A Langford councillor who travelled to Arizona in April told council Monday he went for “legal and essential” reasons, but declined to provide further information about his trip when pressed by a fellow councillor.
Coun. Matt Sahlstrom’s limited explanation was prompted by Coun. Lillian Szpak, who tried unsuccessfully to add his travel to Monday’s council agenda as an item for discussion.
“I’m not going to answer any personal questions put forward to me from Coun. Lillian Szpak. I will let the mayor and council know, of course, and the public, I travelled to the United States, followed Canadian and United States protocol, checked in with both of them. I left before the new travel restrictions were brought in to British Columbia. I am down here on legal and essential business,” Sahlstrom told council while participating online.
Sahlstrom has not responded to interview requests by phone, email or texts for several weeks.
In an interview before the council meeting, Szpak said she planned to introduce the motion to give council a chance to ask Sahlstrom directly to explain the reason for his international travel during B.C.’s third wave of the pandemic.
“I’m just doing what I think is right for the community … because there are a lot of questions and people wondering why he has travelled there,” she said.
Many remember that other councillors in the region who travelled over the winter holidays had to answer for their trips, Szpak said. In January, Greater Victoria residents called for the resignation of Victoria Coun. Sharmarke Dubow and Metchosin Coun. Kyara Kahakauwila after it was revealed they had travelled internationally. Kahakauwila eventually stepped down as deputy mayor.
Szpak said she worried that if Sahlstrom participated in council meetings while in the U.S. and the situation was not addressed, council would appear complicit in his decision to travel despite strong recommendations against travel during the pandemic.
Coun. Denise Blackwell seconded Szpak’s motion, but it was defeated after Mayor Stew Young asked Sahlstrom if he would answer questions and he said no.
Young said in an interview before the council meeting, Sahlstrom told him he had to travel to do maintenance on his home in Phoenix or he would face a fine, and that if he didn’t pay the fine, he would end up in court.
“So if that constitutes essential travel, it may because I guess court or whatever is essential travel, but, you know, do you preempt the court, or do you wait till you go to court, because he’s not going to pay the fines,” Young said. “He says he’s got to go down and fix it. He’s not paying no fines, and he’s not going to go to court. So he has to go down and fix it.”
Young said it’s not up to him to judge whether Sahlstrom’s trip was essential, and he does not have the power to stop a councillor from travelling or participating in council while away.
“He has to defend himself. I don’t want to be in there defending him. I do not want to defend him. He has to do it himself. … he’s a grown man,” Young said.
Szpak’s motion to add Sahlstrom’s travel to the agenda would also have provided a chance for the public to share their comments during public participation, because people are only allowed to comment on items on the agenda.