By Pepper Parr
July 17th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
We now have two bylaws related to the wearing of face masks.
The city bylaw that was passed on Monday and the Regional by law that was passed yesterday.
If we got it right – Burlington’s bylaw complies with the Region so there is no conflict.
Burlington has some additional features in its bylaw – the spending of $10,000 on masks for people are not able to buy masks.
There are some basics in both bylaws that are essentially the same.
There are rules the public is being asked to follow. They are
WHERE THE BYLAW APPLIES INDOORS:
Mask needed to enter City Hall
premises or any portion thereof which are used as a place of business for the sale or offering for sale of goods or services, and includes a mall or similar structure which contains multiple places of business;
churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, or other places of worship;
City indoor facilities open to the public, community centres including indoor recreational facilities and City Hall;
libraries, art galleries, performing arts centre, museums, aquariums, zoos and other similar facilities;
community service agencies providing services to the public;
banquet halls, convention centres, arenas, stadiums, and other event spaces;
premises utilized as an open house, presentation centre, or other facility for real estate purposes;
private transportation for hire, including taxis, limousines and rideshare services;
public transportation;
common areas of hotels, motels and other short-term rentals, such as lobbies, elevators, meeting rooms or other common use facilities; and
concert venues, theatres, cinemas, casinos, and other entertainment facilities.
WHERE IT DOESN’T APPLY:
You do not need to wear a mask in the Court House.
schools, post-secondary institutions, and child care facilities and indoor/outdoor day camps;
premises or any portion thereof (including City indoor facilities and community centres) used for City run recreational programs that require registration;
court facilities;
professional offices where clients receive purchased services (such as lawyer or accountant office) that are not open to members of the public except by appointment;
indoor areas of a building accessible to only employees;
hospitals, independent health facilities and offices of regulated health professionals.
EXEMPTIONS:
the person is under three years of age chronologically;
the person is under three years of age developmentally and they refuse to wear
a Mask or Face Covering and cannot be persuaded to do so by their caregiver;
the person has an underlying medical condition where wearing a Mask or Face Covering would inhibit the person’s ability to breathe in any way;
the person may experience a negative impact to their emotional well-being or mental health;
the person has a developmental disability which inhibits their ability to wear a mask or face covering;
the person has a disability whereby the wearing of a Mask or Face Covering would limit their ability to reasonably communicate with others or otherwise present a hardship for a person or persons assisting the individual;
the person is unable to place or remove a Mask or Face Covering without assistance; or,
employees and agents of the person responsible for the Establishment within an area designated for them and not for public access, or within or behind a physical barrier.
IMPORTANT THINGS TO NOTE:
There is NO REQUIREMENT of proof of exemptions
This is the point at which we learn how civilized a society we are. There is a 73 year old man who lived in Minden who was shot dead by police over the issue of his not wanting to wear a mask. He wasn’t shot because he wouldn’t wear a mask – he was shot dead because a situation got out of control.
You don’t to wear a mask and you don’t have to prove that you are exempt. What our political leadership is asking – is that you wear a face mask to keep the other people safe – when they wear their mask you too will be safer.
There are those out there will argue that there is no science behind the mask. That’s debatable – staying alive and safe is not something we want to debate – or do we?
Let us not fall into the disaster south of us.
We learned to wear seat belts.
We learned that we could no smoke inside public places.
We can learn to wear a face mask.
The few that think they are above it all and have no regard for others lives should simply stay home.
I do not agree with some of the exemptions to this Bylaw. Kitchen workers could have perspiration droplets which could end up in food. These individuals should be wearing a mask or face shield. Do they not breathe? Again, air borne transmission, asymptomatic individuals, etc. should all be wearing masks. To make it easier to understand, let me state the following: unless you are under 3 years of age, have a medical condition that prevents you from wearing some type of face covering or don’t care about your community, friends neighbours, and family you should be wearing a mask indoors regardless of where you are. If you don’t like the bylaw, stay home and away from others who want this pandemic to end,
A good quote: MASK IT OR CASKET. Which do you choose.
?
To Maggie and anyone else against wearing a mask, wear a shield instead, it does the same job and does not impede breathing or fog up glasses, just get on with it, we will persevere in the end
What credible reference do you have to support that a shield “does the same job” as a mask. CDC does not recommend shields over masks (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html)
As we enter phase 3 mask wearing will make or break us.
Healthcare workers and medical professionals have asked us to wear a mask to protect others in case I am an asymptomatic carrier. I rather wear a mask than be placed on a ventilator in the hospital. I will be wearing my cloth washable mask for the common good in my community.
Mandatory mask laws are unacceptable and must not be tolerated. They must be OUTLAWED. There are people who cannot wear masks for a variety of medical reasons. It is all very well to say they are exempt and to “be kind” but there is no guarantee that they will not be discriminated against and refused service. I guarantee ti will happen. It already has.
Regarding the science behind masks, the “experts” have flip flopped back and forth so much on this issue that it is not unreasonable to question their credibility. There is also a wide variety of opinions among health care professionals as to the effectiveness of masks.
I had high hopes for this council but in this matter I am thoroughly ashamed of them. They could have been leaders in not forcing an ill conceived and illogical by-law that is open to abuse from all sides on Burlington. Instead they decided to be followers and play the keeping up with the Jones’s game. They listened to a few vocal stay at home/mandate mask advocates. They are supposed to represent all constituents, not just a vocal few. If the majority of people were pro mask they would be wearing them. If the majority of people are not wearing masks that should tell council something. That should tell them the majority do not agree with this.
The numbers have gone down, the curve has flattened and NOW when we are doing well they want to foist this odious by-law on us, putting citizens who cannot wear masks at extreme risk of discrimination. Or risk of heath issues if they feel to intimidated to stand up for the exemptions they are entitled to. Many will be. It’s illogical and totally ridiculous.
Maggie, give your head a shake and look around you. People are wearing masks. They are not babbling on about their rights and questioning the qualifications of experts. The curve is flattening (it is not yet flat) and we need to get on board and respect each other.
Actually there are plenty of people questioning the science of masks and the “experts”. Some of those are medical professionals. I do agree we need to respect each other and that means respecting that 1)there are people that cannot wear masks for a variety of medical reasons and they should not be discriminated against or refused service and 2) that just because someone does not agree with you is no reason to attack them as been the case since the beginning of this situation. People on both sides of the debate have been downright nasty but I have observed the worst offenders are the stay at home/mandatory mask advocates. The judgmental, self righteous criticism and downright meanness has been quite appalling.
I will also point out that there are plenty of people not wearing masks. I am staying in Niagara Falls right now (long story) and when I go to the grocery store near the hotel I am in a see few people wearing masks and that includes the staff. In the restaurants some servers wear masks all the time, some part of the time and some not at all. I’ve only taken public transit a few times but I have not seen one person wearing a mask. This indicates to me that the majority of people do not want a mandatory mask by-law.
I fully agree with wearing a mask in an indoor setting. But what I find unacceptable is that this bylaw is somehow evidence of leadership by MMW. The City of Guelph, with a risk profile not unlike Burlington, initiated this requirement in Guelph and the surrounding region on June 12. Leaders lead, they don’t follow the crowd.
I have 2 questions that perhaps someone can answer ( preferably from a Councillor or the Mayor).
1. Are kitchen employees in restaurants mandated to wear a mask or facial shield while preparing food?
2. Is the City of Burlington ready to distribute free facial masks on Monday, when the mask by-law comes into effect? If yes, how/where will these masks be available?
Hi Penny, for #1 they are not. According to the guidelines for restaurants and bars: Kitchen that is physically separated from the dining area and not accessible to the public.
Looking through the guidelines, areas that do not give access to the public aren’t required (e.g. offices, staff room, etc.).