Woodlands County seeking legal opinion on mandating COVID vaccines for entry into Council chambers

During the Woodlands County council meeting on August 17, Councillor Ron Govenlock brought up a concern in his Councillor Report over certain public members attending council meetings. The discussion landed squarely on the COVID-19 vaccine and whether they could mandate it for entry to Council’s chambers. The subsequent debate went from one side of the issue to the other and everywhere in between.

Councillor Govenlock stated that the lack of distancing between councillors and the thought of unvaccinated public members attending the meetings had him uncomfortable. “I’d like to ask Administration (to put together) some kind of plan that protects all members of the public and council within these chambers to ensure the minimal opportunity for the delta variant to occur. Also, to find out, perhaps as a prerequisite before any member of the public enters these chambers, that they have a vaccination.”

Councillor Dave Kusch adamantly spoke against the notion. “Ensuring that people are vaccinated before they can come in here, given that the vaccine passports are widely looked down upon by the public, and it’s something federally that will be hard to mandate… can we legally ask people, whether they are on Council or visiting or a dignitary, to prove that they have vaccinations before they enter the building?” Director of Infrastructure Andre Bachand said that they would need a legal opinion to answer that question.

Councillor Dale McQueen, who attended the meeting virtually, agreed with his colleague, Councillor Govenlock, on the safety concern. “When you start to see the numbers climbing up, I would just sooner stay away from the chambers and do it virtually until I see that things are levelling out a bit.”

Mayor John Burrows said he understood where people were coming from but cautioned it. “I think it’s an incredibly slippery slope, and as an individual, I don’t support it.” He said that he drew the line at asking for people’s medical history. “It’s a really, really slippery slope. I might take a bit of heat for saying that, but you just have to be so careful because I don’t know where this ends if we open the door to this. I really don’t. It’s a scary thing.”

Councillor Govenlock pushed forward and motioned to have the Administration get a legal opinion regarding requirements to verify vaccinations of any individual present in Council’s chambers. Councillor Kusch stood firmly against it. “This isn’t a question and more of a statement. If we are going to start mandating people coming in here, then you don’t have the accessibility to the public that this is supposed to have.”

Councillor Govenlock said that everyone sat in their homes for the last 18 months because it was “unsafe to enter the Council chambers to prevent the spread of COVID.” He spoke about Councillor McQueen’s heart condition and said people had “taken comfort” that it was “time to get back to normal,” putting someone like McQueen at risk.

Councillor Kusch said that since none of them are medical professionals or scientists, he doesn’t think they need to debate or argue about it. “I do agree that we need to protect people, and Councillor McQueen, definitely, is a great member of the community and this council. We have other options aside from being here (in person) via the streaming. If we start restricting people that come in here, I can’t get behind that.”

Councillor Dale Kluin acknowledged that the subject was touchy and said he blamed the province for not formulating a plan. “If every municipality or business is making their own rules, I don’t know how anyone is going to enforce it. I know the concerns, but it just frustrates me.” Councillor McQueen said that having things like masks or sanitizer available would be ways to help.

To Councillor Kusch’s point about attending virtually for those worried about their risks, Councillor Govenlock said virtual meetings were “very ineffective management mechanisms for a municipality to continue.” He stood firm on wanting a legal opinion and said the County needed to show leadership. Mayor Burrows agreed that they needed to show leadership but felt that mandates were not the type of leadership they should offer.

“I think part of the problem is we are living in a society driven by a lot of emotions and a lot of fear and a lot of uncertainty. I’m very concerned about giving up certain freedoms of movement and freedoms of access, and personal freedoms. People’s medical history is no business of the government, and at a Municipal level? We are the lowest form of government, and we are looking at getting involved in one of the highest forms of personal freedoms. For that reason, I will be voting against this motion.”

Councillor Kusch said he didn’t understand the need to go beyond AHS. “If we are following the AHS mandates and everything the government has already set out for us, I don’t understand why we need to waste money on a legal opinion.” Councillor Govenlock responded. “When I look straight across from me at Councillor Kluin’s seat and the proximity to where Councillor McQueen would normally sit, I don’t see the six feet. I don’t see the barriers we’ve installed upstairs available between councillors here, and there is a risk associated with that close contact.”

Mayor Burrows asked Administration for clarification on the remarks Councillor Govenlock made concerning six-foot separation. “Is the six feet a requirement, or has that been lifted?” Bachand explained that it was now a recommendation and not a requirement. Even so, the vote that followed favoured Councillor Govenlock’s wishes of seeking a legal opinion. The three that voted against it were Mayor Burrows and Councillors Kusch and Prestidge.