Second Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Tuesday, March 31, 2026

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 145

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Contents

Orders of the Day

Motions Without Notice

Membership Change to Finance and Government Services Committee

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act (continued)

Steve Kooner

Sunita Dhir

Bryan Tepper

Darlene Rotchford

Teresa Wat

Steve Morissette

Jeremy Valeriote

Korky Neufeld

Hon. Grace Lore

Macklin McCall

Amna Shah

Heather Maahs

Claire Rattée

George Anderson

Sheldon Clare

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside

Reann Gasper

Bill 11 — Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026

Hon. Christine Boyle

Claire Rattée

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 2 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2026 (continued)

Peter Milobar

Hon. Diana Gibson

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Gavin Dew

Question of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Committee of the Whole

Bill 2 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2026 (continued)

Gavin Dew

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Peter Milobar

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction (continued)

Kristina Loewen

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson

Brennan Day

Á’a:líya Warbus

Committee of the Whole

Bill 8 — Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2026

Hon. Nina Krieger

Macklin McCall

Tuesday, March 31, 2026

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Motions Without Notice

Membership Change to

Finance and Government

Services Committee

Hon. Mike Farnworth : Picking up from where we left just before we broke for lunch, by leave, I move:

[That Qwulti’stunaat / Debra Toporowski replace Steve Morissette as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In this chamber, I move second reading on Bill 13, Safe Access to Places of Worship

Act.

In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 2, Budget

Measures Implementation Act.

In

Section C, the Birch Room, I call Committee of Supply, Ministry of Social Development

and Poverty Reduction.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Dana Lajeunesse : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Dana Lajeunesse : With us in the House today are my two CAs, Sarah Dinsdale and Aakriti Rai. With Aakriti

is her mother, Jyoti Rai, and her son Athar Rai. And with Sarah is Piper Dinsdale.

Would we give them a warm House welcome, please.

[1:35 p.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Safe Access to Places

of Public Worship Act

(continued)

Steve Kooner : Prior to the break, I was stating that there is a major public safety crisis throughout

this province. The public safety crisis has hit religious communities as well. I had

given one example of how big of a public safety crisis this actually is. I learned

that there’s one synagogue that is paying $100,000 per month for private security.

That’s over $1 million. This is very concerning.

It’s concerning because, although we’re having this legislation come through the House,

we’ve had legislation to deal with the very things that this legislation purports

to do as well. We’ve had the Criminal Code of Canada that makes it an offence to harass

individuals, to intimidate individuals, to impede individuals from access to religious

places of worship. Yet communities right across this province, religious communities,

have had to deal with fear, interference, harassment, intimidation and major public

safety situations.

The question is why? Why have these communities had to deal with this? The answer

is that there has been public safety legislation but it has not been enforced in our

province. It needs to be enforced so religious communities and British Columbians

can be protected.

I’m going to get into my concluding remarks.

This debate is more than a debate over a single piece of legislation. It is about

whether government is fulfilling one of its most fundamental responsibilities, and

that’s keeping people safe.

Communities should not have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for their own

protection. That’s not right. Communities should not have to wonder whether the laws

that exist will be actually enforced or not. And communities should not have to wait

for new legislation to feel safe.

The tools exist. The public safety enforcement rules exist, but they’re not being

enforced. In order to enforce those tools, we need to have a robust justice system

that is properly resourced, with ample amounts of resources and budget and staffing.

We’re not seeing that in this province right now. The justice system is underfunded.

There are a lot more tools that can be provided to law enforcement to enforce public

safety legislation. If there are issues with enforcement, then it strongly needs to

be looked upon. What extra resources can you provide to enforcement to actually deal

with public safety enforcement? If there’s already legislation in place that deals

with the subject matter of Bill 13 in the Criminal Code of Canada but you’re still

having the problem where communities are feeling unsafe, there seems to be a bigger

underlying problem. The underlying problem is with the enforcement.

[1:40 p.m.]

The responsibility exists on the provincial government to make sure there is a substantive,

organized manner and plan to deal with the actual enforcement of public safety enforcement.

What has been lacking is action on public safety in this province.

So as we consider this bill, Bill 13, Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act,

let us also focus not only on what is being proposed. Let’s also focus on what has

not been done, because British Columbians deserve more than words. They deserve safety.

Sunita Dhir : I rise today to speak in strong support of Bill 13, the Safe Access to Places of

Public Worship Act.

British Columbia is a place where diversity is not just acknowledged; it is celebrated.

People from all walks of life, cultures and faith traditions have come here to build

their lives, raise their families and contribute to the strength of our province.

In my constituency of Vancouver-Langara, that diversity is something I witness every

single day. We are home to vibrant and deeply rooted faith communities — Sikh, Jewish,

Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Buddhist and many others — each contributing in meaningful

ways to the social and cultural fabric of our communities.

These communities do more than gather in prayer. They serve. They give. They support

those in need. They build bridges across cultures. Institutions like the Khalsa Diwan

Society gurdwara are not only places of worship; they are pillars of community life.

Through langar, through outreach, through open doors, they embody the values of compassion,

service and inclusion.

Across the Lower Mainland, synagogues such as Temple Sholom along with mosques, temples,

churches and other sacred spaces play that same essential role. They are places where

people come together in moments of joy and in moments of grief. They are places where

traditions are preserved, where children learn their values and where individuals

find comfort and connection. At their core, these are spaces of sanctuary.

But in recent years, we have seen that sense of sanctuary come under strain. Across

our province and our country, there has been a troubling increase in incidents targeting

places of worship. We have seen vandalism, harassment and acts of intimidation. We

have seen demonstrations that cross a line from peaceful expression into behaviour

that blocks access, disrupts services and creates fear for those simply trying to

enter and pray.

These incidents do not just impact buildings; they impact people. They create anxiety

for families. They make seniors hesitant. They make parents think twice before bringing

their children. They erode that sense of safety that should be unquestioned in a place

of worship.

No one in British Columbia should feel that fear. No one should have to look over

their shoulder when walking into a gurdwara, synagogue, masjid, temple or church.

No one should be intimidated, harassed or prevented from practising their faith.

[1:45 p.m.]

This is not about one community. This is about all communities. It’s about ensuring

that every person — regardless of their religion, background or identity — can gather

in peace and dignity.

Freedom of religion is a fundamental right in Canada. It includes not only the freedom

to believe but the freedom to practise openly, safely and without intimidation.

Bill 13 is about protecting that right in a thoughtful and balanced way. This legislation

establishes access zones of up to 20 metres around places of public worship. Within

those zones, specific behaviours are prohibited — behaviours that impede access, disrupt

services or intimidate individuals seeking to attend. This ensures that people can

enter and exit safely without obstruction or fear.

At the same time, this bill respects the rights that are also fundamental to our democracy

— the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. People will continue to

have the right to protest. They will continue to have the right to express their views.

But those rights must be exercised in a way that does not infringe on the rights of

others to worship safely.

This legislation strikes that balance. It’s focused. It’s measured. It also includes

important safeguards, including a sunset clause that will require review, ensuring

that these measures remain appropriate and proportionate over time.

Places of worship are far more than physical structures. They are spaces where newcomers

find their footing in a new country; where language, culture and traditions are preserved

and shared; where elders find community and connection; and where young people learn

not only about faith but about service, respect and belonging. They are places where

people come in their most vulnerable moments, in times of loss, in times of uncertainty

and in times of hope. In those moments, they deserve to feel safe.

When we protect access to these spaces, we are protecting something deeper — the sense

of belonging and dignity that defines our communities and strengthens our province

as a whole.

Bill 13 reflects the values we share as British Columbians: respect for one another,

inclusion across differences and a commitment to ensuring that everyone can live free

from fear. It sends a clear message that in British Columbia, there is no place for

intimidation at the doors of our sacred spaces.

I am proud to stand in support of this legislation, and I encourage all members of

this House to join me in supporting Bill 13 to ensure that places of worship across

our province remain what they are meant to be: spaces of peace, safety and community

for all.

Bryan Tepper : Hon. Members of this House, I rise today on second reading of Bill 13, the Safe Access

to Places of Public Worship Act, 2026.

I would like to comment on my friend’s speech just now. I do appreciate the strong

message that places of worship are places of community, where we should all come together,

and I would encourage everybody in this House to spend some time in places of worship.

[1:50 p.m.]

But let me be crystal clear from the outset. Every British Columbian — Jewish, Christian,

Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, any faith — deserves to attend their place of worship in safety,

free from intimidation, harassment, vandalism or disruption.

The threats are not theoretical. Since 2001, and especially in a shocking wave since

2021, churches across Canada, including many in British Columbia, have faced repeated

attacks. A murder right on the grounds of one of our gurdwaras. Vandalism, graffiti,

desecration and arson have scarred communities. Nationally, reports document over

a hundred churches vandalized, burned or destroyed since 2021, with at least 33 fully

burned to the ground between May 2021 and late 2023, the vast majority ruled arson.

In British Columbia, churches were among the early targets. These incidents continued

alongside broader rises in hate crimes.

The alarming surge in antisemitism since October 7, 2023, has compounded danger, with

synagogues facing fire bombings, shootings and vandalism. In 2024 alone, police reported

that hate crimes targeting religion in Canada stood at 1,342 incidents nationally,

with Jewish communities accounting for 70 percent of them, despite representing just

1 percent of the population.

In British Columbia, hate crimes rose 23 percent between 2022 and 2023, with religion-motivated

incidents surging more than 50 percent. Jewish Canadians are 25 times more likely

to be targeted than any other group.

These numbers are not abstract. They represent real fear in our synagogues, mosques,

churches, gurdwaras and temples. But this bill is not that action. This is lipstick

on a pig. It is pure NDP symbolism, placating the faith community with its shiny new

provincial statute while doing absolutely nothing to address the root causes of the

safety crisis facing our places of worship.

It creates 20-metre access zones around churches, synagogues, mosques, gurdwaras and

temples. It prohibits impeding access, disrupting activities, interference — which

is defined so broadly that it actually includes advising or persuading someone not

to participate — and anything that could reasonably be expected to cause concern for

a person’s physical or mental safety.

It allows warrantless arrests for those provincially regulated infractions and lets

the Attorney General or anyone seek injunctions. And it sunsets in 2030.

Every single one of these enforcement clauses already exists in the Criminal Code

of Canada. Police and courts have had these tools for decades. This bill does not

add one new officer, one new dollar of spending, one new dollar for policing or one

new tool that wasn’t already available. It is fake legislation designated to let the

NDP say they did something while their broader failure on public safety continues

to spiral out of control.

Let’s go clause by clause, because the devil is in the details. These details here

reveal a bill that is as useless as it is redundant.

Clause 1 sets out the

definitions. It defines an access zone interference as “advising

or persuading or attempting to advise or persuade by any means — including graphic,

verbal or written means — a person to refrain from participating in an activity at

a place of public worship.”

It defines “place of public worship” expansively to include any property exempt from

taxation under the Community Charter, Vancouver Charter or the Taxation (Rural Area)

Act plus anything cabinet prescribes by regulation.

[1:55 p.m.]

“Occupier” is anyone with responsibility or control.

Of course, a “police officer” includes provincial, municipal or designated constables.

But these

definitions are deliberately broad and vague. “Interference” could capture

a peaceful conversation, a pamphlet or even a sign. This is not targeted protection.

It is a dragnet that chills legitimate expression.

The Criminal Code already covers every harmful intent here without the need for new

provincial jargon.

Section 423 criminalizes intimidation.

Section 176 specifically

protects religious worship from wilful disturbance or interruption. These are real

criminal offences with real teeth, not provincial regulatory language designed to

create the illusion of action.

Clause 2 in this bill is the heart of the prohibitions. Subsection (1) says a person

must not, in an access zone, impede access to or egress from the place of worship,

disrupt activities, engage in interference or intimidate or attempt to intimidate

or do or say anything that could reasonably cause concern for a person’s physical

or mental safety. Subsection (2) bans wilfully participating in a gathering where

others are doing any of that. This is the NDP’s big new protection.

But again, every single prohibition is already a Criminal Code offence. Impeding access

or egress is covered by

section 423, “Intimidation,” and

section 430, “Mischief.”

Disrupting activities at a place of worship.

Section 176(2) makes it an offence punishable

by

summary conviction to wilfully disturb or interrupt an assemblage met for religious

worship.

Interference by advising or persuading. That falls under “Criminal harassment” in

section 264 or “Intimidation,”

section 423.

Intimidation or causing reasonable concern for safety.

Section 264 is “Criminal harassment.”

Again,

section 423(1) explicitly prohibits using threats, violence or other means

to intimidate.

For the real threats — vandalism, graffiti, arson —

section 430(4.1) provides up to

ten years for hate-motivated mischief against religious property. These are indictable

offences with real jail time.

Indictable offences are the most serious offences in Canada. Police don’t need a provincial

20-metre bubble zone to act. They already have the full force of federal law, federal

criminal law, under the Criminal Code of Canada.

This clause doesn’t strengthen safety. It duplicates it, creates confusion and wastes

legislative time on a problem the Criminal Code solved decades ago.

I might add that the Safe Access to Schools Act has a further clause, which at least

attempts to do something. It says that in those bubble zones, it prohibits people

from protesting. This doesn’t even include that, although I would believe that if

it was tested, it would be against the Charter.

Clause 3 requires notice to establish an access zone. Signs must be posted so they

are clearly visible in daylight, it says, under normal weather conditions from the

approach to each ordinary point of entry. The signs must identify the place of worship,

describe the zone, list the prohibitions and include any other prescribed information.

No one but the owner or occupier can remove, alter or deface them.

That was a lot just to say. It’s a bureaucratic theatre.

[2:00 p.m.]

Real criminals who vandalize synagogues at night or harass worshippers don’t read

the signs. Police responding to a disturbance don’t need a laminated poster to know

that blocking a mosque door is already illegal under the Criminal Code. This clause

adds red tape and paperwork for faith communities already stretched thin while doing

nothing to prevent the crimes that actually occur outside the 20-metre line or after

hours — exactly the kinds of attacks that have burned churches and desecrated sacred

spaces for years.

Clause 4 defines exactly what is included in the access zone. For a stand-alone place

of worship, it’s the entire parcel plus 20 metres from the boundaries. For multi-use

buildings, it gets even more complicated. It’s 20 metres from entrances, exits or

passageways, unless cabinet, of course, prescribes something different.

Private residences and places the public doesn’t ordinarily access are excluded. Again,

this is arbitrary geography dressed up as protection. The Criminal Code doesn’t need

a tape measure.

Section 176 applies to the actual disturbance of worship wherever

it occurs.

Section 430 covers damage to the property itself.

Section 423 prohibits

intimidation, regardless of exact metres.

The NDP is creating a provincial map of safe zones that overlaps with federal criminal

jurisdiction all while the real threats — organized hate, online incitement or midnight

vandalism and arson that have plagued churches for the last 25 years and intensified

dramatically since 2021 — operate far beyond any 20-metre bubble. This is fake legislation

at its finest. It looks tough on paper but collapses under the weight of existing

law.

Clause 5 allows a police officer to arrest, without a warrant, anyone they believe,

on reasonable grounds, is contravening

section 2. This is the NDP’s big enforcement

win, yet

section 495 of the Criminal Code already gives police broad, warrantless

arrest powers for indictable offences like intimidation, criminal harassment and mischief.

For

summary offences tied to religious worship under

section 176, police have always

had the authority to act when they witnessed a disturbance.

This clause doesn’t expand police power. It just rebrands a provincial, ticketable

offence as something that feels like criminal law. In practice, it lowers the threshold

while pretending to raise it. Real safety comes from officers who can respond quickly

to the kinds of arsons and vandalism that have destroyed dozens of churches, not from

duplicative arrest language that sits on the books unused because police are already

overwhelmed.

Clause 6 allows the Supreme Court to grant injunctions, even without notice, restraining

anyone from contravening

section 2, with interim injunctions possible. It applies

whether or not a penalty exists. Courts have been granted injunctions for harassment,

trespass and intimidation for generations, under inherent jurisdiction and the Criminal

Code. This is not new. It is redundant paperwork for the Attorney General’s office

while faith communities wait for actual officers to show up at the scenes of burned

and vandalized places of worship.

Clause 7 gives cabinet sweeping regulation-making power. They can prescribe classes

of property, designate policing units, add or remove exemptions for labour actions

or other activities, dictate exactly what signs must say and where they go and change

the size of access zones for any place or class of places.

This is the ultimate NDP control clause — endless bureaucratic tweaks, without coming

back to this House. It turns every place of worship into a regulatory experiment.

Meanwhile, the Criminal Code provides consistent, nationwide standards that don’t

change on a Lieutenant Governor in Council whim.

[2:05 p.m.]

This clause exposes the bill for what it is, not bold protection but a framework for

future ministerial fiddling while the real crisis of under-policing festers and churches

continue to burn.

Clauses 8 and 9 are straightforward. The act sunsets in 2030 or earlier by regulation,

and it comes into force by royal assent. Enough said.

This entire bill is fake legislation. It is modelled after the 1994 Access to Abortion

Services Act bubble zones, which were narrowly tailored to a specific, highly charged

medical context. Those zones were upheld by courts because they protected patients

in a unique setting, but slapping the same model onto every place of worship provincewide,

with broader prohibitions and no evidence that the Criminal Code tools are insufficient,

is legislative laziness.

Compare it to federal Bill C-9, introduced in October. It amends the Criminal Code

to ban hate symbols like swastikas, with exemptions, adds aggravating factors for

hate-motivated offences and creates a specific offence of intimidation at buildings

for religious worship. Importantly, it does not create fixed-distance bubble zones.

It targets conduct, not geography. The federal approach respects jurisdiction and

focuses on real criminal behaviour.

Why is this NDP government duplicating and diluting federal criminal law with provincial

red tape? It’s because it’s easier than fixing the real problem — their own failed

policies that have left police hands tied and communities unprotected. While faith

leaders are begging for real protection, the NDP’s response is signs and 20-metre

zones. Meanwhile, across this province, crime is out of control in ways that directly

threaten everyone, including those trying to worship.

The Auditor General’s March 2026 report laid it bare. The RCMP is short at least 3,400

front-line officers as of September 2025. Vacancy rates exceed the critical 7 percent

threshold in nine of 11 provinces and territories served by contract policing. Recruitment

has failed for years. In 2025, they needed 2,700 new officers but hired only 892.

That falls onto this province for providing the members required to be trained. Officers

are doing more with less every single day, pulling from integrated teams, facing longer

response times and watching repeat offenders cycle through the soft-on-crime bail

system the NDP defended for years.

Clearance rates for property crime and hate-motivated mischief remain abysmal. Communities

are hiring private security — not because they want to but because the NDP has left

them no choice. What does this government do? Jewish communities in B.C. alone are

now spending over $100,000 every month on private security, just to keep worshippers

safe.

What does the government do? They slap 7 percent PST on those security services, taxing

the very measures communities are forced to take because public safety has collapsed

under their watch. This is not leadership. This is extortion by another name. Small

businesses, strata and faith groups already spending thousands monthly on guards now

face another 7 percent hit. The NDP creates the crisis, focuses private solutions,

then taxes the solution. This bill does nothing to stop that hypocrisy.

The official opposition believes strongly in the right to peaceful assembly under

section 2(

c) of the Charter. We also believe in freedom of expression. Bubble zones

can chill legitimate protests, as we’ve seen with school access zones.

[2:10 p.m.]

Even setting Charter concerns aside, this bill fails on its own terms. It does not

deter the real threats — vandalism at night, online harassment or organized hate —

because those happen outside the 20-metre zone or when no one is there to post signs.

It creates a false sense of security, while the NDP continues to under-resource the

very police who are already doing heroic work with fewer officers than ever.

The faith community deserves better than this performative nonsense. They deserve

a government that treats public safety as a core responsibility, not a photo op. They

deserve more RCMP officers, more municipal officers, faster bail reform that actually

keeps repeat offenders locked up, higher clearance rates and an end to taxing the

private security they’re forced to buy because this province’s policing model is crumbling.

The NDP can pat themselves on the back for introducing Bill 13 in unison with Bill

12. They can claim they’re expanding protections, but British Columbians see through

it. This is not protection; it’s abdication. It is the government admitting they cannot

enforce the Criminal Code effectively. It creates a parallel provincial regime that

duplicates existing powers while doing nothing to fix the resource crisis.

We in the official opposition will always stand with faith communities against hate.

We support real tools for police. We support cracking down on antisemitism and every

form of religious hatred. But we will not pretend that this bill does any of those

things. Pure NDP theatre while the real crisis of crime, underpolicing and self-funded

security continues.

I urge every member to reject this symbolic gesture, demand real resources for police,

demand enforcement of the Criminal Code we already have, demand an end to the hypocrisy

of taxing the very safety measures this government’s failures have forced upon our

most vulnerable communities.

British Columbians of every faith deserve to worship without fear. They deserve a

government that delivers safety, not slogans.

Deputy Speaker : Members, I just want to take a moment to offer a little guidance. This Chair doesn’t

appreciate any sort of indication that governments or members in this House are breaking

the law.

So I would ask you to stay away from terms like “extortion” — things like that and

those allegations.

Darlene Rotchford : I’d like to start by acknowledging we’re on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən People known as the xʷsepsəm and Songhees Nations and thanking them for allowing me to do the work I do, not just

here in this building but within my riding of Esquimalt-Colwood.

I am honoured to rise here today in this House to speak in strong support of Bill

13, legislation that goes to the very heart of what it means to live in a safe, respectful

and inclusive environment. At the core, this bill does something simple but profoundly

important — ensuring that people in British Columbia can access the places that matter

most to them, our places of worship, and that they can do so free of intimidation,

obstruction and fear.

Places of worship should be a safe place for people. This is not a controversial statement;

this is a shared expectation. The ability to gather in prayer, reflection and community

without harassment or disruption is fundamental to who we are as Canadians and British

Columbians.

Yet in recent years, we have seen a troubling rise in incidents that challenge that

basic expectation. We have seen threats, vandalism and intimidation targeting places

of worship — spaces that serve not only as centres of faith but that anchor our communities

right across British Columbia.

These are not abstract concerns. These are real experiences affecting people simply

trying to get to a place to gather in peace.

I will note, toward some comments that were made across the way, that we’re seeing

this not just here in British Columbia, through a fault of any policy of ours, but

across the country, under different governments, whether that is a progressive NDP

government, a progressive Conservative government, a Conservative, Liberal…. Across

the board, everyone is seeing this. All of us equally are looking at different ways

we can mitigate this and support people across the country.

[2:15 p.m.]

This is why our government is taking action. Bill 13, the Safe Access to Places of

Public Worship Act, establishes protections to ensure that people can attend services,

ceremonies and gatherings without being obstructed, threatened or harassed.

Importantly, this legislation is carefully designed to allow places of worship — such

as churches, mosques, synagogues, gurdwaras and temples — to establish safe access

zones simply by posting clear signage. These zones are limited in size, generally

including the building, its property and a modest buffer area of approximately 20

metres. Within those zones, certain behaviours are prohibited — not beliefs, not opinions

but behaviours, actions like physically blocking access, using intimidation or deliberately

disrupting services.

I want to be clear about this. This law does not ban protest. You heard me talk yesterday

about another bill. I believe foremost in the right to peaceful protest. I had joked

that I had been perhaps on the front lawn a time or two here myself, or some other

organizations, during strike action in my previous life, and I stand for that right

to do so as long as it’s done peacefully and people aren’t hurt.

Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of our democracy, and our government fully

supports that right. People remain free to express their views, to gather and to protest.

What this bill does is set reasonable boundaries, ensuring that expression does not

cross the line to harm, intimidation or obstruction. It is about balance. It’s about

balancing the right to protest and freedom of expression with the right of a family

to attend a place of worship without being shouted at or blocked or harassed for entering.

It’s about recognizing that rights come with responsibility.

I also want to highlight that this law is not being introduced in isolation. They

are part of a broader effort to address rising hate and protect communities across

our province. The member just said that public safety needs to be taken seriously.

Well, I believe this legislation is an example of another tool that we can do to do

that.

We are investing in the B.C. hate crimes unit, expanding its capacity and supporting

community organizations through our anti-hate community support fund. We are also

listening, learning from people of faith, faith leaders, community organizations and

law enforcement.

The feedback has been clear. These protections are needed, and they will make a difference.

In fact, when this legislation was brought forward and was announced, our minister

with people of multiple different faith groups stood together in solidarity to say

that they supported this, right here in the Legislature.

People have told us that safe access zones around schools have already been an effective

tool for de-escalation. We expect similar results when we see that within a place

of worship.

Importantly, these measures include safeguards. This piece of legislation contains

a sunset clause, ensuring they will be reviewed and reassessed. This reflects our

commitment to getting the balance right, not just today but into our future.

We must also acknowledge the broader context. Around the world, here at home, we are

seeing an increased polarization and, at times, rising hostility directed at different

community groups. At moments like this, leadership matters. We have a responsibility

to stand up for the values that define us: respect, inclusion and safety for all.

I would hope in this building that that’s something we can all agree on.

I believe this bill does that. It does not take sides. It does not target any particular

group or viewpoint. It applies equally regardless of who you are or what you believe.

Its focus is clear and narrow: to prevent harmful conduct and ensure safety.

As legislators, we are often called upon to make difficult decisions, to weigh competing

rights and interests. In this case, I believe this bill does strike that right balance.

It protects communities of faith. It upholds our fundamental principle that everyone

deserves to feel safe in spaces that matter most.

If you were to tell me when I was a child going to Catholic school on Sundays and

participating in my own religion that I would be up having to even have this debate

or conversation, I don’t think I would have actually believed anybody. I don’t think

I would have taken it seriously. There is no way we would have even had to have these

conversations.

I often joke, you know…. I was raised Catholic. Sometimes I joke I have had some concerns

with my own religion, but I think that at the base of most religions, it’s about taking

care of our communities.

[2:20 p.m.]

I believe, as legislators, we all have an equal responsibility to do that, no matter

what our background is, whether it’s religious or not actually. I believe it should

be based on good policy, good legislation, and I believe this does that.

With that, I do urge all members of this House to support Bill 13.

During question period throughout this session and last session, people have asked

us questions from the opposition about what we’re doing to keep the public safe. I

think this legislation is a great example of how we’re doing that for our faith-based

communities across the province, whatever that may look like.

Again, I hope people on the other side can support this legislation.

Bryan Tepper : Could we have a five-minute recess, please?

Deputy Speaker : I will have a five-minute recess.

The House recessed from 2:21 p.m. to 2:24 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker : Okay. We’ll call this chamber back to order.

Teresa Wat : I rise today to speak to Bill 13, the Safe Access to Places of Worship Act.

At the heart of this discussion is a fundamental principle: no person in British Columbia

should ever feel intimidated, harassed or fearful when walking into their place of

worship. It is about dignity, fundamental freedoms and the kind of province we want

to be.

[2:25 p.m.]

Yet for many British Columbians today — members of Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Christian,

Hindu and other faith communities — their sense of safety is no longer guaranteed.

What should be a place of peace has for some become a place of anxiety. We are seeing

tensions, often driven by global conflicts, spill out of the public square and onto

the doorstep of our most sacred spaces.

As a Buddhist myself who regularly pays respects to many temples in my riding across

Richmond, I feel truly blessed to have never experienced any harassment when visiting

a place of worship.

In our beautiful province — one that has long upheld the values of inclusion, peace,

freedom of religion and freedom of assembly — it is deeply concerning to know that

some faith communities do not feel safe when walking into their own places of worship.

Everyone deserves to feel secure, respected and welcome in spaces meant for reflection,

faith and community.

As noted by political commentator Rob Shaw in his recent coverage, governments are

increasingly being called upon to act when protest activity crosses the line from

lawful expression into intimidation and disruption. That observation reflects what

many British Columbians are seeing firsthand, a growing tension between the right

to protest and the right to feel safe in deeply personal spaces.

Let’s be clear. Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of our democracy. It allows

Canadians to speak, to protest and to challenge authority. But it is not absolute.

It does not include the right to obstruct access. It does not include the right to

harass. It does not include the right to deny others the peaceful exercise of their

own freedoms. Freedom of religion is equally protected. When individuals are forced

to pass through intimidation to attend worship, their rights are being compromised.

The principle behind Bill 13 is sound. It responds to calls from faith leaders across

British Columbia. It proposes access zones, commonly referred to as bubble zones,

to prevent obstruction, harassment and intimidation near places of worship.

We have precedent for this approach. Courts in British Columbia have already upheld

similar protections in the context of abortion access, recognizing that while expression

is protected, reasonable limits are justified when necessary to protect vulnerable

individuals and ensure safe access to lawful services.

Bill 13 extends that concept to religious spaces. It will allow eligible places of

worship to establish clearly marked access zones. Typically, it would mean a 20-metre

perimeter where specific harmful behaviour would be prohibited. Police would be empowered

to issue tickets or make arrests, including without a warrant, where there are reasonable

grounds to believe the law is being contravened. The bill also includes a sunset clause

in 2030, acknowledging that these are targeted measures responding to a specific and

concerning moment.

But principle alone is not enough. The true test of this legislation will not be how

it is written; it will be how it is enforced. Because legislation without enforcement

is not protection; it is symbolism. We must confront that reality directly.

Commentary in British Columbia public discourse, including analysis from voices like

Rob Shaw, has pointed out that laws governing protest activity often face real-world

challenges when it comes to consistent enforcement. Drawing lines in legislation is

one thing. Applying them fairly, clearly and consistently on the ground is another.

[2:30 p.m.]

First, there is the issue of clarity. Enforcement depends on

definitions that are

precise and understandable not just to legal experts but to frontline officers and

the general public. What constitutes intimidation? When does a protest become obstruction?

These are decisions that must often be made in real time in emotionally charged environments.

If those thresholds are unclear, enforcement becomes hesitant. If officers are unsure

where the line is, they may default to inaction. And if enforcement varies from one

situation to another, public confidence will erode.

There is also the issue of consistency. Laws like this rely heavily on police discretion.

Without clear guidance and provincewide standards, that discretion can lead to uneven

outcomes. One community may see strong enforcement while another does not. That is

not just a legal issue; it is a question of trust.

We must consider scope. The bill’s reliance on tax-exempt status and statutory definition

to determine what qualifies as a place of worship may be administratively simple,

but it does not reflect reality. Many faith communities gather in rented halls, storefronts

or shared spaces. Some are newly established. Some lack formal recognition. If protection

depends on paperwork rather than people, then we risk excluding those who may be most

vulnerable. From an enforcement perspective, ambiguity about what qualifies creates

hesitation and uncertainty in applying the law.

The exclusion of private residences raises similar concerns. Many faith groups gather

in homes. These are legitimate expressions of religious practice. If they become targets

of harassment, what recourse exists? Does that create a loophole? How would such a

situation be handled in practice?

We must also consider how this legislation fits within the broader legal framework.

Federal efforts to address hate-motivated conduct near places of worship focus on

criminalization, intimidation and hateful symbols but do not establish defined buffer

zones. This creates a distinction between conduct-based and location-based protections.

If these frameworks are not well aligned, there is a risk of confusion. Police officers

should not have to interpret overlapping or inconsistent standards in the moment.

Effective enforcement requires coherence across jurisdictions.

Another concern is that this legislation stops at the sanctuary door. Faith is lived

through service in food banks, shelters and community programs. These spaces can also

become targets. If they fall outside the scope of protection, then we are addressing

only part of the problem.

There’s also the question of capacity. Even the best law will fail without the resources

to enforce it. Do police services have the training, personnel and operational clarity

required? Are there clear protocols in place? Without this, enforcement will be uneven

and communities will continue to rely on private security to fill the gap.

We are already seeing that reality. Some communities are bearing significant financial

burdens just to ensure basic safety. Security costs across all Metro Vancouver Jewish

institutions have risen to more than $100,000 per month. That is not sustainable,

and it is not acceptable. Public safety must remain a public responsibility.

We support the spirit of Bill 14. We recognize the urgency. We acknowledge the voices,

both from faith communities and from commentators like Rob Shaw, who have highlighted

the need for government to act thoughtfully, not just quickly.

[2:35 p.m.]

If this law is to succeed, it must be clear, enforceable and supported by the resources

necessary to make it real. It must apply fairly across all communities. It must reflect

how faith is actually practised. It must give both the public and law enforcement

the certainty they need, because if it does not, we risk creating false reassurance

instead of real protection.

Every British Columbian, regardless of faith, should be able to walk into their place

of worship with peace, dignity and safety, not just in principle but in practice.

That is the standard we must meet.

While I agree with the intention of the bill, I know that we must be thoughtful whenever

we limit the actions of individuals and groups. Peaceful assembly is a protected freedom,

but intimidation, harassment and blocking access to places of worship are not. Protecting

the right to worship safely must be treated as a basic public safety responsibility.

If government is serious about standing against antisemitism and hate, it must go

beyond symbolism. Strengthen policing, increase resources, and stop taxing security.

Communities facing targeted hate should not be forced to rely indefinitely on privately

funded security to fill gaps in public safety. It is expressly wrong that this government

is charging 7 percent PST on the security services that the Jewish community is being

forced to purchase to keep itself safe. Governments should not be taxing the very

measures communities need because of rising hate and threats.

The Criminal Code of Canada has already provided protection for people walking to

places of worship who face harassment, but we hardly see any enforcement. As we are

now considering and debating Bill 13, the Safe Access to Places of Public Worship

Act, we must ensure that Bill 13 is not just another additional piece of legislation

sitting in the statute vault with no real protection for the British Columbians who

attend their places of worship.

I sincerely hope that the Attorney General will address all these concerns and those

raised by my colleagues and support the opposition party’s meaningful amendments to

Bill 13.

Steve Morissette : I’m pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 13, the Safe Access to Places of Public

Worship Act, legislation that goes to the very heart of what it means to live in a

free and democratic society.

At its core, this bill is about something simple yet profoundly important — the ability

of people to live out their beliefs peacefully, safely and without intimidation. It’s

about ensuring that when someone chooses to attend their place of worship — whether

that be a gurdwara, a church, a synagogue, a mosque or a temple — they can do so without

fear, without obstruction, without harassment and without being made to feel that

their presence, their beliefs or their community are somehow unwelcome.

The wide variety of diverse religions in British Columbia gives us different perspectives

and makes us a much stronger society.

Places of public worship are more than just buildings. They are anchors in our communities.

They are spaces where people gather not only for prayer but for connection, for support

and for a sense of belonging. They are where families mark life’s most important moments

— births, marriages and losses — and where individuals seek guidance, reflection and

peace. They are, in many ways, the quiet foundation of community life. Yet increasingly,

we have seen instances where these very spaces have been targeted by disruptive and

harmful behaviour.

[2:40 p.m.]

Let me be clear. The vast majority of people in British Columbia respect one another.

They understand that freedom of religion is not conditional. It does not depend on

whether we agree with someone else’s beliefs. It does not depend on whether we share

their traditions. It is a right that belongs to everyone equally.

But we must also acknowledge an uncomfortable truth. For some, the idea of freedom

of religion has been narrowed into something exclusionary, something that means freedom

of my religion but not necessarily the freedom of others. And when that mindset takes

hold, it can manifest into behaviours that are intimidating, obstructive and, at times,

deeply harmful.

This is where this legislation steps in. Bill 13 proposes a practical, measured and

thoughtful response to a real and growing issue. It establishes protections against

harmful, disruptive or intimidating behaviour around places of public worship. It

creates a framework that allows eligible places of worship to establish clearly marked

safe access zones — zones that are visible, understandable and limited in scope.

Unlike other legislation, these zones are not imposed universally by regulation. Instead,

they are created when a place of worship chooses to opt in by posting clear signage.

That signage must identify the place of worship, define the boundaries of the access

zone and outline the behaviours that are prohibited. This approach ensures clarity

for everyone — those attending worship, those in the surrounding community and those

who may wish to express their views nearby.

Clarity matters. Laws must be understandable, they must be predictable, and they must

be fair. Bill 13 meets those standards.

In most cases, these access zones will include the building itself, the property on

which it sits and a modest 20-metre buffer around the perimeter. They are not expansive.

They are not designed to push people far away. They are designed to do one thing:

ensure safe and unobstructed access.

Within these zones, specific behaviours are prohibited — not expression but conduct.

This includes physically blocking entrances, using objects like barricades to obstruct

access, disrupting prayer or religious gatherings and engaging in threatening or intimidating

behaviour toward those trying to attend. And yes, it also includes attempts to pressure

or dissuade individuals from attending services within that defined space.

This is not about silencing lawful protest. Let me say that again clearly. This legislation

does not outlaw protest. People will continue to have the right to express their views.

They will continue to have the right to gather; to demonstrate; and to disagree, even

strongly.

But rights must coexist. Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of our democracy,

but so, too, is freedom of religion. Neither right should come at the expense of the

other.

This bill draws that line carefully and responsibly. It says: “You may express your

views, but you may not intimidate others. You may protest, but you may not block access.

You may disagree, but you may not create an environment of fear for people simply

seeking to practise their faith.”

[2:45 p.m.]

The need for this legislation is not theoretical. In recent years, we have seen a

rise in confrontations and targeted disruptions at religious institutions, not only

in British Columbia but across Canada and around the world.

We have seen vandalism, including political graffiti, targeting temples and gurdwaras.

We have seen escalating tensions requiring court-ordered buffer zones. We have seen

communities of many different faiths express real concern for their safety. We have

seen how quickly peaceful spaces become sites of anxiety and division.

The impact of these incidents is profound. They create fear, they create division,

and they undermine the sense of safety and belonging that places of worship are meant

to provide. For those attending, what should be a moment of peace becomes a moment

of concern. What should be a place of refuge becomes a place where people must look

over their shoulder. That is simply not acceptable.

This legislation says clearly that in British Columbia, we will not accept that. We

will not accept that individuals should have to weigh their personal safety before

attending a service. We will not accept that communities should feel targeted or unwelcome

in spaces that are central to their identity and well-being. Instead, we will take

responsible, proportionate steps to ensure that access to these spaces remains safe

and unobstructed.

Bill 13 does not stand alone. It is part of a broader effort to protect safe access

to important community spaces. Alongside this bill, we are also advancing Bill 12,

which extends protections for safe access to schools, ensuring that students, staff,

parents and caregivers can access schools without disruption.

These measures build on previous legislation, including protections around essential

services and health care access. They reflect a consistent principle that certain

spaces in our society must remain accessible, safe and free from intimidation — schools,

health care facilities and now places of public worship.

Enforcement of this legislation is practical and measured. If prohibited behaviour

occurs within an access zone, places of worship can contact police. Officers may respond

in a range of ways, starting with de-escalation and, where necessary, issuing tickets

or making arrests.

Importantly, violating this law is not in itself a criminal offence. But the underlying

behaviour — if it crosses into assault, criminal harassment or other offences — may

well be. Police will continue to exercise discretion, as they do in all situations,

and we have confidence in their ability to do so. This confidence is supported by

ongoing investments in public safety, including expanded resources for hate crime

units and community support programs.

I also want to address the question of scope. This legislation applies to buildings

that are already recognized as places of public worship under existing property tax

frameworks. This ensures clarity and consistency while minimizing unnecessary intrusion

on Charter rights.

We recognize that there are other spaces and communities that may also face risks,

and we will continue to explore ways to support them. But this bill represents a focused

and balanced step forward. It applies equally, regardless of religion, regardless

of belief and regardless of who may be protesting. It does not target any one group.

It does not favour one faith over another. It does not distinguish between viewpoints.

It simply protects access.

[2:50 p.m.]

I also want to speak to an important feature of this legislation, the four-year sunset

clause. This is not a permanent measure. It is a targeted response to a specific and

evolving issue. The sunset clause ensures that this Legislature will revisit the law,

assess its effectiveness and determine whether it remains necessary.

This is good governance. It reflects humility. It reflects accountability. It reflects

a recognition that laws should evolve alongside the society they serve.

British Columbia is home to an extraordinary diversity of faiths, cultures and traditions.

That diversity is one of our greatest strengths. But diversity also requires responsibility.

It requires us to ensure that every community feels safe, that every individual feels

respected and that no one is made to feel vulnerable because of who they are or what

they believe.

This bill is part of that responsibility. It affirms that whether someone attends

a gurdwara, a mosque, a synagogue, a church or a temple, their right to do so safely

is equally valued. It affirms that freedom of religion is not selective. It is universal.

It affirms that our role as legislators is not only to protect rights in theory but

to ensure they can be exercised in practice.

There may be those who raise concerns about balance. That is appropriate. In a democracy,

we should always examine laws carefully, especially those that touch on fundamental

freedoms. But I would submit that this bill strikes that balance. It is limited in

scope. It is clear in its application. It preserves the right to protest. It focuses

only on conduct that is harmful, disruptive or intimidating. In doing so, it protects

one right without unnecessarily infringing on another, and that is exactly what good

legislation should do.

In closing, this is a bill that reflects our shared values — a commitment to safety,

a commitment to respect and a commitment to ensuring that fundamental freedoms are

not only recognized but protected in real and meaningful ways.

We cannot take these freedoms for granted. We cannot assume they will always be upheld

without effort. And we cannot ignore the realities that some communities are facing

today.

Instead, we must act thoughtfully, proportionately and with a clear sense of purpose.

Bill 13 does exactly that. It provides a balanced, responsible and time-limited approach

to ensuring that people in British Columbia can access their places of worship safely

and without obstruction.

For that reason, I am proud to support this legislation and commend it to this House.

Deputy Speaker : We are going to continue debate on Bill 13, Safe Access to Places of Public Worship

Act.

Recognizing the Leader of the Third Party.

Jeremy Valeriote : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Nice to see you again today.

I’m so proud to be speaking to the right bill at the right time in the right place.

It didn’t seem to make No Context BC yesterday, but maybe it will now.

Dozens of Canadian churches have been burned down since May 2021, with many being

confirmed as arson. Mosques have received federal security funds to combat Islamophobia

and hate attacks against Muslim women. We have heard sentiments of uneasiness during

Ramadan and when entering mosques and attending services. These sentiments have persisted

for years and reportedly have grown in recent years.

[2:55 p.m.]

Recent synagogue attacks come after three separate Toronto area synagogues were shot

at since March 2. The shootings prompted police in Vancouver and Victoria to send

additional patrols to Jewish places of worship and community organizations.

The Third Party caucus supports the intent of this bill. We do have a few concerns

that we expect will be addressed, clarified or potentially amended in committee. There

are concerns regarding the broad definition of “interference.” This definition as

currently stated would likely overlap with activity that would be present at many

protests.

Opponents to the broadness of the definition have stated that in other words, any

protest outside a place of worship would be illegal, regardless of the actual activity

taking place in the facility, further stating that this new law would include those

who have recently protested — for example, Indian government events at a gurdwara,

Israeli realtors talking about investment opportunities in the occupied West Bank

at a synagogue and MAGA concerts at various churches.

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association has similar concerns. “Implementing bubble zones

limits peaceful protests and our right to freedom of expression. In a time when having

our voice heard is harder than ever, protecting our right to speak out is critical

to democracy.”

The way we’re considering this legislation…. The major considerations are the potential

of protesting restrictions on secular events that are held at a public place of worship.

There is a need to ensure that those attending these events feel safe, balanced with

the public’s right to protest at secular events.

We’ll have some clarification for vague drafting on actions that could lead to arrest,

including “impede access,” “disrupt activities,” or “intimidate or attempt to intimidate,”

as well as conditions that could lead to arrest, including concern for a person’s

physical or mental safety. Clear metrics are needed to evaluate the efficacy and impact

of this legislation, including enforcement data, incident prevention, number of institutions

using access zones, etc.

As I said, we’ll support this through second reading and seek clarification and potentially

amendments at committee stage.

Korky Neufeld : It’s always a privilege to represent the constituents of Abbotsford West, and it’s

always an honour, as well, to rise in this House to speak to issues that impact all

British Columbians.

I rise today to speak to Bill 13, the Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act,

2026. This is a bill that touches on something deeply important not only in law but

in the daily lives of British Columbians. It is the ability to gather, to worship

and to do so in safety and dignity.

At its core, this legislation is a response to a troubling reality we’ve seen played

out time and time again. Across our province and, indeed, across our country, we have

seen an increase of acts of vandalism, harassment, intimidation and targeted disruption

directed at religious communities. These are not abstract concerns. These are real

experiences affecting real people — families, seniors and children — who simply wish

to attend a synagogue, a church, a mosque, a temple or a gurdwara in peace.

Before we look at this legislation, we have to ask ourselves a fundamental question.

How did we get here?

It just happens that last week, when I was home for the spring break, I sat down with

one of the leaders of our Hindu temple. He explained to me that on a weekly basis

— sometimes up to 15 times a month — their temple experiences vandalism, harassment

and intimidation, and it’s targeted at their members in their temple.

Let’s peel this back a bit. In Canada and in British Columbia, both governments have

allowed our culture and our society to normalize discrimination and racism. Here’s

how: by not enforcing existing laws.

[3:00 p.m.]

That is fundamental. Before we create new legislation…. Do we have laws in place?

Are we enforcing those laws? I would say this is why we need this bill, because we

have not been enforcing those laws.

I rise today to speak about something deeply uncomfortable yet absolutely necessary

— the presence and normalization of racism in our culture and how it has quietly,

and sometimes loudly, manifested in our communities, our secondary campuses and even

the causes we claim are rooted in justice.

Let us begin with what we are seeing here in British Columbia. For over two years

now, there have been sustained weekly pro-Palestinian rallies in Victoria over 126

consecutive weeks. These are not isolated gatherings. They are organized. They are

persistent and highly visible demonstrations, often marching through downtown and

around the Legislature. Police have spent over 10,000 hours managing these events,

and now even they are stepping back, acknowledging the strain and scale of these ongoing

protests.

Across the province, similarly, demonstrations have taken place, from large-scale

marches in Vancouver to encampments and rallies on university campuses such as UBC

and UVic. These protests are part of a broader global movement calling for a ceasefire,

criticizing Israeli government actions and advocating for Palestinian rights. Yet

protesters are allowed to yell and chant: “From the river to the sea.”

Deputy Speaker : Member, excuse me just for a minute.

Recognizing the Member for Victoria–Beacon Hill.

Hon. Grace Lore : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m just seeking your guidance on relevance, given that this

is geographically bound in a very clear area around places of worship.

Deputy Speaker : Thank you very much, Member. I was just seeking some of that guidance myself.

We are, of course, debating safe access to places of public worship, and I would appreciate

we stay on target with that Bill 13.

Korky Neufeld : I think what has happened is there’s been a cultural shift that has now spread into

places of worship. So I don’t think it’s isolated just with places of worship. I think

it’s a cultural and societal issue that has persisted since 2021. That is what I’m

trying to show — the foundation of how we got here and why we need this bill in the

first place.

Deputy Speaker : Carry on, Member, but we are debating, of course, safe access to places of public

worship.

Korky Neufeld : These protesters yell and chant, “From the river to the sea,” which means removing

an entire Jewish people from the face of the earth. It’s called genocide.

We have the racism laws that we already have, but they’re not being enforced. By not

dealing with these racist actions at the outset, we normalize behaviours. Protesters

become emboldened, and that’s not okay.

Let me be clear. Peaceful protest is not the problem. Freedom of expression is not

the problem. In a democratic society, people have the right to speak, to assemble

and to advocate for causes they believe in. But there’s a difficult truth we must

confront. Not everything done in the name of justice is just.

Alongside these protests, we’re hearing increasingly troubling reports from Jewish

students across Canada, including here in British Columbia. Students who once felt

safe on campus now describe environments where they feel unwelcome.

Deputy Speaker : Member, I don’t want to continue to interrupt you, but we debated safe schools yesterday.

We are debating today safe access to places of public worship.

Korky Neufeld : I guess I’m having trouble. I guess I need clarification from you. If our broader

society has allowed certain things that have now crept into worship, how can I not

describe what is happening in our culture and our society that is now impacting worship

centres?

I will get to that, but I think the foundation is that there has been no enforcement

from the federal government or from the provincial government on acts that are breaking

racism laws. By doing that, it has emboldened them not just to do it outside the Legislature,

not just to march down the streets. Now they’re coming for the institutions themselves.

I think I’m trying to cover that and make sure that we understand that this has been

going on since 2021 unchecked and unenforced. That is why we’re here.

Deputy Speaker : I appreciate that very much, Member, as long as you connect it back to Bill 13.

Korky Neufeld : Absolutely. I will. It’ll become crystal clear.

[3:05 p.m.]

Some Jewish students describe being ostracized by peers. Others say they’re afraid

to express their identity openly. The language used is stark. Campuses that once fostered

inclusion are now described as places where Jewish students feel shunned and targeted.

Research and accounts tied to institutions like UBC and SFU pointed to rising stress,

fear and alienation among Jewish students and staff.

There has been public criticism from academia itself, suggesting institutions are

struggling or unwilling — and here’s the key, unwilling — to adequately address the

concerns. In front of the Hillel B.C. faculty building at UBC campus, regular protests

occurred, with intimidation tactics and racist slurs taking place. But Bill 13, Safe

Access to Places of Worship Act, will not protect those Jewish students.

Now, let us be absolutely precise because precision matters. There is a clear and

critical distinction between criticism of government, including Israel, and hatred

or discrimination toward a people, including Jewish individuals. One is protected

by political expression. The other is racism. When that line is crossed, even subtly,

even unintentionally, it must be called out, and it must be enforced. That is what

has been missing since 2021. That has led this government to Bill 13.

Yet across our country and our province, we have done nothing. When students feel

unsafe for being who they are, when identity becomes a liability, when fear replaces

belonging, we are no longer dealing with activism alone. We are dealing with something

darker.

This issue does not exist in isolation. All across Canada, we have seen a disturbing

rise in acts of cultural and religious destruction. Since 2021, over 100 Christian

churches and places of worship have been burned and vandalized, including several

in British Columbia, with no convictions.

You have to ask the question: if there are no convictions, what is the message being

sent? The criminals are emboldened. “Let’s keep burning down the churches. Let’s keep

harassing people at the synagogue. Let’s keep harassing people at the gurdwara and

at the temple.” Why? Because there’s no enforcement. There are no laws. There’s no

punishment. That’s what’s missing. That’s why we wouldn’t need this bill if they would

enforce the laws that we already have.

These acts followed the tragic and painful discoveries connected to residential schools.

Let me say this clearly. The pain of one community does not justify the destruction

of another. Burning places of worship is not justice. Targeting communities is not

reconciliation. Replacing one form of historical wrong with a present-day hostility

does not move us forward. It actually pulls us backwards.

What we are witnessing in different forms is a pattern. Movements that begin with

legitimate grievances becoming environments where anger overrides principle, where

group identity becomes the target and where racism is excused, minimized or ignored

entirely, so long as it aligns with the right cause. That is a dangerous road.

Racism does not become acceptable when it changes direction. It does not become justified

when it wears the language of activism. It does not become invisible simply because

we are uncomfortable calling it out.

If we are to be a society that truly values justice, our standards must be consistent.

We cannot condemn hate in one context and tolerate it in another. We cannot demand

safety for some while ignoring the fears of others. We cannot claim morality and moral

authority while allowing prejudice to grow under our watch.

What must we do? We must have the courage to act. Action, I would say, is the underlying

reason for the need for Bill 13. There’s been inaction since 2021. Antisemitism is

real and must be addressed even when it appears within popular movements. We already

have racism laws. Government needs to have the courage to enforce them. Protests must

remain grounded in respect, not hostility toward identity. Institutions must protect

all students equally without hesitation or political calculation.

I want to call on the leaders of UBC and SFU to do the right thing for the right reasons

in the right way. Do not allow this dangerous behaviour to continue on our campuses.

Racism against anyone and everywhere must be confronted, not rationalized.

Deputy Speaker : Member, I would appreciate…. We are talking about places of public worship. I would

appreciate the focus on that topic.

[3:10 p.m.]

Korky Neufeld : The reason why we need Bill 13 is that there’s an admission of failure to enforce

the existing laws we have. We wouldn’t need Bill 13 if the laws on racism that we

already have in this land and in this province would be enforced in the first place.

There’s a fundamental principle, with no disagreement in this House: every person

in British Columbia deserves to access their place of worship free from fear, intimidation

or obstruction.

Bill 13 attempts to address this by creating what are commonly referred to as access

zones or bubble zones, extending generally 20 metres around places of public worship.

Within these zones, certain behaviours would be prohibited, like blocking access,

disrupting services, intimidating individuals or even attempting to persuade someone

not to participate in worship.

In many ways, this model is not new. It follows the framework established under previous

legislation, particularly the Access to Abortion Services Act and, more recently,

the Safe Access to Schools Act. Courts have upheld these laws, recognizing that while

freedom of expression is a cornerstone of our democracy, it is not absolute. It can

be limited carefully and proportionately, where necessary, to protect the safety and

dignity of others.

Let me be clear. The intent of this bill is understandable and in many respects commendable.

However, it is precisely because this legislation engages in fundamental freedoms

that we must approach it with caution, care and a willingness to ask these difficult

questions, because alongside the right to worship safely stands another foundational

right: the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly protected under the

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Bill 13 does not simply prohibit harassment or violence. Those are already illegal

under existing laws. The question remains: why were existing laws not enforced at

the outset?

The bill goes further. It introduces a broad definition of “interference,” which includes

advising or persuading someone to refrain from participating in worship.

Well, that raises further questions, legitimate questions, such as: where is the line

between intimidation and expression? Who is going to define that? Who is going to

enforce that? That’s a heavy burden to put on someone on the front lines. Could a

peaceful protester holding a sign be captured under this definition? Could a quiet

conversation, even when conducted respectfully, be deemed unlawful with these zones?

These are not hypothetical concerns. They go to the heart of how this legislation

will be interpreted and enforced on the ground. I think sometimes it’s easy for us

to sit in this House and to create legislation. We’ve got to actually work it out,

play it out. How’s it going to work on the ground to put this kind of a burden on

someone? They’re going to have to interpret a certain action without it being clear.

That’s a burden I wouldn’t want.

We must also examine the enforcement mechanisms within this bill.

Section 5 allows

for arrests without warrant where an officer believes on reasonable grounds that a

person is contravening the act. Now, while warrantless arrest powers do exist in the

Criminal Code, their extension into a provincial regulatory framework is significant.

That’s a big jump. It is not unprecedented, but it is rare. When we grant such powers,

we must ensure that they are exercised with restraint, with clarity and with accountability.

Then there’s also the scope question. This bill allows for access zones to be created

through signage posted by the occupier of a place of worship. It allows for flexibility

through regulation, meaning that the size, the application and even the types of properties

covered could evolve over time. Flexibility in legislation can be a strength, but

it can also create uncertainty.

Further questions need to be answered. Will this be applied consistently across communities,

or will one community have different regulations than another community? For people

moving from one community to another community, how will they know? Will there be

clear provincial standards? I hope so, because that would give direction to those

on the ground. How will the public know with certainty where these zones begin and

end?

[3:15 p.m.]

Another point that must be raised is this. Legislation alone cannot and will not solve

the underlying problem. Communities, particularly Jewish communities and other religious

minorities, are increasingly bearing the burden of their own protection. Many are

forced to invest heavily in private security just to ensure that people can attend

their services safely.

I was at one of those events. I went to a Hanukkah celebration in Richmond. My goodness.

We saw fully geared-up law enforcement with rifles, body armour and helmets, with

a big truck standing around this building, just so people can go in and have some

sense of security.

The Jewish community alone has spent over $100,000 in security costs, and now they

pay more. They’ll pay $107,000, because we just added PST to something. It’s not this

bill, I realize, but let’s call it for what it is.

This represents a surge of more than 1,300 percent compared to pre–October 2023 costs

for the Jewish community. That’s not small. That’s not insignificant. That is not

a sustainable or acceptable long-term solution. If this government is serious about

addressing hate and intimidation and targeted harassment, then Bill 13 must be accompanied

by meaningful investment in public safety, public policing and community supports.

Just to pass it here in Victoria is going to be meaningless.

The key aspect is enforcing existing laws on racism — zero tolerance — but we have

seen none of that. Creating the buffer zone is one thing. Ensuring that it is respected

and enforced is another. That is why new legislation is meaningless unless it comes

with enforcement.

Finally, I want to acknowledge an important inclusion in this bill, the sunset clause.

The act is set to expire after four years. That is a prudent measure. It recognizes

that legislation is being introduced in response to a specific moment and a set of

circumstances. It gives future legislators the opportunity and, indeed, I would say,

the responsibility, to revisit the law, assess its effectiveness and determine whether

it remains necessary. This is good governance, but it also underscores the importance

of getting this right, from the beginning.

Bill 13 is, in many ways, a balancing act. It seeks to protect individuals from harm,

intimidation and fear while also navigating the complex terrain of constitutional

freedoms. Those are not easy lines to draw. We should support the principle that people

must be able to worship safely. At the same time, we must ensure that in protecting

that right, we do not unnecessarily or unintentionally erode other fundamental freedoms.

So let us proceed with care. Let us ensure that

definitions are precise; that enforcement

is proportionate; that rights are balanced, not overridden. Let us remember that the

goal is not simply to pass a law or legislation but to strengthen the fabric of a

society where people of all faiths and all viewpoints can coexist safely, with dignity

and mutual respect.

Hon. Grace Lore : I’m grateful for the opportunity to speak to this legislation. I’ve got a few comments

that I want to tie to my community, particularly those who participated on the day

the bill was introduced, but I feel called to start my remarks in a bit of response

and engagement with the previous speaker.

I heard from my colleague across the way that threats to places of worship started

in 2021 and that the origins of these challenges can be found in 2021. I want to draw

this House’s attention to the deaths of six people and to 19 more who were injured

in an attack on a mosque in Quebec in 2017. In 2020, a mosque caretaker was murdered.

[3:20 p.m.]

We have to come to these conversations, to this debate on this legislation, with a

lens of the impact of threats to and violence in places of worship. I think members

of this House should take that responsibility very seriously.

I will touch briefly on one other remark before I turn to mine. The speaker before

me raised very significant concerns for people who fear being who they are, whether

that’s in a place of worship or at a post-secondary institution, and that we must

take action to ensure that nobody feels targeted for who they are or feels unsafe

being who they are.

That cannot apply to one group, and I fear that my colleague across the way left that

rather narrow. On Trans Day of Visibility, I just feel called to speak to the reality

that many people face barriers to being who they are, and we have a responsibility

in this House to stand up for all of them.

I think that what this legislation does is give us additional tools to ensure that

people are able to live with their faith, to practise their faith and to gather with

their community in those sacred places.

On the day this legislation was introduced, I was incredibly privileged to be joined

here by a number of faith leaders from my community, which I have since learned is

called a “wisdom” — Christ Church Cathedral, Congregation Emanu-El, the masjid as

well as Khalsa Diwan Society, the temple on Topaz, Church of Latter-Day Saints as

well as the Hindu temple.

It was beautiful to have them all here, and they were all here because this is a valuable

tool. It is not the only tool in the toolkit for addressing what we’ve discussed.

I recognize the concerns members across the way have raised about other tools, overlapping

tools, etc. They were here, and I know that, unfortunately, many of them have faced

threats, have faced graffiti. I have been to events in my community where police have

hung out outside the synagogue or have been near the mosque.

I would say that feels especially true, especially heavy in the current global context.

I know that members of my community, both Muslim and Jewish, have felt that. I also

know that when we introduced this legislation, there was an opportunity for the first

time to introduce the new imam to some of the board members at Congregation Emanu-El.

This was an opportunity to introduce several folks who dedicate immeasurable hours

of their time and their heart and their energy to their faith but also to their religious

community — to their community that comes together at their place of worship for worship

but, indeed, to lift each other up, to celebrate births, to hold each other when it

comes to loss, weddings, meal trains. The number of things that happen in these communities,

in these spaces touches all areas of our lives.

I feel myself, in this moment today, feeling that gratitude for what happens in and

through religious communities in all our constituencies and the weight of some of

the previous speakers’ comments and the weight that the world is such that this legislation

is necessary at this time. Yet it is.

[3:25 p.m.]

So this is not a piece of legislation that is out of step with other ways that tools

like this have been employed. I am, as I think all my colleagues are, and some have

mentioned several times, a big believer in the right to protest, to have voices heard.

I have, as I’m sure we all have in some form, participated. That is essential. Big

change in our province, in our country has happened coming out of protest, out of

people organizing, out of people having their voices heard.

In the case of places of worship, you’re going to have to cross the street. We use

this tool not as a challenge to the right to protest but as a way of creating that

balance, as a tool in supporting the balance between the right to protest and the

right to gather in worship.

A reality of rights is that they can exist in tension. There can be a push and a pull.

Where we can create opportunities and tools to preserve both, when the solution is

a sign clearly articulating a place of worship and the potential to still exercise

your voice by crossing the street, we have protected a couple of rights with pretty

minimal harm, with pretty minimal onus on all those involved.

For me, what this offers is a recognition of the importance of sacred places, a recognition

of what happens in and by and for communities in those places, and it ensures folks

have lots of places to have their voices heard.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Doing so need not prevent someone else from being with community. As was said, I think,

by members on both sides of the House, this is not dissimilar to legislation for bubble

zones around places people can access abortions. Again, you may protest, and indeed,

many people have probably seen folks existing across the street using other tools

while people still have the right to safely access a place where they can get health

care.

I think that I’ll, by and large, leave it there, except to tell one other brief story.

Members across the way have raised the fear and concern regarding arson of churches

over the years, a concern that I share.

I want to tell a little bit about what happened in this community in 2021. On Canada

Day that year, a statue of Captain Cook ended up in the harbour. A few days later,

a totem was lit on fire at the top of the Malahat.

What happened after that was that all of us elected to this place from the south Island

— and not just MLAs but mayors, city councillors and police chiefs — were called with,

I don’t know, 36 hours’ notice down to Songhees. Everybody came. There was a conversation

that time, in community, for none of this and in nobody’s name. We were not going

to have a statue in the harbour and a totem burnt. That was not how we were going

to collectively address historical and ongoing pain.

Folks came together to hear from the Chief, to witness conversation in community.

That was a full room. People whose, I’m sure, schedules were full found their way

there.

[3:30 p.m.]

While this legislation gives us important tools, while it protects places of worship

and it recognizes people’s right to access them while ensuring that there are ways

to have voices heard and distances from which to do it, fundamentally, this is about

coming together. It’s about having a conversation of what will happen in our names,

what it looks like to decide as a community that people everywhere have the right

to safety and support and that we problem-solve through connection and not violence

— whether that’s to a statue, whether that’s graffiti, whether that’s threats, whether

that’s physical violence.

I think of that time and what we got called to listen to, to witness, to do differently

and the introductions and the opportunities for connection among the faith leaders

who came for the introduction of this bill.

This is a tool that will support us in protecting places of worship at a time when

I believe we need to. But fundamentally, what we are all called to do, in this place

especially but beyond, is to come together, to problem-solve and to believe that connection

above all else will move us forward.

Macklin McCall : I’m going to keep this pretty straightforward. People should be able to go to their

place of worship and not have to think twice about their safety. That’s it. That’s

the baseline.

But that’s not where we are right now. There are people in this province, families,

who are making decisions about whether it’s safe to attend a service. They’re thinking

about what might be happening outside before they even get there. That’s not normal,

and we shouldn’t accept that as normal.

We’ve all seen what’s been happening. There has been an increase in targeting of religious

communities and, in particular, a real rise in antisemitism. That’s not something

distant. That’s happening here in British Columbia.

When that’s happening, people expect more than statements. They expect action that

actually changes the situation. So I don’t think there’s any disagreement in here

about the goal. People should be able to attend worship safely. They should not be

intimidated, and they should not be blocked from getting in. That’s not a controversial

position.

Where this starts to matter is how we get there. If we’re going to bring in legislation

like this, then we need to be clear about what it’s actually doing and whether it’s

dealing with the real issue or just reacting to what we’re seeing on the surface.

That’s what I want to walk through, and this is where I think we need to take a step

back for a second, because this bill didn’t come out of nowhere. Government is responding

to something real. There have been incidents. There has been pressure to act, and

communities are saying they don’t feel safe. That

part is clear.

But the question I keep coming back to is this. How did we get here? When people are

having to worry about their safety just to attend worship, that’s not just a one-off

issue. That points to something bigger. It tells you that somewhere along the way,

the system that’s supposed to prevent that from happening isn’t doing what it’s supposed

to do.

Now we’re here bringing in legislation to deal with it.

Again, I’m not saying don’t act. Of course, act.

But we should also be honest about what this represents. This is government stepping

in after the fact, trying to manage a situation that has already escalated to the

point where people don’t feel safe. I think that matters, because if we don’t look

at how we got here, then we’re just going to keep responding the same way every time

something like this happens.

There are communities right now that are spending significant money, their own money,

just to make sure people can attend services safely. That shouldn’t be the expectation.

Public safety is not something communities should have to fund on their own.

Yes, government is acting here. But at the same time, I think it’s fair to say this

didn’t need to get to this point in the first place. That’s why, as we go through

this, I think it’s important we don’t just look at what this bill is trying to do;

we also look at whether it’s actually getting at the root of the problem.

[3:35 p.m.]

Now, I want to be clear about something before I go any further. We support this bill.

People should be able to go to their place of worship without being intimidated, without

being blocked and without having to worry about what’s happening outside. That’s not

something anyone should have to argue for.

The idea behind this, creating a way to protect access, to deal with disruption —

that part makes sense. But supporting this bill doesn’t mean we stop asking questions,

because this can’t be the only answer, and it can’t be treated like it solves the

problem on its own. This is one piece, and if we’re being honest, it’s a piece that

comes in after things have already gotten to a point where people don’t feel safe.

What concerns me is when legislation starts to become the go-to response instead of

looking at whether the system we already have is being used the way it should be.

Because we already have laws. We already have enforcement tools. We already have the

ability to deal with behaviour that crosses the line.

While I support what this bill is trying to do — protecting people, protecting access

— I think it’s important that we don’t treat this as the solution. It’s not. If anything,

this should be a signal that something else isn’t working the way it should. And if

we don’t address that, then we’re just going to keep coming back here, adding more

legislation, trying to deal with the same issue from a different angle. That’s why

I think we need to look a little deeper at what’s actually happening and how we’re

choosing to respond to it.

That is where I think we need to bring this back to something pretty basic, because

this is being talked about as a public safety issue. And I agree with that. If people

are being intimidated, if access is being blocked, if there’s a disruption outside

a place of worship, that is a public safety issue. There’s no question about that.

But if that’s the case, then we also need to be honest about something else. We already

have the laws to deal with that kind of behaviour. They already exist. Police already

have the authority to step in when things cross the line. That authority comes from

the Criminal Code of Canada, and it covers the exact types of behaviour we’re talking

about here. Intimidation, harassment, causing a disturbance, obstruction, mischief,

causing fear — these are not new concepts. These are established offences that have

been around for a long time.

They’re not just written down somewhere. They’ve been used. They’ve been applied in

real situations. They’ve been tested in court, and they’ve been shaped over time to

make sure they align with the Charter.

So when I hear that we need to bring in new legislation to deal with this type of

behaviour, the question I have is: why? From a policing perspective, there isn’t a

gap here. If someone is crossing the line into intimidation, there are already consequences

for that. If someone is blocking access, there are already ways to deal with that.

If someone is creating a disturbance that affects public safety, that can be already

addressed.

That’s the system that’s in place. It’s a system that’s designed to balance enforcement

with rights. This isn’t about whether we have the tools. We do, and we’ve had them

for a long time. The issue isn’t the existence of those tools. The issue is how they’re

being used and whether they’re being used effectively.

When behaviour like this is happening and communities are still feeling unsafe, that

tells you something. It tells you that either those laws aren’t being applied the

way they should be or there aren’t enough resources to apply them consistently. That’s

a very different problem than a gap in legislation. When I look at this bill, I don’t

see something filling a hole in law. I see something stepping in where existing law

should already be doing the job.

That’s why I think it’s important that we don’t just assume more legislation equals

better outcomes. If the underlying issue is enforcement or capacity, then adding another

layer doesn’t fix that. It just changes how we approach it. Before we move further

down that path, I think it’s worth taking a closer look at what that actually means

in practice.

This is where I think it’s important to understand what this actually looks like from

a policing perspective, because there’s a real difference between enforcing a criminal

offence and enforcing a provincial act. Those are not interchangeable.

[3:40 p.m.]

No matter what authority a province gives police, whether it is the ability to arrest

or issue a ticket, it does not carry the same weight as a criminal offence. It just

doesn’t.

A criminal offence operates at a higher standard. It has to be proven beyond a reasonable

doubt. An officer needs reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an offence

has been committed before taking action. There is a process that follows that is structured,

well understood and consistent across the country. More importantly, it’s been tested

over decades in courts, under scrutiny, with challenges that have shaped how those

laws are applied.

So when a criminal charge is laid, everyone understands what that means. The public

understands it. The courts understand it. Police understand it. There is weight behind

it. There are real consequences attached to it, and there are tools that come with

it that allow that situation to be managed properly beyond just the moment.

Provincial ticket is different. It operates at a lower threshold. It’s designed to

address behaviour quickly and efficiently, usually for regulatory or lower-level offences.

Again, there is a place for that. We use those tools every day. The Motor Vehicle

Act is a good example. The Liquor Control Act is another. Immediate roadside prohibitions.

Those are all examples of where a provincial framework makes sense. Those are situations

where the goal is compliance, not escalation. They are not designed to replace criminal

law. They are designed to sit alongside it for specific types of behaviour.

What we’re talking about here is different. This is not about convenience or efficiency.

This is about conduct that, in many cases, already meets the threshold of criminal

behaviour.

If someone is intimidating individuals trying to access a place of worship, if someone

is blocking entry, if someone is creating a situation where people fear for their

safety, those are not minor regulatory issues. Those are serious. If they meet that

threshold, they should be treated as such, because once you move away from that, once

you start addressing that kind of conduct through a provincial framework, you are

lowering the standard of response, and that has real consequences.

With a criminal charge, an officer has additional tools. They can release a person

on conditions. They can impose restrictions not to return to that location, not to

have contact with certain individuals, not to engage in certain behaviour. That creates

ongoing protection. It doesn’t just deal with the moment. It manages what happens

after.

This legislation doesn’t provide that same level of protection. It allows for an arrest.

It allows for a ticket. But it doesn’t carry the same follow-through. That matters

because public safety is not just about what happens in the moment. It’s about preventing

it from happening again.

There’s another point here that I think is important. In British Columbia, it is not

common for provincial legislation to grant police the authority to arrest in this

way. Typically, those powers come from the Criminal Code of Canada, which is a much

stronger and more established legal framework. There’s a reason for that, because

an arrest is one of the most serious actions the state can take. It is the state limiting

someone’s liberty. It directly engages the right to life, liberty and security of

the person. That’s not something that is taken lightly.

In our system, that kind of intrusion is justified when someone commits a criminal

offence within a framework that has been tested, challenged and upheld over time.

This bill doesn’t come with that same history. It hasn’t been tested in the same way.

Yet it is extending that level of authority into a different context.

From a practical standpoint, I’ll say this. If an officer is on scene and the behaviour

meets the threshold of a criminal offence, they are going to use the criminal charge

every time because it gives them stronger authority, it gives them clearer direction,

and it gives them better tools to actually protect the people involved.

When I look at this, I don’t see something that strengthens policing. I don’t see

something that simplifies decision-making. If anything, it creates a parallel option

that doesn’t carry the same clarity or consequences as what already exists. That doesn’t

make the job easier.

At the end of the day, if someone commits a criminal act, they should be dealt with

through criminal law. That’s what the system is there for. The response should match

the seriousness of the behaviour, because the punishment should fit the conduct.

I want to talk about something that I think sits at the centre of this, because this

bill doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It exists because communities don’t feel safe. When

you get to a point where people are relying on legislation like this just to be able

to access a place of worship, you have to ask why.

[3:45 p.m.]

Right now there are communities in this province, particularly Jewish communities,

that are spending significant money on private security — not occasionally — every

month. We’re talking about over $100,000 a month being spent just to make sure people

can attend services safely.

Now think about that for a second. Families going to worship and security has to be

part of the plan. That shouldn’t be the expectation in British Columbia. What makes

it worse is this. They’re not just paying for that security; they’re being taxed on

it, 7 percent on PST — something they are being forced to put in place because they

don’t feel protected otherwise. That’s not right.

Public safety is not something that should be downloaded onto communities. It’s not

something people should have to fund themselves just to feel safe doing something

as basic as attending worship. That’s the responsibility of the government.

Yes, this bill is a step. It acknowledges that there’s a problem, but it doesn’t address

why communities are in the position to begin with. If people still feel the need to

hire private security after this passes, then what has really changed? That’s the

question.

You cannot solve a public safety issue by shifting the burden onto the people who

are being affected by it. You cannot treat legislation like this as the solution when

the underlying issue hasn’t been addressed. At the end of the day, people don’t want

access zones. They don’t want security barriers. They don’t want to think about any

of this. They just want to be able to go to their place of worship and feel safe.

And right now too many people don’t.

I think we also need to talk about what’s happening underneath all of this, because

situations like this don’t just show up on their own. When communities start to feel

less safe, when people start changing their behaviour, thinking twice about where

they go or what they do, there’s usually a reason behind it.

Right now the provincial RCMP contingent sits at 2,602 officers. That number hasn’t

changed since 2012. Over a decade, not one additional officer has been added to the

provincial contingent.

Think about everything that has changed over that same time period. Population has

grown. Communities have expanded. The demands on policing have increased. The complexity

of the work has increased. But the number of provincially funded officers has stayed

exactly the same. So I think it’s more than fair to ask: has that had an impact? Has

that contributed to what we’re seeing now?

Policing isn’t static. You don’t just hold the line at the same level and expect the

outcome to stay the same when everything around it is changing.

When capacity doesn’t keep up with demand, pressure builds, and eventually that pressure

shows up somewhere. It shows up in response times. It shows up in how quickly police

can get to a situation when something is happening. It shows up in visibility, whether

there are officers present in communities in a way that people can actually see and

feel. That visibility matters because policing isn’t just reactive. Presence alone

changes behaviour. It deters. It reassures. It creates a sense that someone is there

and that something will happen if the line is crossed.

When that presence starts to thin out, people notice. They may not always be able

to explain it in technical terms, but they feel it. And when people feel that absence,

they adjust. They start looking for ways to fill the gap themselves, which is exactly

what we’re seeing here — places of worship bringing in private security; communities

organizing their own security measures, spending significant amounts of money just

to create a level of security that should already be there. This is not how this is

supposed to work.

Public safety is a core responsibility of government. It is not something that should

be downloaded onto communities, especially communities that are already dealing with

being targeted. If there had been a sustained effort over the years to increase that

provincial complement even gradually — more officers, more presence, more capacity

— that would have had an impact. More officers on the ground means more visibility.

More visibility means stronger deterrence. Stronger deterrence means fewer situations

escalating to the point where people feel unsafe. That’s the connection.

I believe it would go a long way toward what we’re talking about here — people being

able to attend their place of worship without hesitation, people feeling secure in

their communities without needing to think about additional measures.

At the end of the day, public safety isn’t built through legislation alone. It’s built

through presence. It’s built through capacity. It’s built through making sure that

when something happens, there are people there to deal with it. If we don’t address

that piece, then there’s always going to be reacting after the fact, instead of preventing

it in the first place.

[3:50 p.m.]

When I look at this bill, I see something that is necessary, but I also see something

that shouldn’t have been necessary. People should not be in a position where they

need added protections just to attend worship. It should already be a given.

The fact that we’re here tells us something. It tells us that something in the system

isn’t working the way it should. People need to be protected. Access needs to be protected.

When there are real concerns about safety, government has to step in.

But we shouldn’t pretend that this is the solution, because it’s not. If the underlying

issues aren’t addressed, if enforcement isn’t consistent, if resources aren’t there,

if communities are still left to protect themselves, then nothing really changes.

That’s what I keep coming back to.

People in this province should not have to think about security when they go to worship.

They shouldn’t have to wonder what’s happening outside. They shouldn’t have to rely

on private measures just to feel safe. That’s the standard, and right now we’re not

there.

Yes, this bill is a step, but it’s not the answer. The answer is making sure that

the systems we already have are working the way they’re supposed to, that the laws

that already exist are being enforced and that the resources are there to support

that.

At the end of the day, this comes down to something simple. People want to feel safe

where they live, they want to feel safe practising their faith, and they want to know

that the system is there to support that. That’s the expectation, and that’s what

we should be delivering.

Amna Shah : I am so pleased to rise to speak in favour of Bill 13, an absolutely essential tool

to protect places of worship across our province. I’m hoping that we can all agree

on the principle of this bill. I’m hearing quite a bit of agreement already, which

I’m pleased about.

I’m hoping to dive into some of the principles behind why this is so important for

our communities. It’s not something that was just dreamt up overnight. It’s, certainly,

something that was a result of significant consultation and feedback from communities

themselves — faith communities.

Now, I just want to highlight that our democracy is built on the fundamental principles

of inclusion and respect. This includes the ability for you to practise your faith

without fear, without intimidation, in safety, especially in sanctuaries like places

of worship.

Really, places of worship are important centres of community in our broader communities.

They’re especially important for immigrants. I was just recently speaking with a group,

a racialized group, who told me directly. They said: “Our folks who are newcomers

to this country — the first place that they will reach out to is either their local

church or their local community centre.” These are some of the initial lines of connection

that people will have with their community.

Of course, the burden and the expectation on these places are quite high, but these

are exceptional places to build connections. That’s why people trust places of worship.

Oftentimes you will see that there will not just be faith services. There will be

community events. There will be classes. I’ve even seen people do yoga at masjids.

These are all-around feel-good places for people to come and connect with one another

and take care of themselves. Really, these are built on these fundamental principles

of inclusion and respect, and that is the heart of who we are as Canadians, as British

Columbians.

[3:55 p.m.]

But in recent years, we’ve seen these increased threats, increased harassment targeting

places of worship in our communities. I’m saying all places of worship — churches,

synagogues, masjids, gurdwaras, Hindu temples, Buddhist temples. Across the board,

we’re seeing a very concerning trend, and it’s not letting up.

That’s why it was important for us to be able to hear from communities, from our faith

leaders in our communities, and ask them: “What can we do to help you? What can we

do to support you?” That is why this government has introduced this legislation, to

strengthen the protections that preserve the safe access to these places of worship

for people who are attending their places of faith, because we know a lot of the fear

and the stress that they feel is when they are coming to their place of worship.

I was actually quite proud to stand alongside faith leaders from masjids, synagogues,

churches, gurdwaras and temples and support the introduction of this bill not too

long ago in the Hall of Honour. We know that these new protections are going to ensure

that people can gather in prayer, in celebration, in peace, while respecting the right

to peaceful protest. This is part of our government’s ongoing efforts to protect people

in places that are meant to be safe, that are meant to be accessible for everybody.

Back to seeing the concerning trend of this increasing rise in hatred and hate-motivated

incidents targeted at such places of worship, I just want to share how impactful it

has been for people in my community to have to deal with some of these hateful behaviours.

You know, I’ve heard stories of people who intend to disrupt the entry of worshippers

to their place of worship, purposely ensuring that they’re not openly trying to very

in-your-face block people but, at the same time, pretending to just be in the way

— intimidating, using foul language, making people uncomfortable. The worst

part is

that they target our seniors, our kids, people who they feel are more vulnerable.

There are individuals who exist like that in our communities. That’s not okay.

People who hold up these places of worship really practise the values of love for

everybody, and they’re not the ones to go out there and be just as nasty to people.

That’s not who they are. We know that. We have to step up. We have to be able to protect

them. We have to be able to put our foot down and say: “That is not acceptable.” We

have to find a creative way to do this. I hear from the other side that there’s agreement

in principle but that there are already ways to do it. But this is a way to do it.

I encourage everybody to support that, because when I hear from youth in my community

that they used to go to church with their grandparents every Sunday but are now afraid

to do so because they saw somebody with a loudspeaker saying all sorts of nasty things

near the entrance gate of their church and now their grandparents don’t want to go

anymore because they don’t want to have to hear that vitriol, that’s upsetting. That’s

upsetting.

That breaks the fabric of what brings our community together, and we can’t allow that

to happen. That happens at our masjids too. That happens at our gurdwaras, too, in

Surrey. It’s a very serious issue, and we have to do all that we can do to protect

these places of worship.

[4:00 p.m.]

That is what this legislation is intended to do, to protect eligible places of worship

while minimally impairing freedom-of-expression rights. As government, we are trying

to find a balance between upholding people’s Charter-protected rights to free expression

and allowing people to access their places of worship. Part of the reason why we chose

this existing definition of “place of public worship” is to prevent undue infringement

on Charter rights.

We know that more needs to be done to help in other places, to help people and organizations

that are targeted by hate, and we’re continually exploring ways to do so.

I’ll just address that I heard that there are already laws in place to address this

now. “Why do we need this?” Well, if everything is rosy and happy and dandy…. I don’t

think that’s the case because, otherwise, faith communities would not be telling us

that, would not be disagreeing with that.

Whatever we have now, it’s not enough. That’s why we need this legislation. We spoke

to communities. We spoke to faith leaders. We spoke to faith organizations. This is

what they want. We heard loud and clear from them. We want to be able to have some

signage that tells people, that deters people from thinking that they can engage in

any form of behaviour.

People should be educated to know what they can and cannot do in sanctuaries. It should

be made very clear to people. You can’t assume that somebody knows. Somebody may actually

not know that what they’re doing is harmful to another person too. Really, one could

argue that, but this clearly defines that.

That is why I am such a strong supporter of this legislation. This was a community-driven,

community-led process informing us, to guide us to where we are here today, debating

the principle of this in this House. I’m again hoping that everybody agrees with that

principle.

We have seen and we have witnessed a worrying rise in police-reported hate crimes

over the last several years. Despite these increases in hate crimes, the ones that

I’m talking about right now remain amongst the least-reported offences. Black, Indigenous,

people of colour, those of East and South Asian descent, other racialized, Jewish,

Muslim and LGBTQ2S+ British Columbians continue to be targeted. It’s clear to me that

we have a lot more work to do to ensure that people feel comfortable even reporting

hate crimes to the police.

I’m pleased to say that B.C. is the only place in Canada with a dedicated hate crimes

team, the RCMP B.C. hate crimes unit, which is responsible for investigating, for

responding to hate-motivated offences across the province. Again, we see that it works.

We see that it helps. What do you do? You support.

I was so glad that our government took up expansion to expand that unit to provide

five additional officers. This just goes back to the community-led, partner-encouraged

way in which we bring forth legislation and the way in which we shape policy across

the province. Really, the goal is protection, protecting our communities.

I want to thank all of those individuals and all of those organizations who took the

time out to have such difficult and heavy conversations about these issues, such difficult

conversations that they were put to tears recalling some of the incidents that they

have had to go through just simply trying to get closer to God in a place that they

see as a house of God.

[4:05 p.m.]

I am a woman of faith, and I’m quite proud to say so. When I think of the protection

of my faith, I can’t single that out as being the only thing that’s important to me.

It has to be everybody’s faith that should be protected, not just mine. What hurts

somebody in a synagogue will hurt me one day. What hurts my neighbour in the gurdwara

will hurt my brother in a masjid one day.

I cannot fathom the thought of anybody who believes in something, in the way that

I believe, feeling as though they’re hated going into their place of worship.

So I have a message to British Columbians: if you ever experience hateful behaviour,

if you ever witness or are the recipient of hateful behaviour or if you witness a

hate crime, please report it. Please report it to your local police. It is important

that we understand, that we record, that we give you the supports that you need and

then strengthen our legislation to protect you.

Our government has no tolerance for any kind of hate crime or discrimination against

any group or individual in B.C. We know that a single incident can even affect not

just one person but a group and also a larger community, and that hate can oftentimes

be targeted. That’s why we have worked with police to expand accessible, online hate-reporting

options in multiple languages, to reduce barriers to reporting so that people can

access these services in a way that feels easier for them.

These tools, these pieces of legislation, are so important to people. There’s one

thing that I’ve noticed about places of worship in my community. They’re run by elders,

they are run by dedicated volunteers, they are run by youth, and all of these individuals

put the love in there. They don’t have a lot of money, yet they put in everything

that they have to not only sustain but to really expand their community within that

place and beyond.

It was important to us.… We had heard at the time that there were acts of vandalism

— that people were coming in the night, spray-painting nasty words on walls — really,

some things that are so disturbing. I definitely can’t repeat them in this House.

It would be unparliamentary language. And I won’t, because I don’t think anybody needs

to hear that.

What we decided to do was to deliver grants to enhance safety for groups that are

targeted by hate or by violence. This was the anti-hate stream within the civil forfeiture

grant program, which provided grants to eligible places of worship that had experienced

such hate and had sustained damages to their sites and were seeking to enhance their

security measures to protect themselves from these types of things in the future.

I’m quite pleased to know that there are many places of worship that utilized that

program and that that program continues.

Also, what I know from my interactions with my community has been really helpful,

especially in places of worship — because this is where the conversations really simmer

and get started — is the introduction of our racist incident help line.

[4:10 p.m.]

Some of our communities — their faiths, their places of worship — are often targeted

by very racist behaviour. Some of the things that have happened to them have been

because of ignorance, because of arrogance, maybe not knowing who they are but nonetheless

harmful and very racist in nature.

While I’m glad that the individuals, who have since then accessed supports via the

help line…. It’s sad to see that this resource is needed in our communities.

I agree with some of the members on the other side. We should live in a world where

none of this has to exist. I agree. I wish that we did not have to do this at all.

I wish everyone cared for each other. I wish people did not hate on each other. I

wish people helped make each other feel safe. But that’s not the reality of where

we are.

When we bring in legislation, it has to be thoughtful. It has to respect the Charter

of Rights and Freedoms. You can’t just really do anything that you want and put down

words on a piece of paper. It has to be thoughtful.

There are, yes, sometimes limitations with what it is that you can do. But the important

thing is that you’re working with communities to be able to support them in what it

is that they want.

There is no uneven application of this. This applies, again, to every place of worship

under the definition. I really just want to stress why it’s important for us to see

it that way. I think that there is a notion out there that this somehow only protects

certain communities, certain places of worship. That’s not true.

Communities may have questions, and I know that we’re happy to answer. But in this

stage, in second reading, it should be a very easy yes. It should be a very easy aye.

I really can’t imagine that somebody would disagree with the principle of this. It

is really, in fact, very simple.

Just looking to the future of how I see our places of worship really beautifying our

communities, which they already do…. Legislation like this gives me hope for them

to be able to continue to enrich our lives — not just as legislators but as human

beings, as members of the community, as family members, as parents, as daughters,

as brothers, as sisters.

Really, that type of love you can’t find in a lot of places. For individuals in our

communities, our faith leaders…. Those who encourage love in our community deserve

love and much more. This is one of the ways in which we can express that actually.

I’m so pleased that this has made it to the floor and that we are engaging in debate

on this. But this is not over. This is, again, just one thing that can help us move

in the right direction to protect our communities. There’s a lot of work to be done.

I really caution anybody from minimizing the impact of something like this, because

when you minimize the impact of this legislation, you minimize the feedback of the

individuals who want this. Those were our faith leaders. Those were our faith communities.

They are our faith leaders. They are our faith communities. We’re going to continue

listening to them in the development of all subsequent legislation.

[4:15 p.m.]

But as of right now, I think that this is one of the most thoughtful ways in which

we could protect our places of worship.

I encourage everybody in the House to join me in supporting this and work on solutions

together. You know, we don’t have to constantly go back and forth in arguing about

everything in this chamber. There are some things that we can all agree on. It doesn’t

need to be a fight. This is one of those things.

We hear beautiful prayers in this House every single day. It’s such a reminder for

me and, I think, everybody, all members of this House, about the principles of faith

that guide us through life or that maybe should guide us through lif