British Columbia Hansard — 31 March 2026, p.m., Issue 145 (43rd Parliament, 2nd Session)

20260331pm-Hansard-n145

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

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

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Wendy Cocchia, CM, OBC Second Session, 43rd Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Raj Chouhan EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ................................................................................................... Hon. David Eby, KC Minister of State for Local Governments and Rural Communities .......................................................... Hon.

Brittny Anderson Minister of Agriculture and Food ..............................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General and Deputy Premier ............................................................................................................... Hon. Niki Sharma, KC Minister of Children and Family Development ......................................................................................................Hon.

Jodie Wickens Minister of Citizens’ Services ......................................................................................................................................Hon. Diana Gibson Minister of Education and Child Care ............................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness ................................................................................ Hon.

Kelly Greene Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions .................................................................................................................... Hon. Adrian Dix Minister of Environment and Parks .................................................................................................... Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson Minister of Finance ......................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Brenda Bailey Minister of Forests .......................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Ravi Parmar Minister of Health ........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Josie Osborne Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs ...........................................................................................................Hon.

Christine Boyle Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation ........................................................................Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert Minister of Infrastructure .............................................................................................................................................. Hon. Bowinn Ma Minister of Jobs and Economic Growth ...................................................................................................................... Hon.

Ravi Kahlon Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence and New Technologies .................................................................. Hon. Rick Glumac Minister of Labour .............................................................................................................................................. Hon. Jennifer Whiteside Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals .....................................................................................................................Hon.

Jagrup Brar Minister of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills ........................................................................................Hon. Jessie Sunner Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ........................................................................................................ Hon. Nina Krieger Minister of State for Community Safety and Integrated Services ........................................................................ Hon.

Terry Yung Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction ...............................................................................Hon. Sheila Malcolmson Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport ............................................................................................................. Hon. Anne Kang Minister of Transportation and Transit ................................................................................................................ Hon.

Mike Farnworth Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship ............................................................................................... Hon. Randene Neill Minister Without Portfolio ..............................................................................................................................................Hon.

Grace Lore LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition ......................................................................................................................................Trevor Halford Leader of the Third Party .................................................................................................................................................Jeremy Valeriote Deputy Speaker ......................................................................................................................................................................

Mable Elmore Assistant Deputy Speaker .................................................................................................................................................Lorne Doerkson Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ......................................................................................................................George Anderson Clerk of the Legislative Assembly....................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel ......................................................................................................................Seunghee Suzie Seo Deputy Clerk of the Legislative Assembly...............................................................................................................

Artour Sogomonian Clerk of Committees .............................................................................................................................................................. Jennifer Arril Committee Clerk ......................................................................................................................................................................

Karan Riarh Committee Clerk .........................................................................................................................................................................Darryl Hol Senior Legal Counsel .................................................................................................................................................................Hayley Hill Sergeant-at-Arms ..................................................................................................................................................................

Ray Robitaille Director of Hansard Services .......................................................................................................................................D’ Arcy McPherson Legislative Librarian ...............................................................................................................................................................Peter Gourlay

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS BY PARTY BC NDP Anderson, Hon. Brittny ........................................... Kootenay Central Anderson, George ................................................ Nanaimo-Lantzville Arora, Rohini ....................................................................Burnaby East Bailey, Hon. Brenda ................................Vancouver–South Granville Beare, Hon.

Lisa .......................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry .................................................................Surrey-Guildford Blatherwick, Jennifer ....................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Boyle, Hon. Christine .............................Vancouver–Little Mountain Brar, Hon. Jagrup ......................................................Surrey-Fleetwood Chandra Herbert, Hon. Spencer ..................... Vancouver–West End Chant, Susie .............................................

North Vancouver–Seymour Choi, Paul ..................................................Burnaby South–Metrotown Chouhan, Hon. Raj ................................. Burnaby–New Westminster Chow, George ....................................................Vancouver-Fraserview Davidson, Hon. Tamara / Laanas ...........North Coast–Haida Gwaii Dhir, Sunita .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Dix, Hon. Adrian .................................................. Vancouver-Renfrew Eby, Hon. David, KC .......................................

Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable ................................................. Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike .................................................Port Coquitlam Gibson, Hon. Diana ........................................Oak Bay–Gordon Head Glumac, Hon. Rick ...................................... Port Moody–Burquitlam Greene, Hon. Kelly ..............................................Richmond-Steveston Higginson, Stephanie ........................................Ladysmith-Oceanside Kahlon, Hon. Ravi .............................................................. Delta North Kang, Hon.

Anne ......................................................... Burnaby Centre Krieger, Hon. Nina ...............................................Victoria–Swan Lake Lajeunesse, Dana ..............................................Juan de Fuca–Malahat Lore, Hon. Grace .................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Ma, Hon. Bowinn ................................... North Vancouver–Lonsdale Malcolmson, Hon. Sheila .........................Nanaimo–Gabriola Island Morissette, Steve ...................................................Kootenay Monashee Neill, Hon. Randene ............................

Powell River–Sunshine Coast Osborne, Hon. Josie ....................................... Mid Island–Pacific Rim Parmar, Hon. Ravi ...............................................Langford-Highlands Phillip, Joan / Amshen .....................................Vancouver-Strathcona Popham, Hon. Lana ........................................................ Saanich South Rotchford, Darlene ...............................................Esquimalt-Colwood Routledge, Janet .............................................................Burnaby North Sandhu, Harwinder ......................................................

Vernon-Lumby Shah, Amna ............................................................. Surrey City Centre Sharma, Hon. Niki, KC ....................................... Vancouver-Hastings Sunner, Hon. Jessie ....................................................... Surrey-Newton Toporowski, Debra / Qwulti’stunaat .......................Cowichan Valley Whiteside, Hon. Jennifer ...................New Westminster–Coquitlam Wickens, Hon. Jodie ............................. Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Yung, Hon.

Terry .................................................Vancouver-Yaletown CONSERV ATIVE PARTY OF BC Banman, Bruce .......................................................... Abbotsford South Bhangu, Harman .................................................. Langley-Abbotsford Bird, Rosalyn ............................................. Prince George–Valemount Block, Lynne ..............................................West Vancouver–Capilano Chapman, Brent .................................................................Surrey South Clare, Sheldon ....................................

Prince George–North Cariboo Davis, Pete ..................................................................Kootenay Rockies Day, Brennan ........................................................... Courtenay-Comox Dew, Gavin ..................................................................Kelowna-Mission Dhaliwal, Mandeep .......................................................... Surrey North Doerkson, Lorne .....................................................

Cariboo-Chilcotin Gasper, Reann .......................................................Abbotsford-Mission Giddens, Kiel ..............................................Prince George–Mackenzie Halford, Trevor ......................................................Surrey–White Rock Hartwell, Sharon ..............................................Bulkley Valley–Stikine Hepner, Linda ................................................Surrey–Serpentine River Kindy, Anna ........................................................................North Island Kooner, Steve ............................................Richmond-Queensborough Loewen, Kristina ..........................................................

Kelowna Centre Luck, Tony ..........................................................................Fraser-Nicola Maahs, Heather ......................................................... Chilliwack North McCall, Macklin .........................................West Kelowna–Peachland McInnis, Scott ......................................... Columbia River–Revelstoke Milobar, Peter ............................................................

Kamloops Centre Mok, Lawrence ...........................................................Maple Ridge East Neufeld, Korky ............................................................Abbotsford West Neufeld, Larry ...........................................................Peace River South Paton, Ian ..............................................................................Delta South Rattée, Claire .................................................................................Skeena Rustad, John ...................................................................Nechako Lakes Stamer, Ward .........................................Kamloops–North Thompson Tepper, Br yan ............................................................

Surrey-Panorama Toor, Jody ............................................................Langley-Willowbrook Van Popta, Misty..............................................Langley–Walnut Grove Warbus, Á’a:líya ..............................................Chilliwack–Cultus Lake Wat, Teresa .........................................................Richmond-Bridgeport Williams, David ...............................................Salmon Arm–Shuswap Wilson, Donegal ............................................Boundary-Similkameen BC GREEN PARTY Botterell, Rob .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Valeriote, Jeremy .....................................

West Vancouver–Sea to Sky INDEPENDENT Armstrong, Tara .....................Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream Boultbee, Amelia .............................................Penticton-Summerland Brodie, Dallas .................................................... Vancouver-Quilchena Chan, Hon ..................................................................Richmond Centre Kealy, Jordan ............................................................. Peace River North Sturko, Elenore .........................................................

Surrey-Cloverdale PARTY STANDINGS Total seats – 93 BC NDP – 47 | Conservative Party of BC – 38 | BC Green Party – 2 | Independent – 6

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF RIDINGS A Abbotsford-Mission ........................................................Reann Gasper Abbotsford South ........................................................... Bruce Banman Abbotsford West .............................................................Korky Neufeld B Boundary-Similkameen .............................................Donegal Wilson Bulkley Valley–Stikine ............................................... Sharon Hartwell Burnaby Centre ...........................................................Hon.

Anne Kang Burnaby East ......................................................................Rohini Arora Burnaby–New Westminster .................................. Hon. Raj Chouhan Burnaby North ..............................................................Janet Routledge Burnaby South–Metrotown .................................................. Paul Choi C Cariboo-Chilcotin .......................................................Lorne Doerkson Chilliwack–Cultus Lake .............................................. Á’a:líya Warbus Chilliwack North ..........................................................

Heather Maahs Columbia River–Revelstoke ...........................................Scott McInnis Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .............................. Hon. Jodie Wickens Coquitlam-Maillardville .................................... Jennifer Blatherwick Courtenay-Comox ............................................................ Brennan Day Cowichan Valley ....................... Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat D Delta North ................................................................Hon.

Ravi Kahlon Delta South ...............................................................................Ian Paton E Esquimalt-Colwood ................................................Darlene Rotchford F Fraser-Nicola .......................................................................... Tony Luck J Juan de Fuca–Malahat ...............................................Dana Lajeunesse K Kamloops Centre ............................................................. Peter Milobar Kamloops–North Thompson .........................................

Ward Stamer Kelowna Centre ........................................................... Kristina Loewen Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream ......................Tara Armstrong Kelowna-Mission ..................................................................Gavin Dew Kootenay Central ............................................ Hon. Brittny Anderson Kootenay Monashee ....................................................Steve Morissette Kootenay Rockies................................................................... Pete Davis L Ladysmith-Oceanside ........................................

Stephanie Higginson Langford-Highlands ................................................ Hon. Ravi Parmar Langley-Abbotsford ....................................................Harman Bhangu Langley–Walnut Grove ..............................................Misty Van Popta Langley-Willowbrook ............................................................ Jody Toor M Maple Ridge East ............................................................Lawrence Mok Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim ........................................ Hon.

Josie Osborne N Nanaimo–Gabriola Island ..........................Hon. Sheila Malcolmson Nanaimo-Lantzville ................................................. George Anderson Nechako Lakes ....................................................................John Rustad New Westminster–Coquitlam .................... Hon. Jennifer Whiteside North Coast–Haida Gwaii ............Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson North Island ........................................................................Anna Kindy North Vancouver–Lonsdale .....................................Hon.

Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour ...............................................Susie Chant O Oak Bay–Gordon Head ......................................... Hon. Diana Gibson P Peace River North ..............................................................Jordan Kealy Peace River South ............................................................Larry Neufeld Penticton-Summerland .............................................. Amelia Boultbee Port Coquitlam ................................................. Hon. Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Burquitlam ........................................Hon.

Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast ............................. Hon. Randene Neill Prince George–Mackenzie ...............................................Kiel Giddens Prince George–North Cariboo ......................................Sheldon Clare Prince George–Valemount ...............................................Rosalyn Bird R Richmond-Bridgeport .......................................................... Teresa Wat Richmond Centre .................................................................. Hon Chan Richmond-Queensborough ............................................

Steve Kooner Richmond-Steveston ...............................................Hon. Kelly Greene S Saanich North and the Islands ....................................... Rob Botterell Saanich South ......................................................... Hon.

Lana Popham Salmon Arm–Shuswap ................................................David Williams Skeena ..................................................................................Claire Rattée Surrey City Centre ...............................................................Amna Shah Surrey-Cloverdale .......................................................... Elenore Sturko Surrey-Fleetwood ....................................................... Hon. Jagrup Brar Surrey-Guildford .................................................................

Garry Begg Surrey-Newton ........................................................ Hon. Jessie Sunner Surrey North ............................................................Mandeep Dhaliwal Surrey-Panorama ..............................................................Br yan Tepper Surrey–Serpentine River ................................................

Linda Hepner Surrey South ..................................................................Brent Chapman Surrey–White Rock .......................................................Trevor Halford V Vancouver-Fraserview .....................................................George Chow Vancouver-Hastings ........................................ Hon. Niki Sharma, KC Vancouver-Kensington ...................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Langara .............................................................Sunita Dhir Vancouver–Little Mountain ............................. Hon.

Christine Boyle Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................Hon. David Eby, KC Vancouver-Quilchena ......................................................Dallas Brodie Vancouver-Renfrew ................................................... Hon. Adrian Dix Vancouver–South Granville ................................ Hon. Brenda Bailey Vancouver-Strathcona ..................................... Amshen / Joan Phillip Vancouver–West End .......................Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert Vancouver-Yaletown ..................................................Hon.

Terry Yung Vernon-Lumby ....................................................... Harwinder Sandhu Victoria–Beacon Hill ................................................. Hon. Grace Lore Victoria–Swan Lake ................................................Hon. Nina Krieger W West Kelowna–Peachland ..........................................Macklin McCall West Vancouver–Capilano ................................................Lynne Block West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ...................................... Jeremy Valeriote

CONTENTS Tuesday, March 31, 2026 Afternoon Sitting Page Orders of the Day Motions Without Notice ................................................................................................................................................. 6039 Membership Change to Finance and Government Services Committee Hon.

Mike Farnworth Second Reading of Bills .................................................................................................................................................. 6039 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 ................................................................................................................................................ 6077 Bill 2 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2026 (continued) Peter Milobar Hon. Diana Gibson Hon. Brenda Bailey Gavin Dew Question of Privilege (Reservation of Right) ............................................................................................................... 6092 Hon.

Brenda Bailey Committee of the Whole ................................................................................................................................................ 6092 Bill 2 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2026 (continued) Gavin Dew Hon. Brenda Bailey Peter Milobar Proceedings in the Birch Room Committee of Supply ...................................................................................................................................................... 6099 Estimates: Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction (continued) Kristina Loewen Hon.

Sheila Malcolmson Brennan Day Á ’a:líya Warbus

Committee of the Whole ................................................................................................................................................ 6113 Bill 8 — Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2026 Hon. Nina Krieger Macklin McCall

6039 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 Moris- sette as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Fi - nance 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 prov - ince. 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 syna- gogue that is paying $100,000 per month for private secur - ity. 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 in - dividuals, to impede individuals from access to religious places of worship. Yet communities right across this prov - ince, 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 prov - ince. 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 thou- sands 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 commun - ities 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 en - forcement 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 prob - lem.

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

6040 B ritish Columbia Debates T uesday, March 31, 2026 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 divers - ity is something I witness every single day.

We are home to vibrant and deeply rooted faith communities — Sikh, Jew - ish, 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 wor - ship; 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 Tem - ple 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 sanc - tuary 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, ha - rassment and acts of intimidation. We have seen demon - strations 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 im - pact 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 walk - ing 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 com- munities. It’s about ensuring that every person — regard - less 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 — behav - iours that impede access, disrupt services or intimidate in - dividuals 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 free - dom of expression and peaceful assembly. People will con - tinue 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, includ - ing 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 mo - ments, 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 pro - tecting 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 Colum - bians: 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 Colum - bia, 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 sup - porting 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 to - day 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 wor- ship 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.]

Tuesday, March 31, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6041 But let me be crystal clear from the outset. Every Brit - ish 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 espe - cially in a shocking wave since 2021, churches across Can - ada, including many in British Columbia, have faced re - peated 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 Can - ada stood at 1,342 incidents nationally, with Jewish com - munities accounting for 70 percent of them, despite repre - senting just 1 percent of the population. In British Columbia, hate crimes rose 23 percent be - tween 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 do - ing absolutely nothing to address the root causes of the safety crisis facing our places of worship. It creates 20-metre access zones around churches, syna - gogues, mosques, gurdwaras and temples. It prohibits im - peding 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 dol - lar for policing or one new tool that wasn’t already avail - able. 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 de - tails. 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 par - ticipating 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 Taxa - tion (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, muni - cipal 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 in - tent here without the need for new provincial jargon. Sec - tion 423 criminalizes intimidation.

Section 176 specific - ally protects religious worship from wilful disturbance or interruption. These are real criminal offences with real teeth, not provincial regulatory language designed to cre - ate 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, dis - rupt activities, engage in interference or intimidate or at - tempt to intimidate or do or say anything that could rea - sonably cause concern for a person’s physical or mental safety.

Subsection (2) bans wilfully participating in a gath - ering where others are doing any of that. This is the NDP’s big new protection. But again, every single prohibition is already a Crim - inal Code offence. Impeding access or egress is covered by

section 423, “Intimidation,” and

section 430, “Mischief.” Disrupting activities at a place of worship. Sec - tion 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 “Intimi - dation,”

section 423. Intimidation or causing reasonable concern for safety.

Section 264 is “Criminal harassment.” Again, sec - tion 423(1) explicitly prohibits using threats, violence or other means to intimidate. For the real threats — vandalism, graffiti, arson — sec - tion 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

6042 B ritish Columbia Debates T uesday, March 31, 2026 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 day - light, 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 informa - tion. 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 or - dinarily 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. Sec - tion 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 mid - night 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 legis - lation 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 enforce - ment win, yet

section 495 of the Criminal Code already gives police broad, warrantless arrest powers for indict - able 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 re - brands 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 offi - cers 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 un - used because police are already overwhelmed. Clause 6 allows the Supreme Court to grant injunctions, even without notice, restraining anyone from contraven - ing

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 van - dalized 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 ac - tions 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 experi - ment.

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 pro - tection 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 be - cause they protected patients in a unique setting, but slap - ping the same model onto every place of worship prov - incewide, 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.

Tuesday, March 31, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6043 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. Import - antly, it does not create fixed-distance bubble zones. It targets conduct, not geography. The federal approach re - spects 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 pro - tection, 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 per - cent 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 mem - bers 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 com - munities are forced to take because public safety has col - lapsed 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 solu - tion. 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 po - lice who are already doing heroic work with fewer officers than ever.

The faith community deserves better than this per - formative nonsense. They deserve a government that treats public safety as a core responsibility, not a photo op. They deserve more RCMP officers, more municipal offi - cers, 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 prov - ince’s policing model is crumbling. The NDP can pat themselves on the back for intro - ducing 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 pre - tend that this bill does any of those things. Pure NDP the - atre 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 gov - ernment’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 mo - ment to offer a little guidance.

This Chair doesn’t appreci- ate 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 “extor - tion” — things like that and those allegations. Darlene Rotchford: I’d like to start by acknowledg - ing we’re on the lands of the lək̓ ʷəŋən 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 some - thing simple but profoundly important — ensuring that people in British Columbia can access the places that mat -

6044 B ritish Columbia Debates T uesday, March 31, 2026 ter 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 expecta - tion. The ability to gather in prayer, reflection and com - munity 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 inci- dents 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 experi - ences 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 Brit - ish 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 Con - servative 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, cere - monies and gatherings without being obstructed, threat - ened or harassed. Importantly, this legislation is carefully designed to al - low places of worship — such as churches, mosques, syna - gogues, gurdwaras and temples — to establish safe access zones simply by posting clear signage. These zones are limited in size, generally including the building, its prop - erty and a modest buffer area of approximately 20 metres.

Within those zones, certain behaviours are prohibited — not beliefs, not opinions but behaviours, actions like phys - ically blocking access, using intimidation or deliberately disrupting services. I want to be clear about this. This law does not ban pro - test. You heard me talk yesterday about another bill. I be - lieve 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 demo - cracy, 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 with- out 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 intro - duced 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, expand - ing 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-escala - tion. 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 commit - ment 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 in - creased 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 ap - plies 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 diffi - cult 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 fundamen - tal 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 Cath - olic school on Sundays and participating in my own reli - gion that I would be up having to even have this debate or conversation, I don’t think I would have actually be - lieved anybody. I don’t think I would have taken it ser - iously. There is no way we would have even had to have these conversations.

Tuesday, March 31, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6045 I often joke, you know…. I was raised Catholic. Some - times I joke I have had some concerns with my own re - ligion, 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 responsibil - ity 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 sup - port Bill 13.

During question period throughout this session and last session, people have asked us questions from the op - position 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 Ac - cess to Places of Worship Act. At the heart of this discussion is a fundamental princi - ple: no person in British Columbia should ever feel intimi - dated, 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 guaran - teed.

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 walk - ing 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 re - cent 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. Free - dom 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 pro - poses 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 expres - sion is protected, reasonable limits are justified when ne - cessary 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 per - imeter where specific harmful behaviour would be pro - hibited.

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 contra - vened. The bill also includes a sunset clause in 2030, ac - knowledging 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, in - cluding 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 gen - eral public. What constitutes intimidation? When does

6046 B ritish Columbia Debates T uesday, March 31, 2026 a protest become obstruction? These are decisions that must often be made in real time in emotionally charged environments. If those thresholds are unclear, enforce - ment 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 un - even outcomes.

One community may see strong enforce - ment 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-ex - empt 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 com - munities gather in rented halls, storefronts or shared spaces. Some are newly established. Some lack formal rec - ognition. 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 con - cerns. Many faith groups gather in homes. These are legit - imate expressions of religious practice. If they become tar - gets of harassment, what recourse exists? Does that cre - ate 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 in - terpret overlapping or inconsistent standards in the mo - ment. 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 ser - vices have the training, personnel and operational clarity required? Are there clear protocols in place? Without this, enforcement will be uneven and communities will con - tinue 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 ur - gency.

We acknowledge the voices, both from faith com - munities and from commentators like Rob Shaw, who have highlighted the need for government to act thought - fully, 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 pub - lic 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 ac - cess 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 secur - ity 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 pur - chase to keep itself safe. Governments should not be tax - ing 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 Ac - cess 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,

Tuesday, March 31, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6047 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 pro - foundly 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 with - out fear, without obstruction, without harassment and without being made to feel that their presence, their be - liefs or their community are somehow unwelcome. The wide variety of diverse religions in British Colum - bia 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 guid - ance, 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 tar - geted 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 free - dom 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 nar - rowed 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 lim - ited 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 behav - iours that are prohibited. This approach ensures clarity for everyone — those attending worship, those in the sur - rounding 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 ex - pansive.

They are not designed to push people far away. They are designed to do one thing: ensure safe and unob - structed access. Within these zones, specific behaviours are prohibited — not expression but conduct. This includes physically blocking entrances, using objects like barricades to ob - struct access, disrupting prayer or religious gatherings and engaging in threatening or intimidating behaviour toward those trying to attend. And yes, it also includes at - tempts 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 pro - test. 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 in - timidate others. You may protest, but you may not block access.

You may disagree, but you may not create an en - vironment 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 peace - ful 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 individ - uals should have to weigh their personal safety before at - tending a service. We will not accept that communities should feel targeted or unwelcome in spaces that are cen -

6048 B ritish Columbia Debates T uesday, March 31, 2026 tral 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 ef - fort 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, includ - ing 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 meas - ured. 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 invest - ments in public safety, including expanded resources for hate crime units and community support programs. I also want to address the question of scope.

This legis - lation 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 com - munities 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, re - gardless 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 distin - guish 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 respon - sibility. 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 syna - gogue, 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 legisla - tors 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 bal - ance. That is appropriate. In a democracy, we should al - ways 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 intimidat - ing.

In doing so, it protects one right without unnecessar - ily 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 can - not 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 ap - proach to ensuring that people in British Columbia can ac- cess 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.]

Tuesday, March 31, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6049 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 commit - tee.

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, Is - raeli realtors talking about investment opportunities in the occupied West Bank at a synagogue and MAGA con - certs at various churches. The B.C.

Civil Liberties Association has similar con - cerns. “Implementing bubble zones limits peaceful pro - tests and our right to freedom of expression. In a time when having our voice heard is harder than ever, pro - tecting 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 wor - ship. 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 ac - cess,” “disrupt activities,” or “intimidate or attempt to intimidate,” as well as conditions that could lead to ar - rest, 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 hon - our, 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, in - timidation 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 our - selves 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 ex - periences 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 legisla - tion….

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 uncom - fortable yet absolutely necessary — the presence and nor - malization 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 sus - tained weekly pro-Palestinian rallies in Victoria over 126 consecutive weeks. These are not isolated gatherings. They are organized. They are persistent and highly vis - ible demonstrations, often marching through downtown and around the Legislature. Police have spent over 10,000 hours managing these events, and now even they are step - ping back, acknowledging the strain and scale of these on - going 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 gov - ernment 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 geo -

6050 B ritish Columbia Debates T uesday, March 31, 2026 graphically 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 pub - lic 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 debat - ing, 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 Jew - ish 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. Pro - testers 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, in - cluding 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 break - ing 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 un - checked 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 Jew - ish 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 con - cerns. In front of the Hillel B.C. faculty building at UBC campus, regular protests occurred, with intimidation tac - tics 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 mat- ters.

There is a clear and critical distinction between criti - cism of government, including Israel, and hatred or dis - crimination toward a people, including Jewish individuals. One is protected by political expression. The other is ra - cism. When that line is crossed, even subtly, even uninten - tionally, 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 Can - ada, 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 embold - ened. “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 pun- ishment. That’s what’s missing. That’s why we wouldn’t need this bill if they would enforce the laws that we al - ready have.

Tuesday, March 31, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6051 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 destruc - tion 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 becom - ing environments where anger overrides principle, where group identity becomes the target and where racism is ex - cused, 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 can - not 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. Antisemit - ism 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 hostil - ity 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 cam - puses. 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 appre - ciate 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 fundamen - tal 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, par - ticularly the Access to Abortion Services Act and, more recently, the Safe Access to Schools Act.

Courts have up - held these laws, recognizing that while freedom of expres - sion is a cornerstone of our democracy, it is not absolute. It can be limited carefully and proportionately, where neces - sary, to protect the safety and dignity of others. Let me be clear. The intent of this bill is understand - able and in many respects commendable.

However, it is precisely because this legislation engages in fundamen - tal 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 foun - dational 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 ques - tion 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 ex - pression? 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 conver - sation, even when conducted respectfully, be deemed un - lawful with these zones? These are not hypothetical concerns.

They go to the heart of how this legislation will be interpreted and en - forced 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 war - rant 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 exten - sion into a provincial regulatory framework is signifi - cant. 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

6052 B ritish Columbia Debates T uesday, March 31, 2026 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 ap - plied consistently across communities, or will one com - munity have different regulations than another commun - ity? For people moving from one community to another community, how will they know?

Will there be clear prov - incial standards? I hope so, because that would give dir - ection 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 cele - bration 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 com - munity. 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 intimi - dation and targeted harassment, then Bill 13 must be ac - companied 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 legisla - tors the opportunity and, indeed, I would say, the respon - sibility, to revisit the law, assess its effectiveness and de - termine whether it remains necessary.

This is good gov - ernance, 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 pro - tect individuals from harm, intimidation and fear while also navigating the complex terrain of constitutional free - doms. 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 defin - itions 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 engage - ment 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 Que - bec 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 institu - tion, 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 col - league 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 addi - tional tools to ensure that people are able to live with their faith, to practise their faith and to gather with their com - munity in those sacred places. On the day this legislation was introduced, I was in - credibly 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, Congrega - tion Emanu-El, the masjid as well as Khalsa Diwan Society,

Tuesday, March 31, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6053 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 recog- nize 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 syna - gogue 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 grati - tude for what happens in and through religious commun - ities 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 men - tioned several times, a big believer in the right to pro - test, 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 op - portunities 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 import - ance of sacred places, a recognition of what happens in and by and for communities in those places, and it en - sures 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 abor - tions.

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 ad - dress 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 fun - damentally, what we are all called to do, in this place es - pecially but beyond, is to come together, to problem-solve

6054 B ritish Columbia Debates T uesday, March 31, 2026 and to believe that connection above all else will move us forward. Macklin McCall: I’m going to keep this pretty straight- forward. People should be able to go to their place of wor - ship 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 some - thing distant. That’s happening here in British Columbia. When that’s happening, people expect more than state- ments. They expect action that actually changes the situa - tion. 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 deal - ing 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 re - sponding to something real. There have been incidents. There has been pressure to act, and communities are say - ing 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 some - where 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 repre - sents.

This is government stepping in after the fact, try - ing to manage a situation that has already escalated to the point where people don’t feel safe. I think that matters, be- cause if we don’t look at how we got here, then we’re just going to keep responding the same way every time some - thing 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 ques - tions, 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 sys - tem we already have is being used the way it should be.

Be- cause 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 — pro - tecting 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 legisla - tion, 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 al - ready 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

Tuesday, March 31, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 6055 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 ac - cess, 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 de- signed 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 commun - ities 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 ap - proach 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, be - cause there’s a real difference between enforcing a crim - inal 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 of - fence 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 under - stands 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 com - pliance, 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

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20260331pm-Hansard-n145
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20260331pm Hansard n145
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	9f952fe6c4d373779631d1b22c3cd9e87994cab9

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).