Mask Bylaw

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

Health policy is an area of provincial responsibility. But the province has decided to shirk its responsibilities by downloading this decision to municipalities. This means that local Councils across Alberta are talking about how to respond.

In Grande Prairie, Council has had zero discussions about a potential Face Covering Bylaw. However, this is something many residents are very interested in, so it will be discussed soon. Following is some background information and my thinking on COVID-19 and mandatory masks.

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 Aug 28th. 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 So some information may be out of date when you are reading this.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

• Proposed Bylaw

Lack of Provincial Leadership

Expert Medical Advice

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

• What I’m hearing from the medical experts

About Rights

• What is legal?

• What is right?

• Right not to wear a mask vs other rights

My Take

• Voluntary decisions

• The Health Minister and Premier should step up

• If Provincial Politicians won’t step up, should municipalities?

• Is now the time for mandated masks?

• If a Bylaw is passed, what should it look like?

• Masks on Transit and in City facilities

• August 10th Motions

• The Proposed Bylaw

Let Me Know What You Think

Council first discussed the use of masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19 at its meeting on August 10th.

This was not a topic of conversation added to the agenda by Council or Administration. Instead, it was added because Council received a letter requesting it mandate masks in indoor public places and a delegation warning Council about potential issues with a Face Covering Bylaw.

In response to this letter and this delegation, Council passed two motions directing Administration to:

1. Bring forward a public information campaign to inform residents about appropriate use of face coverings to prevent the spread of disease and encourage the voluntary use of face coverings in indoor public places.

2. Develop for future Council consideration a Bylaw mandating the use of face coverings in indoor public places that includes recommendations on appropriate public health indicators that may trigger the enactment and removal of such a requirement.

On August 24th, Council authorized a public awareness campaign focused on voluntary mask usage. Its main messages include how to properly use face coverings, and the fact that wearing a mask is meant to prevent someone from spreading COVID-19, not to protect the person wearing it.

On Monday, Aug 31, Council will he having its first look at a potential Temporary Mandatory Face Covering Bylaw.

If passed as-is, this Bylaw would make Face Coverings in Public Places and Public Vehicles mandatory if the City or County of Grande Prairie are changed from "Open" to "Watch" status by the Government of Alberta. This change will happen if either municipality goes to over 50+ active cases per 100,000 people (more than 37 in the City or 16 in the County).

The Bylaw would cease to be active if both municipalities went back to "Open" 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 received support from both the Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Association.

You can read the potential Bylaw for yourself here: https://agendas.cityofgp.com/view.aspx?cabinet=published_meetings&fileid=114775

You can read the accompanying administrative report here: https://agendas.cityofgp.com/view.aspx?cabinet=published_meetings&fileid=114773

You can read a letter of support from the Chamber of Commerce here: https://agendas.cityofgp.com/view.aspx?cabinet=published_meetings&fileid=114774

You might also be interested in seeing this technical backgrounder document put Alberta Health Service’s Scientific Advisory Group, which is made up of clinicians and researchers: https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/info/ppih/if-ppih-covid-19-sag-mask-use-in-community-rapid-review.pdf

A bit about Council procedure:

This Bylaw is going through an unusual process.

It will first be debated by something called Council Committee of the Whole.

It is usual for Bylaws to be debated by a Committee first. The rules at a Committee meeting are less formal than the rules at a Council meeting, making constructive conversation easier. And Committees can’t undertake most action themselves: they can just make recommendations to Council. The delay this usually creates allows extra thought and public input to be put into Bylaws before they are presented at Council.

However, on Monday, a Special Council meeting will be called immediately following the Committee meeting. The Bylaw will be debated there and can theoretically be passed at this Special Council meeting.

However, for a Bylaw to pass, Council needs to vote in favour of it three separate times. And the third vote cannot be held in the same meeting as the first vote unless Council unanimously agrees. In other words: to pass a Bylaw in one meeting, every single member of Council has to consent to it being moved forward immediately.

The province is showing an astounding lack of leadership on this matter. Whether masks are going to be mandated or not should be a decision made by our Premier and Health Minister, not by local Councils.

Early in the COVID-19 response, the Premier and other provincial officials asked municipalities to stay aligned with the public health orders and policies of the provincial government. This has been the City of Grande Prairie’s general approach: to support but not go over-and-above provincial decisions.

I was incredibly surprised when I heard about the province changing course and downloading this decision to local Councils. I was also disappointed that Councils found out about this provincial downloading via Dr. Hinshaw in a press conference, rather than via direct communication from elected representatives.

I’m honestly not sure if the province should mandate masks in our region. However, one way or the other, this should be a provincial (not a municipal) call because:

• Healthcare is a provincial (not a municipal) responsibility.

• The province has doctors and other medical experts working for it. Municipalities do not. As a municipal decision maker, I don’t have good access to expert medical advice. Provincial decision makers do.

• Council doesn’t generally receive COVID-19 related information that isn’t available to the general public. Provincial decision makers have a lot better access to all of the data needed to make good decisions.

• A municipality can only regulate what happens within its boundaries. Only the province can mandate regional responses, and the spread of COVID-19 doesn’t stop at municipal boundaries.

• Education should be the primary approach of any government mandating masks. However, if enforcement is needed: municipal enforcement tools are limited. The province has a lot more tools available to it.

• Anything the City mandates will lose a lot of its potential impact if it doesn’t apply in schools. But schools are under provincial jurisdiction.

• All Councils across the province are needing to spend time and taxpayer money to research and discuss potential Bylaws. It would be a lot more efficient for the province to make a call.

If you follow provincial messaging on masks, they claim this decisions is being downloaded to municipalities because local data and context should drive decisions. What is good policy in Calgary might not be good policy in Grande Prairie. And I would agree with this: localized approaches should be adopted. In fact, Grande Prairie City Council has advocated to the Premier for a region-by-region response to COVID-19.

However, there is no reason that a regional approach needs to be a municipal approach. The province is more than capable of creating different requirements in different places of the province. In fact, its relaunch strategy assumes it will be making regional (rather than province wide) decisions.

There is no good reason for the province to download a decision on mandatory masks to local Councils.

The province has shirked its responsibilities and downloaded decisions about mandatory masks to municipalities. Without medical experts working for them or access to appropriate data, Councils are poorly equipped to make these decisions. However, they still need to work to obtain the best information and advice available to them.

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 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.

However, 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 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, I’m not giving attention to social media posts and information coming from sources I do not know. I am listening to:

• Doctor Hinshaw and her colleagues

• Peer reviewed studies appearing in academic publications

• Doctors and other medical professionals I personally know to be experienced, caring, level-headed people

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

• 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 many people in our community who are very strongly against the wearing of masks. So the question is, do they have the inherent right NOT to wear a face covering in public places? Or, put another way: does the City have the authority to pass a Mandatory Mask Bylaw?

As it works on a potential Face Covering Bylaw, our administration will be seeking legal advice. I do not yet know what our lawyers will tell us.

However, I have been watching other Alberta municipalities debate masks. And they’ve been receiving advice that Face Covering Bylaws are within their authority.

I would also note that 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.

If Council moves forward with a Face Covering Bylaw, I’ll be asking that we seek a legal opinion. However, my current understanding is that the City of Grande Prairie has the legal authority to mandate masks in public places.

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 grave 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.

This is a very serious conversation. And despite thinking that voluntary mask wearing should be more common, I don’t know where I will land on mandatory masks (see below).

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 on this? Should the City of Grande Prairie mandate face coverings in public places?

I honestly don’t know. Council has not has a single conversation about this. Nor have we received any information or recommendations from our administration or from the Grande Prairie Regional Emergency Partnership. Until these conversations happen, I’m working very hard to keep an open mind.

However, I do have some assumptions and thinking that I’ll be carrying into these conversations.

Our Premier and other officials responsible for health have advocated for the voluntary usage of masks. Unlike Council, they 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 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 I have also bought masks for our kids, and we’re working to get the kids used to them.

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.

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, wanting to see more voluntary usage is not the same thing as supporting a mandatory Face Covering Bylaw.

I outlined above why I strongly feel COVID-19 response should be a provincial, not municipal, decision. It is completely ridiculous that our Health Minister and Premier are downloading the question of mandated face coverings to municipalities.

Provincial messaging is VERY confusing. Our Premier and other officials are saying that it is very important for Albertans to wear masks in certain situations. But it hasn’t mandated face coverings. And our Premier has endorsed aspects of Calgary and Edmonton’s Face Covering Bylaws, but has been careful not to comment on them in their entirety.

It seems to me that our provincial politicians know that no matter what decisions get made, a large segment of voters will be angry. And so they are refusing to take a stance, instead allowing local Councils to face any political fallout.

This will not lead to good public policy.

A coordinated approach is needed. That can’t happen when each municipality in the province is making its own decisions.

And a data driven approach is needed. But local Councils don’t have medical experts working for them, nor do they have access to data the province has. For example, just like the public: I know how many cases are in Grande Prairie, but I don’t know where transmission of COVID-19 occurred. So it is impossible for me to make an informed decision on what type of impact a Face Covering Bylaw might have, and what types of exemptions may or may not make sense. But the province does have access to contact tracing data, so it can make more informed decisions.

If the Premier and Health Minister are convinced that mandatory masks are bad policy because their impact is unlikely to be worthwhile: then they should come out and say this.

But if they are convinced that masks should be mandated in some situations, then they should be the ones giving directives.

Our provincial leaders need to step up and give clear direction on this. They have chosen to completely shirk their responsibility as the level of government in charge of health.

Council is facing A LOT of pressure from residents to make a decision on mandatory masks.

Some residents want Council to clearly reject a Face Covering Bylaw.

And some residents want Council to bring one in as soon as possible.

But I’m still trying to decide if Council should be wading into this at all.

As I outlined above, municipalities don’t have to tools necessary to make a great decision here. The province is the order of government with the necessary experts and information. No matter which way Council goes on this, a municipal decision will not be as well informed as a provincial decision.

And if municipalities allow the province to shirk responsibility on this decision, I wonder what is next. Will the province start downloading all politically difficult COVID-19 decisions to municipalities and school boards? Since we aren’t properly equipped to make these decisions, that would put our residents at risk

I get why residents want us to be making a decision. All want more certainty about what the next few weeks and months will look like. And some want enhanced safety in our community. Those are very legitimate needs, and I would like to see them met. But I’m still deciding whether I support Council wading in, or if we should insist on direction coming from the province.

I don’t currently think that masks should be mandated in our community.

If (and that is a big “if” to me) masks are mandated, they should be brought in and phased out again based on concrete public health indicators. I’m not convinced that any of our current indicators justify mandating masks.

The province doesn’t have any part of our region on its watch list, and I haven’t heard from its health officials that extra precautions should be considered in our community right now.

I have troubles seeing the justification for a mandatory masks at this time. I’d be hard pressed to see myself supporting Mandatory Face Coverings with our current numbers.

However, when Council does discuss this, our staff will be receiving information and input from Alberta Health Services (AHS). I’m open to considering mandatory masks if we have local medical experts advocating for them.

There are two primary triggers that would make me the most likely to support a Face Covering Bylaw:

• If I heard from AHS that it is worried about capacity in our local Hospital and Intensive Care Unit

• If I have an indication that our local numbers have the province worried enough to be considering shutting down businesses and other services in our region

If a Face Covering Bylaw comes before Council, I do not know if I will support it. I do my best to keep an open mind until Council is actually voting on something.

However, if I support a Bylaw, I would probably need to see a number of provisions within it:

• Clear triggers to enact and end mandatory masks. We should not just arbitrarily bring in a Bylaw, especially one that has no definitive end date. There should be some data based triggers to both begin and end mandated masks. Examples of potential triggers include per capita active cases, hospitalization rate, local ICU bed availability, or rate of transmission.

• Education efforts exhausted. Mandating masks should be an absolute last resort. If Council is convinced that more mask usage is needed in the community, it should work on public education and driving up voluntary usage rates before making anything mandatory.

• No onus on businesses to enforce the Bylaw for customers. I do not think it is reasonable to expect businesses to force face coverings on customers. A business should not be put at risk of receiving fines or other consequences for a customer refusing to comply with a Bylaw.

• Reasonable exemptions for people. For most people, wearing a mask is perhaps inconvenient or uncomfortable, but not unsafe or overly difficult. However, there are some people who legitimately cannot wear a mask safely or comfortably. There should be clear exemptions for them (of course, this brings in the thorny issue of how we protect people’s privacy rights to not disclose medical conditions…)

• Reasonable exemptions for activities. There are some activities where wearing a mask is not reasonable or not possible. These include eating, receiving some services, and athletic pursuits. There should be exemptions for certain activities in any Bylaw considered.

I don’t know where I will land on a Face Covering Bylaw that applies broadly across the community.

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 private gathering 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.

When Council considers the Face Covering Bylaw, I don’t know if I will support it or not. Because our situation might change by the time a Bylaw gets to us. However, I do not support mandating masks given the number of cases we have right now.

That being said, I did support two motions made at our August 10th meeting. Here is more information about those motions, and why I supported them.

Motion on Voluntary Mask Usage

The motion: Direct Administration to bring forward a public information campaign to inform residents about appropriate use of face coverings to prevent the spread of disease and encourage the voluntary use of face coverings in indoor public places.

As I’ve written before, I take the advice of our Premier and other officials responsible for public health seriously. Largely based on their advice, I think there are situations where voluntary face covering should be encouraged.

However, this motion wasn’t just to “encourage the voluntary use of face coverings.” It was also to inform residents about “appropriate use of face coverings.”

There are big limits to face coverings, as well as some risks that come with them. On Monday, we had a delegation come to our Council meeting to highlight this.

Masks are not as important as hand hygiene, staying home when sick, and other preventative measures. As our community discusses masks, it is important for all people to know their limits.

Masks can pose some risk if not handled properly. If people do choose to wear masks, it is important for them to also be washing their hands when putting them on and taking them off, to store them properly, to dispose of or wash them frequently, etc…

There are also times where it is not appropriate to expect someone to wear a mask. There are people with very real physical and mental health challenges that make covering their face impossible or extremely uncomfortable. It’s very important for those who want to see mask usage increase to know that there are very significant challenges for some when it comes to masks. Those people shouldn’t be made to feel unwelcome or judged in our community.

It is worth encouraging conversation not just about the potential benefits of masks, but also their limitations and risks.

Motion on Considering a Bylaw

Develop for future Council consideration a Bylaw mandating the use of face coverings in indoor public places that includes recommendations on appropriate public health indicators that may trigger the enactment and removal of such a requirement.

This motion passing does not mean that Council will be mandating masks. In fact, my understanding from listening to most of my colleagues: like me, there are other Councillors who supported this motion but do not support mandating masks at this time.

What this motion passing does mean: that Council is willing to continue this conversation. And I think continued conversation is important.

We’ve received many, many, many emails and phone calls about a potential Face Covering Bylaw. Both from people who are opposed and in favour. Throughout my entire time on Council, nothing has created this much (or this heated) public interest.

My biggest focus on Council has been to be communicative with and responsive to residents. Public conversations should inform Council’s work. If something is receiving this much attention, Council should be having a full and public debate on it. It wouldn’t be right for us to NOT talk about it.

And I don’t think it is fair or democratic for Council to have a conversation without some specifics before us. Most (if not all) Councillors have had informal conversations with our administration about what a Face Covering Bylaw might look like. And most (if not all) have ideas about what we might or might not support going forward. These conversations and thoughts should be made public.

Having a potential Bylaw brought forward is the best way to setup public conversation. Considering a Bylaw will lead to Council having specific options and recommendations before it. That is the only way for the public to see what Council and Administration are talking about, and to have opportunity to give informed feedback.

Also worth highlighting: this motion mentions “appropriate public health indicators.” That’s important to me, and I’m glad to see it is also important to Council.

Right now, I am not convinced that we currently have high enough risk in our community to mandate masks. And if we do get to the point of mandating masks, I don’t think they should be mandated indefinitely. I’m glad to see Council acknowledging that anything we do should be tied to concrete public health outcomes.

Above, I provided more information about a potential Bylaw coming before Council. Here is a link.

Even if (and that is an “if”) I support this Bylaw, it’s going to be a very tough sell to get me to support having a third vote on Monday.

This Bylaw was released on Friday, and will be debated on the Monday morning before the first day of school. That’s a timeline that makes public participation very challenging. And I greatly value public participation unless there is urgent reason making it impractical. We’d have to have a considerable jump in numbers over the weekend for me to consider supporting having a third vote on Monday.

But where do I stand on the Bylaw itself (not just on timelines)?

I haven’t yet had a chance to read the Bylaw carefully, or the technical backgrounder put out by Alberta Health Service’s Scientific Advisory Group. I’ll be giving them significant time and attention over the weekend.

I also work to go into meetings with an open mind. And this time, I’ll be paying especial attention to what local medical experts are saying.

So I don’t know where I’ll land in supporting this Bylaw yet.

On one hand, I do trust our medical experts when they say that COVID is a serious threat, and that masks can help prevent asymptomatic carriers from spreading it. That’s why I voluntarily wear a mask when I am in a Public Place and cannot social distance myself.

At the same time, mandating Face Coverings is a VERY significant action. I am concerned about potential erosion of rights coming out of this pandemic. I am concerned about municipal governments allowing the provincial government do download what should be a provincial decision. And I am concerned about the social and mental health consequences of mandating masks, especially if they are mandated for a long or indefinite time.

As I weigh my support for this Bylaw, I’m looking forward to hearing what my colleagues have to say. I’m looking forward to further conversations I know I’ll be having with residents. And, most importantly, I’m looking forward to hearing what input local medical experts have had. These conversations will very much inform how I vote.

But if I support the Bylaw (and that is an “if”), there are three problematic things that jump out at me:

• This Bylaw should have a sunset clause in it. We are still learning a lot about COVID-19, and should regularly be re-evaluating our approaches. To force re-evaluation, there should be a provision in the Bylaw that causes it to expire unless there is further action taken by Council in a public meeting.

• This Bylaw seems to have the intent of only addressing indoor spaces, but that isn’t explicit in it. That needs to be cleared up. I don’t see myself supporting a Bylaw which might regulate outdoor spaces

• I’m not sure why the public health trigger chosen is moving to “Watch” status instead of “Restricted” status. Throughout COVID-19, the City’s approach has been to support the provincial response, not to impose restrictions of our own. I don’t know why we’d change that approach now, and my current understanding is that the provincial health authorities don’t start recommending additional mandatory measures unless “Restricted” status is reached.

I’ll need to either get information which gives me confidence in these provisions, or see the Bylaw amended, to have any chance of supporting it.

If Council does pass this Bylaw, I also there are also some important operational considerations I’d like to see made:

• Like other municipalities, the enforcement approach should be focused on education and outreach, not on handing out fines.

• Other municipalities have been seeing a sharp increase in litter relating to mandatory face coverings. We should have a plan in place to help address this.

• Some people don’t have the financial means to easily obtain masks on their own. If we make face coverings mandatory, we should have a plan to help residents obtain them.

• We have many people coming and going from the City every day, mostly from the surrounding areas. We need to have coordination with other municipalities in the region.

I’ll be making sure that these considerations get brought into the conversation on Monday.

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