A motion to make face coverings mandatory again in London has been shot down.
City politicians voted 10-3 against reviving a local bylaw that would require masks be worn inside most indoor spaces, including retail stores, theatres, and places of worship.
Councillors Jesse Helmer, Stephen Turner, and Maureen Cassidy had put forward the motion to temporarily implement a mask bylaw in the city at a special meeting of council’s strategic priorities and policy committee Tuesday afternoon. The trio’s proposal came a day after the province lifted its mask mandate in most public settings.
“Masking is the cheapest, least intrusive thing that people can continue to do,” Helmer told his colleagues as debate on the issue began. “I know people are really tired of the virus. They want to move on. They want to just go back to normal but we can’t put our heads in the sand and just pretend that everything will be fine if we stop masking.”
Helmer pointed to the latest projections from the Ontario Science Advisory Table that show masking as an easy way to keep COVID-19 hospitalization and ICU admissions down while reducing community transmission.
The proposal from Helmer, Turner, and Cassidy would have brought back the mask bylaw that was enacted in London in July 2020, prior to the provincial mandate. It would have required anyone over the age of two to wear a face covering in nearly all indoor public spaces until at least May 9.
However, the idea got no traction with the rest of the city councillors after two hours of debate that included a confidential session to receive legal advice.
“Enforcing masks as politicians without at least our own medical officer of health mandating, is in my opinion, an overreach of government in this case,” said Councillor Mariam Hamou. “This is going to be so confusing for people. Another mandate will just make it harder to enforce a mandate when it is actually required.”
While Middlesex London’s Medical Officer of Health Dr. Alex Summers encourages the continued use of masks, he told councillors the city is under no unique threat from the virus to require such a mandate.
“It would essentially override a provincial decision in the context of no additional information and in the context of no new or emerging threat localized to our jurisdiction,” said Summers.
