks would no longer be mandated 14 days after cases falling below 100 or the City and County both being removed from Enhanced status.

For all the reasons explained above, I don’t think masks should be mandated now. But it does make sense to mandate them if provincial medical experts have declared our community to be in high risk and are considering instituting new restrictions.

What I like about the Bylaw:

• It’s based on clear goals with provisions to become active and inactive as public health indicators change

• It takes the input of provincial health experts seriously by having a trigger tied to Enhanced status

• It has clear and reasonable exemptions for people with certain challenges and for activities where wearing a mask is unusually difficult

• It has a sunset provision to expire in January unless amended by Council in a future meeting. This will force it to be re-examined as new information becomes available.
  

But I don’t like the “100 cases” trigger.

This trigger was put in because some of my colleagues think the community should have a numerical goal to work towards. However, the number of “100” is not tied to any medical advice or data that I am aware of. And while basing the Bylaw on a number of cases feels good to many, I don’t know if it makes a lot of sense. “100 cases where most of them are confined to 1 work place way out in the County and all sources have been traced” is a lot different than “100 cases in the City in unrelated people with no idea where they caught the virus.”

There is so much that goes into risk analysis, that one number cannot quantify what sort of danger our community faces. That’s why I like using the Enhanced status as a trigger to this Bylaw. Because it is based on medical experts examining a number of data points, both qualitative and quantitative.

I argued and supported motions for this Bylaw to only have “Enhanced” status as a trigger. However, Council was not supportive of this. The Bylaw that Council ultimately passed included the “100 cases trigger.”

Even though I didn’t agree with this particular part of the Bylaw, I still voted in favour of passing it. Here are some reasons that I thought it was worthwhile for Council to pass the Bylaw:

• If a Bylaw was not passed, there was support expressed to declare a State Of Local Emergency (SOLE) to require masks if case numbers increase in the region. Declaring a SOLE gives the City extraordinary powers well beyond mandating masks. And those powers are exercised at the discretion of City Administration without Council oversight or public input. Having a Bylaw in place means that if masks are ever mandated, that mandate will conform to rules set by Council in a public meeting. And no additional powers will be brought into effect just to mandate masks. A Bylaw is a good and important protection against Council declaring a SOLE.

• As I shared above, I do think mandated masks make sense if we ever get into Enhanced status. At that point, there would be a much greater risk to public health than we have today. And our businesses and other services would be at risk as the province considers shutting them down.

• Although we disagreed on what kind of triggers were appropriate, all members of Council agreed that there are some circumstances where masks might make sense. At the same time, this was an incredibly divisive and time consuming conversation in the community. If Council didn’t pass a Bylaw, then it wouldn’t be clear to the community at what point Council would mandate masks. This would lessen the accountability of Council. And it would’ve kept this conversation creating division in our community and preventing Council from doing other important work. After Council had hours of debate and many votes (some of which I lost) to form a majority consensus on masks, it was important to pass the Bylaw to make Council’s view official. In other words: while I’m not fully aligned with Council’s view on masks, I think it’s important for Council to have an official position in the form of a Bylaw.
  

I don’t think masks should be mandated in all public places at this time.

However, I am supportive of our administration’s decision to mandate them on Transit. And I would be unlikely to oppose further mandates in public City facilities. The big reasons why I think mandating masks in these locations is different than mandating them elsewhere:

• Users have less choice. In most privately operated public places, people have a choice on whether or not they will go into them. For example, there are ways to get groceries without going into the store. However, there are times when people are forced to go into City owned facilities. Many people with health challenges access the Eastlink Centre pool because it is a necessary part of their physical therapy. People are having to go into City Hall to pay their property taxes. Transit riders often have no other way to get to work or to important appointments. I put more importance on protecting people from catching COVID-19 in places where they have to be than on protecting them in places where they choose to be.

• We already regulate behaviour on City property. There are plenty of behaviours which are perfectly legal, but not allowed on City property. For example, if the management is ok with it, you can loudly use harsh profanity in a restaurant. I would expect our staff to not allow you to loudly use it in the Eastlink Centre. In my mind, there is a big difference between the City regulating behaviour on property it owns and regulating behaviour on property it does not own.

• Employee safety. In most workplaces, worker safety is under provincial jurisdiction. It’s not usually the City’s responsibility to make sure workers are safe. However, the City is responsible for the safety of its own employees. And when our employees are on City property and unable to socially distance from others, mandating masks may be a worthwhile protection.

The original version of this Bylaw would’ve seen mandated masks triggered if the province moved our community to Watch status. Watch status happens if we have 37 or more active cases (50 per 100,000 people).

I don’t think that is the appropriate time to mandate masks. All Watch status means is that provincial Medical Officers of Health are paying closer attention to our community. It does not mean they have decided our community is worthy of extra restrictions. If these medical experts do decide further restrictions are needed based on local data, then they would move us to Enhanced.

The City should not be instituting new restrictions until the provincial health experts suggest it do so.

However, if we ever hit Watch status, I would hope that we see voluntary behaviour changes in the community to make sure that cases don’t continue to increase and potentially move us to Enhanced. I would love for us to have a plan to better encourage and support voluntary behaviours if we hit 37 cases.

Potential City actions could include:

• Distributing physical posters businesses could choose to display encouraging social distancing, hand hygiene, and voluntary mask usage

• Resume our Business Ambassador program to help business and other organisations better encourage sanitation and hygiene

• Resume our Community Cares program to deliver food, medicine, and other essentials to people who choose to isolate

• Follow Drumheller’s lead and create a random reward for people hand sanitizing, wearing masks, and undertaking other voluntary behavoiur in public places

This is both an important and contentious issue. And since the provincial download to municipalities surprised me, I’m still forming my thinking on it.

So I’d love to hear yours thoughts.

Do you agree with my thinking? Do you have push back on it? Do you have any other ideas Council should be considering?

You can email me at dbressey@cityofgp.com or call me at 780-402-4166. I participate in a lot of discussions in the GP Round Table Facebook group. I’m also always happy to meet for coffee.

Thanks for taking the time to read!

-Dylan