Changes to the MGA regarding Mask Bylaws
/[Updated March 18, 2022]
Over the past two years it has been impossible to escape the topic of masks. These little pieces of fabric or paper have been the subject of public health directives, protests, jokes, memes, and fashion debates.
During the pandemic many municipalities in Alberta have adopted mandatory mask bylaws and the Province of Alberta is looking to put a stop to it. On March 1st, 2022, Premier Jason Kenney of the UCP party of Alberta stated:
“That is why I am announcing today that Alberta’s government will introduce in the legislature, as soon as possible, amendments to the Municipal Government Act which will remove the abilities of municipalities to impose their own separate public health restrictions.” (CBC News)
I’m not going to comment today on the merits of masks and mask mandates. Instead, I’m going to look at the other implications that such a move would have.
This new wording took the form of Bill 4. Bill 4 changes section 7 of the Municipal Government Act, which allows municipalities to pass bylaws related to “the safety, health and welfare of people…”.
Municipalities can still pass bylaws related to the safety, health and welfare of individuals, but now they need Ministerial (provincial) approval in order to pass bylaws that
(1) Require a person to wear a mask for the purpose of preventing transmission of COVID-19 or any other communicable disease; or
(2) Require a person to provide proof of vaccination against COVID-19 upon entering a premises.
These legislative amendments will not impact bylaws which only apply to property “owned or leased and operated” by a municipality.
The wording in Bill 4 contains some ambiguities. For example, municipalities will still be able to pass bylaws which apply to property which is “owned or leased and operated” by them, but what about property that is just operated by them? Outside of cities, municipalities don’t own the roadways, but they don’t lease them either, they are granted direction, control and management of this property which belongs to the Province. This could have implications for public transit systems in town, villages, rural areas, etc.
Whatever your stance is with respect to mask requirements and vaccination policies, it seems that this amendment might raise more questions than it answers, and I suspect that we haven’t heard the last of this issue.