New city councillors file differing vaccine-related proposals

Councillor Victor Doerksen presented his notice of motion first, proposing council maintain the status quo of a work from home order, while finding suitable alternatives to accommodate all employees. This may include, he suggests, random testing for all. Doerksen said COVID-19 transmission can happen, even if one is vaccinated, and he wants the deadline to be pushed back for the sake of a policy review.

He also said it isn’t fair some staff members should face losing employment because of the policy.

Councillor Cindy Jefferies, on the other hand, is proposing council lead by example in adopting a similar vaccination policy to the one being applied to staff.

She said that way, council could promptly return to City Hall for in-person meetings. Her arguments state vaccination has proven effective in reducing the severity of COVID-19 symptoms, that mandates are accepted in multiple sectors, and are permissible under the Alberta Human Rights Commission.

Asked if he is “anti-vaccination,” Doerksen remarked that he is actually ‘anti-vaccination mandates.’ During the municipal election campaign, a statement he sent to media pointed out he would not provide proof of vaccination, and would supply antigen tests only if all councillors agreed to do the same.

“My position is that vaccination status has no impact on people’s ability to do their work,” he said. “So whether they choose to disclose it or not is up to them, and I think people make their own choices. They look at the evidence and decide from there and I think that’s the position we ought to respect.”

In response to Doersken’s concerns over City understaffing, acting City Manager Tara Lodewyk said more information would be disclosed at the Nov. 15 council meeting.

Pressed, however, she added that, “Administration did weeks and weeks of research and due diligence which included consultation with our insurance, with legal, with Occupational Health and Safety, and on Alberta Human Rights information. We did significant due diligence before preparing the policy that was put in place.”

While the points made by Doerksen and Jefferies are seemingly rooted in opposing views on vaccination, Mayor Ken Johnston disagreed with the notion that this is an indicator of polarization on council.

“Council often reflects the makeup of our community in many, many ways. This is really an expression of the expectations of the community. The community expects council to be engaged in difficult matters,” he said.

“I do not find this in any way polarizing. I found a wonderful level of respect and I really anticipate that that level of respect will show the leadership that the community expects from council on this matter.”

Jefferies expressed a similar sentiment, saying the motions are simply coming at the issue from ‘slightly different angles.’

“I guess depending on the direction taken on one, it might influence the direction taken on the other. In the two weeks from now until our next meeting, I’m assuming we’ll have opportunities to work some of this through with administration and amongst ourselves to see what questions we need answers to,” she said.

“It’s a formality in my mind to put these forward, and we may find that we have differences and we may find that we’re actually pretty close to being on the same page.”

The motions will be scheduled for debate at the next city council meeting on Nov. 15.

(with files from Josh Hall/rdnewsNOW)

by Alessia Proietti

New city councillors file differing vaccine-related proposals

What's Trending