A No-Win Decision: Why I Voted to Repeal Edmonton’s Temporary Mandatory Face Coverings Bylaw

Earlier this week, I voted to repeal the City of Edmonton’s Temporary Mandatory Face Coverings Bylaw (Bylaw 19408), and also to support efforts to maintain masking in transit and publicly accessible city-owned and operated facilities (in two subsequent motions by Councillors Knack and Salvador). The repeal decision passed 8-5. It was a complicated vote. A no-win decision, no matter how you look at it.  While I have strong reasons that I voted the way I did, I don’t feel good about it. I continue to believe that we need to make decisions to unite rather than divide. I’d like to share the reasoning behind my vote.

I am grateful for all the stories Ward Karhiio residents and Edmontonians at large shared with me personally. I am also thankful for the advice from public health professionals, many are my former colleagues who continue to provide insights and balanced perspectives.

I continue to want to hear from you as we all navigate through this time of transition. Please share your thoughts by emailing keren.tang@edmonton.ca or calling our office at 780-496-8142.

Protecting the Integrity of the MGA and Anticipating the Impacts of Bill 4

• At the time of our Council discussion(March 8, 2022), Bill 4: Municipal Government (Face Mask and Proof of COVID-19 Vaccination Bylaws) Amendment Act, 2022 was being debated by our Provincial colleagues. It passed its first reading. Bill 4 proposes to amend the MGA to specifically limit municipalities’ power to enact mask bylaws. The MGA (the Municipal Government Act) empowers municipalities to shape our communities. It regulates how municipalities are funded and how, as local governments, we should govern and plan for growth. The Integrity of the MGA is really important for cities to function. Clearly this Provincial government doesn’t care about that. 

• We as a municipality were co-opted into this no-win decision. Ultimately, it was a political decision. If Council had voted to keep Edmonton’s face covering bylaw in place, it could have been a matter of days before Bill 4 moved to second and third readings. This means even if we were to continue with masking measures in Edmonton, they would have been automatically repealed by the Provincial government through Bill 4 (once it is passed and proclaimed). And when the next wave of COVID comes (or some other issue comes along), we will be without an important tool to protect our communities.

• I’d rather we kept the flexibility to react as needed by exercising power in areas we have control over (transit and city-owned facilities). This will hopefully give us a back-stop if the Province goes forward with Bill 4. However, our powers are limited - once the Province goes to Stage/Step 3, they will rescind the mask bylaw everywhere - this will apply to transit as well.

• By intervening in this way, the Province is baiting us into dividing Edmontonians further. This past provincial budget has made it very clear the relationship this government wants with municipalities and especially Edmonton. Threatening the MGA crosses the line even further. I will not rise to this bait.

Balancing Public Health and Public Good

• I am being reminded of lessons from my education in public health that evidence and science are only part of the decision making process on any public health issue. Other considerations include public input and circumstantial factors like the threat to the integrity of MGA. A month ago, after reading through each one of your responses, I felt confident that the best decision was to remove the Restriction Exemption Program (REP), but to keep the mask bylaw. At the time, however, we didn’t have Bill 4 in the picture, essentially an ultimatum from the Province.

• My Council colleagues talked about how our decision was a public health one, how we need to be brave, and stand up for the vulnerable who can’t speak for themselves. I completely agree with this, but I also think we need to be realistic. Given the circumstances of Bill 4, fighting to retain Edmonton’s mask bylaw as a matter of principle will only lead us down a path of conflict with the Province that stands to do more harm than good. Our mask bylaw would swiftly be quashed by Bill 4, with implications for our ability to implement protective measures for Edmontonians in the future.

• Throughout this debate, I’ve really struggled with this balance of public health and public good, for example, enacting good, evidence-based public health measures has invited division, polarity, fear, conflict, and has detrimentally affected the lives and livelihoods of residents and businesses. But without good public health, public good takes a hit. The two are connected and it’s always a challenge to find the best balance.

A Practical Approach

• People voted me in to make practical and realistic decisions. Yesterday, I voted for the most practical option. A month ago, Council agreed that we must be guided by values like fairness, consistency, and clarity. I still think our decision aligns with these.

• None of these public health measures are meant to act on their own. “Masks should be used as part of a comprehensive strategy of measures to suppress transmission and save lives; the use of a mask alone is not sufficient to provide an adequate level of protection against COVID-19” (WHO). Without other measures, masking will not be as effective.

• We need to consider public health authority structures within municipalities and regional governments like Ontario has (e.g. Toronto Public Health, Region of Waterloo Public Health). While this might just be my wishful, grass-is-greener, thinking, and they are not perfect systems either, they do allow municipalities to oversee public health responsibilities like data collection.This might be something for our community to consider. 

Making Decisions with the Limited Data/Evidence Available

• Some people say we should follow scientific advice from the Province, but their staged approach wasn’t based on science, it was based on political pressure. 

• On the data and science side of things, we had extremely limited access beyond open data that’s part of the Alberta Health dashboard. The Province does not share information with us. Following our last COVID-19 measure meeting on February 9, where we discussed the municipal Restriction Exemption Program (REP), the Mayor, on behalf of Council, wrote a letter to formally request that Dr. Hinshaw release her recommendations and data. To date, we have not received any response. Even Dr. Sikora, Chief Medical Officer for the Edmonton Zone, stated that he did not receive that information.

• On the public input side, my team did our own outreach to Ward Karhiio residents and Edmontonians, collecting over a hundred open-ended responses in 24 hours (Feb.9/10). At the time we collected responses, many people wanted to see the REP removed but would have preferred the masking options to stay in place as a safeguard. Moreover, the vast majority stated that they are very worried about further polarization and division. This gave me such a moment of pause to reflect on decisions we needed to make as a municipality to unite rather than divide. That was why I voted NOT to keep the local REP but instead focus on municipal interventions we have control over like installing HEPA air filter systems in city-owned public facing facilities.

• Council just received results from a City of Edmonton Insight Survey that was open for a week with a record-breaking 79,000 respondents. However, the survey was flawed, and we had no way of knowing how many respondents were actually from Edmonton. Generally, women and senior respondents tended to favour keeping masking in place, although in both cases, less than half actually voted to keep it in place. The City also did additional outreach to key stakeholders in the community, social services, and business sectors. We heard the business perspective loud and clear; and also heard that senior-serving and social services partners would prefer to keep it in place.  

What Next: Focusing on Where We Have Control

• We need to focus where we have control as a city government. This is why I have focused on air filters in city facilities, and masking in public facilities and transit: making our facilities the safest they can be. While some of my colleagues criticized the approach of requiring face covering specifically in transit and city-owned facilities (as these are exemptions from Bill 4) because they felt we would keep playing this political ping-pong, and muddy the waters, I actually think we do need to focus on actions where we have power.

• COVID is not over, and the jury is still out as to whether or not it is endemic. The impact of long COVID is very much real and will linger for years to come as scientists are just finding out.

• I will continue to wear masks, wash my hands frequently, and stay away from others when I have symptoms. I encourage all of you to do the same.