The committee met at 1:32 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Motions Without Notice

Membership Change to
Private Bills and Private
Members’ Bills Committee

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

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

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

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

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act.

In Section C, the Birch Room, I call Committee of Supply, Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Dana Lajeunesse: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Deputy Speaker: We thought that might be the case. Thank you very much.

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.

Second Reading of Bills

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

Deputy Speaker: Now recognizing Richmond-Queensborough for continued debate on Bill 13.

[1:35 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Prior to the break, I was stating that there is a major public safety crisis throughout this province. The public safety crisis has hit religious communities as well. I had given one example of how big of a public safety crisis this actually is. I learned that there’s one synagogue that is paying $100,000 per month for private security. That’s over $1 million. This is very concerning.

It’s concerning because, although we’re having this legislation come through the House, we’ve had legislation to deal with the very things that this legislation purports to do as well. We’ve had the Criminal Code of Canada that makes it an offence to harass individuals, to intimidate individuals, to impede individuals from access to religious places of worship. Yet communities right across this province, religious communities, have had to deal with fear, interference, harassment, intimidation and major public safety situations.

The question is: why? Why have these communities had to deal with this? The answer is that there has been public safety legislation, but it has not been enforced in our province. It needs to be enforced so religious communities and British Columbians can be protected.

I’m going to get into my concluding remarks. This debate is more than a debate over a single piece of legislation. It is about whether government is fulfilling one of its most fundamental responsibilities, and that’s keeping people safe. Communities should not have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for their own protection. That’s not right. Communities should not have to wonder whether the laws that exist, whether those laws will be actually enforced or not. And communities should not have to wait for new legislation to feel safe.

The tools exist. The public safety enforcement rules exist, but they’re not being enforced. In order to enforce those tools, we need to have a robust justice system that is properly resourced with ample amount of resources and budget and staffing. We’re not seeing that in this province right now. Justice system is underfunded.

There are a lot more tools that can be provided to law enforcement to enforce public safety legislation. If there are issues with enforcement, then it strongly needs to be looked upon. What extra resources can you provide to enforcement to actually deal with public safety enforcement? Because if there’s already legislation in place that deals with the subject matter of Bill 13, in the Criminal Code of Canada, but you’re still having the problem where communities are feeling unsafe, there seems to be a bigger underlying problem. The underlying problem is with the enforcement.

[1:40 p.m.]

The responsibility exists on the provincial government to make sure there is a substantive, organized manner and plan to deal with the actual enforcement of public safety enforcement. What has been lacking is action on public safety in this province.

So as we consider this bill, Bill 13 — that’s Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act — let us also focus not only on what is being proposed. Let’s also focus on what has not been done, because British Columbians deserve more than words. They deserve safety.

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

British Columbia is a place where diversity is not just acknowledged; it is celebrated. People from all walks of life, cultures and faith traditions have come here to build their lives, raise their families and contribute to the strength of our province.

In my constituency of Vancouver-Langara, that diversity is something I witness every single day. We are home to vibrant and deeply rooted faith communities — Sikh, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Buddhist and many others — each contributing in meaningful ways to the social and cultural fabric of our communities.

These communities do more than gather in prayer. They serve. They give. They support those in need. They build bridges across cultures. Institutions like the Khalsa Diwan Society gurdwara are not only places of worship; they are pillars of community life. Through langar, through outreach, through open doors, they embody the values of compassion, service and inclusion.

Across the Lower Mainland, synagogues such as Temple Sholom, along with mosques, temples, churches and other sacred spaces, play that same essential role. They are places where people come together in moments of joy and in moments of grief. They are places where traditions are preserved, where children learn their values and where individuals find comfort and connection. At their core, these are spaces of sanctuary.

But in recent years, we have seen that sense of sanctuary come under stain. Across our province and our country, there has been a troubling increase in incidents targeting places of worship. We have seen vandalism, harassment and acts of intimidation. We have seen demonstrations that cross a line from peaceful expression into behaviour that blocks access, disrupts services and creates fear for those simply trying to enter and pray.

These incidents do not just impact buildings. They impact people. They create anxiety for families. They make seniors hesitant. They make parents think twice before bringing their children. They erode that sense of safety that should be unquestioned in a place of worship.

No one in British Columbia should feel that fear. No one should have to look over their shoulder when walking into a gurdwara, synagogue, masjid, temple or church. No one should be intimidated, harassed or prevented from practising their faith.

[1:45 p.m.]

This is not about one community. This is about all communities. It’s about ensuring that every person, regardless of their religion, background or identity, can gather in peace and dignity. Freedom of religion is a fundamental right in Canada. It includes not only the freedom to believe but the freedom to practise openly, safely and without intimidation.

Bill 13 is about protecting that right in a thoughtful and balanced way. This legislation establishes access zones of up to 20 metres around places of public worship. Within those zones, specific behaviours are prohibited, behaviours that impede access, disrupt services or intimidate individuals seeking to attend. This ensures that people can enter and exit safely without obstruction or fear.

At the same time, this bill respects the rights that are also fundamental to our democracy: the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. People will continue to have the right to protest. They will continue to have the right to express their views. But those rights must be exercised in a way that does not infringe on the rights of others to worship safely.

This legislation strikes that balance. It’s focused. It’s measured. It also includes important safeguards, including a sunset clause that will require review, ensuring that these measures remain appropriate and proportionate over time.

Places of worship are far more than physical structures. They are spaces where newcomers find their footing in a new country; where language, culture and traditions are preserved and shared; where elders find community and connection; where young people learn not only about faith but about service, respect and belonging. They are places where people come in their most vulnerable moments, in times of loss, in times of uncertainty and in times of hope. In those moments, they deserve to feel safe.

When we protect access to these spaces, we are protecting something deeper: the sense of belonging and dignity that defines our communities and strengthens our province as a whole.

Bill 13 reflects the values we share as British Columbians: respect for one another, inclusion across differences and a commitment to ensuring that everyone can live free from fear. It sends a clear message that in British Columbia, there is no place for intimidation at the doors of our sacred spaces.

I am proud to stand in support of this legislation, and I encourage all members of this House to join me in supporting Bill 13 to ensure that places of worship across our province remain what they are meant to be: spaces of peace, safety and community for all.

Bryan Tepper: Hon. Members of this House, I rise today on second reading of Bill 13, the Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act, 2026.

I would like to comment on my friend’s speech just now, and I do appreciate the strong message that places of worship are places of community, where we should all come together and would encourage everybody in this House to spend some time in places of worship.

[1:50 p.m.]

But let me be crystal clear from the outset. Every British Columbian — Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, any faith — deserves to attend their place of worship in safety, free from intimidation, harassment, vandalism or disruption.

The threats are not theoretical. Since 2001, and especially in a shocking wave since 2021, churches across Canada, including many in British Columbia, have faced repeated attacks. A murder right on the grounds of one of our gurdwaras. Vandalism, graffiti, desecration and arson have scarred communities. Nationally, reports document over a hundred churches vandalized, burned or destroyed since 2021, with at least 33 fully burned to the ground between May 2021 and late 2023 — the vast majority ruled arson.

In British Columbia, churches were among the early targets. These incidents continued alongside broader rises in hate crimes.

The alarming surge in antisemitism since October 7, 2023, has compounded danger, with synagogues facing fire bombings, shootings and vandalism. In 2024 alone, police reported hate crimes targeting religion in Canada stood at 1,342 incidents nationally, with Jewish communities accounting for 70 percent of them despite representing just 1 percent of the population.

In British Columbia, hate crimes rose 23 percent between 2022 and 2023, with religion-motivated incidents surging more than 50 percent. Jewish Canadians are 25 times more likely to be targeted than any other group.

These numbers are not abstract. They represent real fear in our synagogues, mosques, churches, gurdwaras and temples. But this bill is not that action. This is lipstick on a pig. It is pure NDP symbolism, placating the faith community with its shiny new provincial statute while doing absolutely nothing to address the root causes of the safety crisis facing our places of worship.

It creates 20-metre access zones around churches, synagogues, mosques, gurdwaras and temples. It prohibits impeding access, disrupting activities, interference — which is defined so broadly that it actually includes advising or persuading someone not to participate — and anything that could reasonably be expected to cause concern for a person’s physical or mental safety.

It allows warrantless arrests for those provincially regulated infractions and lets the Attorney General or anyone seek injunctions. And it sunsets in 2030.

Every single one of these enforcement clauses already exists in the Criminal Code of Canada. Police and courts have had these tools for decades. This bill does not add one new officer, one new dollar of spending, one new dollar for policing or one new tool that wasn’t already available. It is fake legislation designated to let the NDP say they did something while their broader failure on public safety continues to spiral out of control.

Let’s go clause by clause, because the devil is in the details. These details here reveal a bill that is as useless as it is redundant.

Clause 1 sets out the definitions. It defines an access zone “interference” as “advising or persuading, or attempting to advise or persuade by any means, including graphic, verbal or written means, a person to refrain from participating in an activity at a place of public worship.”

It defines “place of public worship” expansively to include any property exempt from taxation under the Community Charter, Vancouver Charter or the Taxation (Rural Area) Act plus anything cabinet prescribes by regulation.

[1:55 p.m.]

“Occupier” is anyone with responsibility or control.

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

But these definitions are deliberately broad and vague. “Interference” could capture a peaceful conversation, a pamphlet or even a sign. This is not targeted protection. It is a dragnet that chills legitimate expression.

And yet the Criminal Code already covers every harmful intent here without the need for new provincial jargon. Section 423 criminalizes intimidation. Section 176 specifically protects religious worship from wilful disturbance or interruption. These are real criminal offences with real teeth, not provincial regulatory language designed to create the illusion of action.

Clause 2 in this bill is the heart of the prohibitions. Subsection (1) says a person must not, in an access zone, impede access to or egress from the place of worship, disrupt activities, engage in interference or intimidate or attempt to intimidate or do or say anything that could reasonably cause concern for a person’s physical or mental safety. Subsection (2) bans wilfully participating in a gathering where others are doing any of that. This is the NDP’s big new protection.

But again, every single prohibition is already a Criminal Code offence. Impeding access or egress — that’s covered by section 423, “Intimidation” and section 430, “Mischief.”

Disrupting activities at a place of worship. Section 176(2) makes it an offence punishable by summary conviction to wilfully disturb or interrupt an assemblage met for religious worship.

Interference by advising or persuading. That falls under “Criminal harassment” in section 264 or “Intimidation,” section 423.

Intimidation or causing reasonable concern for safety. Section 264 is “Criminal harassment.” And again, section 423(1) explicitly prohibits using threats, violence or other means to intimidate.

And for the real threats — vandalism, graffiti, arson — section 430(4.1) provides up to ten years for hate-motivated mischief against religious property. These are indictable offences with real jail time.

Indictable offences are the most serious offences in Canada. Police don’t need a provincial 20-metre bubble zone to act. They already have the full force of federal law, federal criminal law, under the Criminal Code of Canada.

This clause doesn’t strengthen safety. It duplicates it, creates confusion and wastes legislative time on a problem the Criminal Code solved decades ago.

I might add that under the Safe Access to Schools Act…. It has a further clause, which at least attempts to do something. It says that in those bubble zones, it prohibits people from protesting. This doesn’t even include that, although I would believe that if it was tested, it would be against the Charter.

Clause 3 requires notice to establish an access zone. Signs must be posted so they are clearly visible in daylight, it says, under normal weather conditions from the approach to each ordinary point of entry. The signs must identify the place of worship, describe the zone, list the prohibitions and include any other prescribed information. No one but the owner or occupier can remove, alter or deface them.

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

[2:00 p.m.]

Real criminals who vandalize synagogues at night or harass worshippers don’t read the signs. Police responding to a disturbance don’t need a laminated poster to know that blocking a mosque door is already illegal under the Criminal Code. This clause adds red tape and paperwork for faith communities already stretched thin, while doing nothing to prevent the crimes that actually occur outside the 20-metre line or after hours — exactly the kinds of attacks that have burned churches and desecrated sacred spaces for years.

Clause 4 defines exactly what is included in the access zone. For a stand-alone place of worship, it’s the entire parcel, plus 20 metres from the boundaries. For multi-use buildings, it gets even more complicated. It’s 20 metres from entrances, exits or passageways — unless cabinet, of course, prescribes something different.

Private residences and places the public doesn’t ordinarily access are excluded. Again, this is arbitrary geography, dressed up as protection. The Criminal Code doesn’t need a tape measure. Section 176 applies to the actual disturbance of worship, wherever it occurs. Section 430 covers damage to the property itself. Section 423 prohibits intimidation, regardless of exact metres.

The NDP is creating a provincial map of safe zones that overlaps with federal criminal jurisdiction, all while the real threats — organized hate, online incitement or midnight vandalism and arson that have plagued churches for the last 25 years and intensified dramatically since 2021 — operate far beyond any 20-metre bubble. This is fake legislation at its finest. It looks tough on paper but collapses under the weight of existing law.

Clause 5 allows a police officer to arrest, without a warrant, anyone they believe, on reasonable grounds, is contravening section 2. This is the NDP’s big enforcement win, yet section 495 of the Criminal Code already gives police broad, warrantless arrest powers for indictable offences like intimidation, criminal harassment and mischief. For summary offences tied to religious worship under section 176, police have always had the authority to act when they witnessed a disturbance.

This clause doesn’t expand police power. It just rebrands a provincial, ticketable offence as something that feels like criminal law. In practice, it lowers the threshold, while pretending to raise it. Real safety comes from officers who can respond quickly to the kinds of arsons and vandalism that have destroyed dozens of churches, not from duplicative arrest language that sits on the books unused because police are already overwhelmed.

Clause 6 allows the Supreme Court to grant injunctions, even without notice, restraining anyone from contravening section 2, with interim injunctions possible. It applies whether or not a penalty exists. Courts have been granted injunctions for harassment, trespass and intimidation, for generations, under inherent jurisdiction and the Criminal Code. This is not new. It is redundant paperwork for the Attorney General’s office, while faith communities wait for actual officers to show up at the scenes of burned and vandalized places of worship.

Clause 7 gives cabinet sweeping regulation-making power. They can prescribe classes of property, designate policing units, add or remove exemptions for labour actions or other activities, dictate exactly what signs must say and where they go, and change the size of access zones for any place or class of places. This is the ultimate NDP control clause — endless bureaucratic tweaks, without coming back to this House. It turns every place of worship into a regulatory experiment. Meanwhile, the Criminal Code provides consistent, nationwide standards that don’t change on a Lieutenant Governor in Council whim.

[2:05 p.m.]

This clause exposes the bill for what it is, not bold protection but a framework for future ministerial fiddling, while the real crisis of under-policing festers, and churches continue to burn.

Clauses 8 and 9 are straightforward. The act sunsets in 2030 or earlier by regulation, and it comes into force by royal assent — enough said.

This entire bill is fake legislation. It is modelled after the 1994 Access to Abortion Services Act bubble zones, which were narrowly tailored to a specific, highly charged medical context. Those zones were upheld by courts because they protected patients in a unique setting, but slapping the same model onto every place of worship, province-wide, with broader prohibitions and no evidence that the Criminal Code tools are insufficient, is legislative laziness.

Compare it to federal Bill C-9, introduced in October. It amends the Criminal Code to ban hate symbols like swastikas, with exemptions, adds aggravating factors for hate-motivated offences, and creates a specific offence of intimidation at buildings for religious worship. Importantly, it does not create fixed-distance bubble zones. It targets conduct, not geography. The federal approach respects jurisdiction and focuses on real criminal behaviour.

Why is this NDP government duplicating and diluting federal criminal law with provincial red tape? It’s because it’s easier than fixing the real problem — their own failed policies that have left police hands tied and communities unprotected. While faith leaders are begging for real protection, the NDP’s response is signs and 20-metre zones. Meanwhile, across this province, crime is out of control in ways that directly threaten everyone, including those trying to worship.

The Auditor General’s March 2026 report laid it bare. The RCMP is short at least 3,400 front-line officers, as of September 2025. Vacancy rates exceed the critical 7 percent threshold in nine of 11 provinces and territories served by contract policing. Recruitment has failed for years. In 2025, they needed 2,700 new officers but hired only 892.

That falls onto this province for providing the members required to be trained. Officers are doing more with less every single day, pulling from integrated teams, facing longer response times and watching repeat offenders cycle through the soft-on-crime bail system the NDP defended for years.

Clearance rates for property crime and hate-motivated mischief remain abysmal. Communities are hiring private security — not because they want to but because the NDP has left them no choice. What does this government do? Jewish communities in B.C. alone are now spending over $100,000 every month on private security, just to keep worshippers safe.

Back to: what does the government do? They slap 7 percent PST on those security services, taxing the very measures communities are forced to take because public safety has collapsed under their watch. This is not leadership. This is extortion by another name. Small businesses, strata and faith groups, already spending thousands monthly on guards, now face another 7 percent hit. The NDP creates the crisis, focuses private solutions, then taxes the solution. This bill does nothing to stop that hypocrisy.

The official opposition believes strongly in the right to peaceful assembly under section 2(c) of the Charter. We also believe in freedom of expression. Bubble zones can chill legitimate protests, as we’ve seen with school access zones.

[2:10 p.m.]

Even setting Charter concerns aside, this bill fails on its own terms. It does not deter the real threats — vandalism at night, online harassment or organized hate — because those happen outside the 20-metre zone or when no one is there to post signs. It creates a false sense of security, while the NDP continues to under-resource the very police who are already doing heroic work with fewer officers than ever.

The faith community deserves better than this performative nonsense. They deserve a government that treats public safety as a core responsibility, not a photo op. They deserve more RCMP officers, more municipal officers, faster bail reform that actually keeps repeat offenders locked up, higher clearance rates and an end to taxing the private security they’re forced to buy because this province’s policing model is crumbling.

The NDP can pat themselves on the back for introducing Bill 13 in unison with Bill 12. They can claim they’re expanding protections, but British Columbians see through it. This is not protection; it’s abdication. It is the government admitting they cannot enforce the Criminal Code effectively. It creates a parallel provincial regime that duplicates existing powers while doing nothing to fix the resource crisis.

We in the official opposition will always stand with faith communities against hate. We support real tools for police. We support cracking down on antisemitism and every form of religious hatred. But we will not pretend that this bill does any of those things. Pure NDP theatre while the real crisis of crime, underpolicing and self-funded security continues.

I urge every member to reject this symbolic gesture. Demand real resources for police. Demand enforcement of the criminal code we already have. Demand an end to the hypocrisy of taxing the very safety measures this government’s failures have forced upon our most vulnerable communities.

British Columbians of every faith deserve to worship without fear. They deserve a government that delivers safety, not slogans.

Deputy Speaker: Members, I just want to take a moment to offer a little guidance. This Chair doesn’t appreciate any sort of indication that governments or members in this House are breaking the law.

So I would ask you to stay away from terms like “extortion,” things like that and those allegations.

Darlene Rotchford: I’d like to start by acknowledging we’re on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən people known as the xʷsepsəm and Songhees Nations and thanking them for allowing me to do the work I do, not just here in this building but within my riding of Esquimalt-Colwood.

I am honoured to rise here today in this House to speak in strong support of Bill 13, legislation that goes to the very heart of what it means to live in a safe, respectful and inclusive environment. At the core, this bill does something simple but profoundly important — ensuring that people in British Columbia can access the places that matter most to them, our places of worship, and that they can do so free of intimidation, obstruction and fear.

Places of worship should be a safe place for people. This is not a controversial statement; this is a shared expectation. The ability to gather in prayer, reflection and community without harassment or disruption is fundamental to who we are as Canadians and British Columbians.

Yet in recent years, we have seen a troubling rise in incidents that challenge that basic expectation. We have seen threats, vandalism and intimidation targeting places of worship — spaces that serve not only as centres of faith but that anchor our communities right across British Columbia.

These are not abstract concerns. These are real experiences affecting people simply trying to get to a place to gather in peace.

I will note, toward some comments that were made across the way, that we’re seeing this not just here in British Columbia through a fault of any policy of ours but across the country, under different governments, whether that is a progressive NDP government, a progressive Conservative government, a Conservative, Liberal…. Across the board, everyone is seeing this. All of us equally are looking at different ways we can mitigate this and support people across the country.

[2:15 p.m.]

So this is why our government is taking action. Bill 13, the Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act, establishes protections to ensure that people can attend services, ceremonies and gatherings without being obstructed, threatened or harassed.

Importantly, this legislation is carefully designed to allow places of worship, such as churches, mosques, synagogues, gurdwaras and temples, to establish safe access zones simply by posting clear signage. These zones are limited in size, generally including the building, its property and a modest buffer area of approximately 20 metres. Within those zones, certain behaviours are prohibited — not beliefs, not opinions but behaviours, actions like physically blocking access, using intimidation or deliberately disrupting services.

I want to be clear about this. This law does not ban protest. You heard me talk yesterday about another bill. I believe foremost in the right to peaceful protest. I had joked that I had been perhaps on the front lawn a time or two here myself or some other organizations during strike action in my previous life, and I stand for that right to do so as long as it’s done peacefully and people aren’t hurt.

Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of our democracy, and our government fully supports that right. People remain free to express their views, to gather and to protest. What this bill does is set reasonable boundaries, ensuring that expression does not cross the line to harm, intimidation or obstruction. It is about balance. It’s about balancing the right to protest and balancing freedom of expression with the right of a family to attend a place of worship without being shouted at or blocked or harassed for entering. It’s about recognizing that rights come with responsibility.

I also want to highlight that this law is not being introduced in isolation. They are part of a broader effort to address rising hate and protect communities across our province. The member just said that public safety needs to be taken seriously. Well, I believe this legislation is an example of another tool that we can do to do that.

We are investing in the B.C. hate crimes unit, expanding its capacity and supporting community organizations through our anti-hate community support fund. We are also listening, learning from people of faith, faith leaders, community organizations and law enforcement.

The feedback has been clear. These protections are needed, and they will make a difference. In fact, when this legislation was brought forward and was announced, our minister, with people of multiple different faith groups, stood together in solidarity to say that they supported this, right here in the Legislature.

People have told us that safe access zones around schools have already been an effective tool for de-escalation. We expect similar results when we see that within a place of worship.

Importantly, these measures include safeguards. This piece of legislation contains a sunset clause, ensuring they will be reviewed and reassessed. This reflects our commitment to getting the balance right, not just today but into our future.

We must also acknowledge the broader context. Around the world, here at home, we are seeing an increased polarization and, at times, rising hostility directed at different community groups. At moments like this, leadership matters. We have a responsibility to stand up for the values that define us: respect, inclusion and safety for all. I would hope in this building that that’s something we can all agree on.

I believe this bill does that. It does not take sides. It does not target any particular group or viewpoint. It applies equally regardless of who you are or what you believe. Its focus is clear and narrow: to prevent harmful conduct and ensure safety.

As legislators, we are often called upon to make difficult decisions, to weigh competing rights and interests. In this case, I believe this bill does strike that right balance. It protects communities of faith. It upholds our fundamental principle that everyone deserves to feel safe in spaces that matter most.

If you were to tell me when I was a child going to Catholic school on Sundays and participating in my own religion that I would be up having to even have this debate or conversation, I don’t think I would have actually believed anybody. I don’t think I would have taken it seriously. There is no way we would have even had to have these conversations.

I often joke, you know…. I was raised Catholic. Sometimes I joke I have had some concerns with my own religion, but I think at the base of most religions, it’s about taking care of our communities.

[2:20 p.m.]

I believe, as legislators, we all have an equal responsibility to do that, no matter what our background is, whether it’s religious or not, actually. I believe it should be based on good policy, good legislation, and I believe this does that.

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

During question period throughout this session and last session, people have asked us questions from the opposition about what we’re doing to keep the public safe. I think this legislation is a great example of how we’re doing that for our faith-based communities across the province, whatever that may look like.

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

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

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

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

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

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

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

At the heart of this discussion is a fundamental principle: no person in British Columbia should ever feel intimidated, harassed or fearful when walking into their place of worship. It is about dignity, fundamental freedoms and the kind of province we want to be.

[2:25 p.m.]

Yet for many British Columbians today — members of Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Hindu and other faith communities — their sense of safety is no longer guaranteed. What should be a place of peace has for some become a place of anxiety. We are seeing tensions, often driven by global conflicts, spill out of the public square and onto the doorstep of our most sacred spaces.

As a Buddhist myself who regularly pays respects to many temples in my riding across Richmond, I feel truly blessed to have never experienced any harassment when visiting a place of worship.

In our beautiful province, one that has long upheld the values of inclusion, peace, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly, it is deeply concerning to know that some faith communities do not feel safe when walking into their own places of worship. Everyone deserves to feel secure, respected and welcome in spaces meant for reflection, faith and community.

As noted at by political commentator Rob Shaw in his recent coverage, governments are increasingly being called upon to act when protest activity crosses the line from lawful expression into intimidation and disruption. That observation reflects what many British Columbians are seeing firsthand, a growing tension between the right to protest and the right to feel safe in deeply personal spaces.

Let’s be clear. Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of our democracy. It allows Canadians to speak, to protest and to challenge authority, but it is not absolute. It does not include the right to obstruct access. It does not include the right to harass. It does not include the right to deny others the peaceful exercise of their own freedoms. Freedom of religion is equally protected. When individuals are forced to pass through intimidation to attend worship, their rights are being compromised.

The principle behind Bill 13 is sound. It responds to calls from faith leaders across British Columbia. It proposes access zones, commonly referred to as bubble zones, to prevent obstruction, harassment and intimidation near places of worship.

We have precedent for this approach. Courts in British Columbia have already upheld similar protections in the context of abortion access, recognizing that while expression is protected, reasonable limits are justified when necessary to protect vulnerable individuals and ensure safe access to lawful services.

Bill 13 extends that concept to religious spaces. It will allow eligible places of worship to establish clearly marked access zones. Typically, it would mean a 20-metre perimeter where specific harmful behaviour would be prohibited. Police would be empowered to issue tickets or make arrests, including without a warrant, where there are reasonable grounds to believe the law is being contravened. The bill also includes a sunset clause in 2030, acknowledging that these are targeted measures responding to a specific and concerning moment.

But principle alone is not enough. The true test of this legislation will not be how it is written; it will be how it is enforced. Because legislation without enforcement is not protection; it is symbolism. We must confront that reality directly.

Commentary in British Columbia public discourse, including analysis from voices like Rob Shaw, has pointed out that laws governing protest activity often face real-world challenges when it comes to consistent enforcement. Drawing lines in legislation is one thing. Applying them fairly, clearly and consistently on the ground is another.

[2:30 p.m.]

First, there is the issue of clarity. Enforcement depends on definitions that are precise and understandable not just to legal experts but to frontline officers and the general public. What constitutes intimidation? When does a protest become obstruction? These are decisions that must often be made in real time in emotionally charged environments. If those thresholds are unclear, enforcement becomes hesitant. If officers are unsure where the line is, they may default to inaction. And if enforcement varies from one situation to another, public confidence will erode.

There is also the issue of consistency. Laws like this rely heavily on police discretion. Without clear guidance and provincewide standards, that discretion can lead to uneven outcomes. One community may see strong enforcement while another does not. That is not just a legal issue; it is a question of trust.

We must consider scope. The bill’s reliance on tax-exempt status and statutory definition to determine what qualifies as a place of worship may be administratively simple, but it does not reflect reality. Many faith communities gather in rented halls, storefronts or shared spaces. Some are newly established. Some lack formal recognition. If protection depends on paperwork rather than people, then we risk excluding those who may be most vulnerable. From an enforcement perspective, ambiguity about what qualifies creates hesitation and uncertainty in applying the law.

The exclusion of private residences raises similar concerns. Many faith groups gather in homes. These are legitimate expressions of religious practice. If they become targets of harassment, what recourse exists? Does that create a loophole? How would such a situation be handled in practice?

We must also consider how this legislation fits within the broader legal framework. Federal efforts to address hate-motivated conduct near places of worship focus on criminalization, intimidation and hateful symbols but do not establish defined buffer zones. This creates a distinction between conduct-based and location-based protections.

If these frameworks are not well aligned, there is a risk of confusion. Police officers should not have to interpret overlapping or inconsistent standards in the moment. Effective enforcement requires coherence across jurisdictions.

Another concern is that this legislation stops at the sanctuary door. Faith is lived through service in food banks, shelters and community programs. These spaces can also become targets. If they fall outside the scope of protection, then we are addressing only part of the problem.

There’s also the question of capacity. Even the best law will fail without the resources to enforce it. Do police services have the training, the personnel and operational clarity required? Are there clear protocols in place? Without this, enforcement will be uneven and communities will continue to rely on private security to fill the gap.

We are already seeing that reality. Some communities are bearing significant financial burdens just to ensure basic safety. Security costs across all Metro Vancouver Jewish institutions have risen to more than $100,000 per month. That is not sustainable, and it is not acceptable. Public safety must remain a public responsibility.

We support the spirit of Bill 14. We recognize the urgency. We acknowledge the voices, both from faith communities and from commentators like Rob Shaw, who have highlighted the need for government to act thoughtfully, not just quickly.

[2:35 p.m.]

If this law is to succeed, it must be clear, enforceable and supported by the resources necessary to make it real. It must apply fairly across all communities. It must reflect how faith is actually practised. It must give both the public and law enforcement the certainty they need, because if it does not, we risk creating false reassurance instead of real protection.

Every British Columbian, regardless of faith, should be able to walk into their place of worship with peace, dignity and safety, not just in principle but in practice. That is the standard we must meet.

While I agree with the intention of the bill, I know that we must be thoughtful whenever we limit the actions of individuals and groups. Peaceful assembly is a protective freedom, but intimidation, harassment and blocking access to places of worship are not. Protecting the right to worship safely must be treated as a basic public safety responsibility.

If government is serious about standing against antisemitism and hate, it must go beyond symbolism. Strengthen policing, increase resources, and stop taxing security. Communities facing targeted hate should not be forced to rely indefinitely on privately funded security to fill gaps in public safety. It is expressly wrong that this government is charging 7 percent PST on the security services that the Jewish community is being forced to purchase to keep itself safe. Governments should not be taxing the very measures communities need because of rising hate and threats.

The Criminal Code of Canada has already provided protection for people walking to places of worship who face harassment, but we hardly see any enforcement. As we are now considering and debating Bill 13, the Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act, we must ensure that Bill 13 is not just another additional piece of legislation sitting in the statute vault, with no real protection for the British Columbians who attend their places of worship.

I sincerely hope that the Attorney General will address all these concerns and those raised by my colleagues and support the opposition party’s meaningful amendments to Bill 13.

Steve Morissette: I’m pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 13, the Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act, a legislation that goes to the very heart of what it means to live in a free and democratic society.

At its core, this bill is about something simple yet profoundly important — the ability of people to live out their beliefs peacefully, safely and without intimidation. It’s about ensuring that when someone chooses to attend their place of worship — whether that be a gurdwara, a church, a synagogue, a mosque or a temple — they can do so without fear, without obstruction, without harassment and without being made to feel that their presence, their beliefs or their community are somehow unwelcome.

The wide variety of diverse religions in British Columbia gives us different perspectives and makes us a much stronger society.

Places of public worship are more than just buildings. They are anchors in our communities. They are spaces where people gather not only for prayer but for connection, for support and for a sense of belonging. They are where families mark life’s most important moments — births, marriages and losses — and where individuals seek guidance, reflection and peace. They are, in many ways, the quiet foundation of community life. Yet, increasingly, we have seen instances where these very spaces have been targeted by disruptive and harmful behaviour.

[2:40 p.m.]

Let me be clear. The vast majority of people in British Columbia respect one another. They understand that freedom of religion is not conditional. It does not depend on whether we agree with someone else’s beliefs. It does not depend on whether we share their traditions. It is a right that belongs to everyone equally.

But we must also acknowledge an uncomfortable truth. For some, the idea of freedom of religion has been narrowed into something exclusionary, something that means freedom of my religion but not necessarily the freedom of others. And when that mindset takes hold, it can manifest into behaviours that are intimidating, obstructive and, at times, deeply harmful.

This is where this legislation steps in. Bill 13 proposes a practical, measured and thoughtful response to a real and growing issue. It establishes protections against harmful, disruptive or intimidating behaviour around places of public worship. It creates a framework that allows eligible places of worship to establish clearly marked safe access zones — zones that are visible, understandable and limited in scope.

Unlike other legislation, these zones are not imposed universally by regulation. Instead, they are created when a place of worship chooses to opt in by posting clear signage. That signage must identify the place of worship, define the boundaries of the access zone and outline the behaviours that are prohibited. This approach ensures clarity for everyone — those attending worship, those in the surrounding community and those who may wish to express their views nearby.

Clarity matters. Laws must be understandable, they must be predictable, and they must be fair. Bill 13 meets those standards.

In most cases, these access zones will include the building itself, the property on which it sits and a modest 20-metre buffer around the perimeter. They are not expansive. They are not designed to push people far away. They are designed to do one thing: ensure safe and unobstructed access.

Within these zones, specific behaviours are prohibited — not expression but conduct. This includes physically blocking entrances, using objects like barricades to obstruct access, disrupting prayer or religious gatherings and engaging in threatening or intimidating behaviour toward those trying to attend. And yes, it also includes attempts to pressure or dissuade individuals from attending services within that defined space.

This is not about silencing lawful protest. Let me say that again clearly. This legislation does not outlaw protest. People will continue to have the right to express their views. They will continue to have the right to gather, to demonstrate and to disagree, even strongly.

But rights must coexist. Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of our democracy, but so, too, is freedom of religion. And neither right should come at the expense of the other.

This bill draws that line carefully and responsibly. It says: “You may express your views, but you may not intimidate others. You may protest, but you may not block access. You may disagree, but you may not create an environment of fear for people simply seeking to practise their faith.”

[2:45 p.m.]

The need for this legislation is not theoretical. In recent years, we have seen a rise in confrontations and targeted disruptions at religious institutions, not only in British Columbia but across Canada and around the world.

We have seen vandalism, including political graffiti, targeting temples and gurdwaras. We have seen escalating tensions, requiring court-ordered buffer zones. We have seen communities of many different faiths express real concern for their safety. We have seen how quickly peaceful spaces become sites of anxiety and division.

The impact of these incidents is profound. They create fear, they create division, and they undermine the sense of safety and belonging that places of worship are meant to provide. For those attending, what should be a moment of peace becomes a moment of concern. What should be a place of refuge becomes a place where people must look over their shoulder. That is simply not acceptable.

This legislation says clearly that in British Columbia, we will not accept that. We will not accept that individuals should have to weigh their personal safety before attending a service. We will not accept that communities should feel targeted or unwelcome in spaces that are central to their identity and well-being. Instead, we will take responsible, proportionate steps to ensure that access to these spaces remains safe and unobstructed.

Bill 13 does not stand alone. It is part of a broader effort to protect safe access to important community spaces. Alongside this bill, we are also advancing Bill 12, which extends protections for safe access to schools, ensuring that students, staff, parents and caregivers can access schools without disruption.

These measures build on previous legislation, including protections around essential services and health care access. They reflect a consistent principle that certain spaces in our society must remain accessible, safe and free from intimidation — schools, health care facilities and now, places of public worship.

Enforcement of this legislation is practical and measured. If prohibited behaviour occurs within an access zone, places of worship can contact police. Officers may respond in a range of ways, starting with de-escalation and, where necessary, issuing tickets or making arrests.

Importantly, violating this law is not in itself a criminal offence. But the underlying behaviour — if it crosses into assault, criminal harassment or other offences — may well be. Police will continue to exercise discretion, as they do in all situations, and we have confidence in their ability to do so. This confidence is supported by ongoing investments in public safety, including expanded resources for hate crime units and community support programs.

I also want to address the question of scope. This legislation applies to buildings that are already recognized as places of public worship under existing property tax frameworks. This ensures clarity and consistency while minimizing unnecessary intrusion on Charter rights.

We recognize that there are other spaces and communities that may also face risks, and we will continue to explore ways to support them. But this bill represents a focused and balanced step forward. It applies equally, regardless of religion, regardless of belief and regardless of who may be protesting. It does not target any one group. It does not favour one faith over another. It does not distinguish between viewpoints. It simply protects access.

[2:50 p.m.]

I also want to speak to an important feature of this legislation, the four-year sunset clause. This is not a permanent measure. It is a targeted response to a specific and evolving issue. The sunset clause ensures that this Legislature will revisit the law, assess its effectiveness and determine whether it remains necessary.

This is good governance. It reflects humility. It reflects accountability. It reflects a recognition that laws should evolve alongside the society they serve.

British Columbia is home to an extraordinary diversity of faiths, cultures and traditions. That diversity is one of our greatest strengths, but diversity also requires responsibility. It requires us to ensure that every community feels safe, that every individual feels respected and that no one is made to feel vulnerable because of who they are or what they believe.

This bill is part of that responsibility. It affirms that whether someone attends a gurdwara, a mosque, a synagogue, a church or a temple, their right to do so safely is equally valued. It affirms that freedom of religion is not selective. It is universal. It affirms that our role as legislators is not only to protect rights in theory but to ensure they can be exercised in practice.

There may be those who raise concerns about balance. That is appropriate. In a democracy, we should always examine laws carefully, especially those that touch on fundamental freedoms. But I would submit that this bill strikes that balance. It is limited in scope. It is clear in its application. It preserves the right to protest. It focuses only on conduct that is harmful, disruptive or intimidating. In doing so, it protects one right without unnecessarily infringing on another, and that is exactly what good legislation should do.

In closing, this is a bill that reflects our shared values: a commitment to safety, a commitment to respect and a commitment to ensuring that fundamental freedoms are not only recognized but protected in real and meaningful ways.

We cannot take these freedoms for granted. We cannot assume they will always be upheld without effort. And we cannot ignore the realities that some communities are facing today.

Instead, we must act — thoughtfully, proportionately and with a clear sense of purpose. Bill 13 does exactly that. It provides a balanced, responsible and time-limited approach to ensuring that people in British Columbia can access their places of worship safely and without obstruction.

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

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

Recognizing the Leader of our Third Party.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Nice to see you again today, and I’m so proud to be speaking to the right bill at the right time in the right place. It didn’t seem to make No Context BC yesterday, but maybe it will now.

Dozens of Canadian churches have been burned down since May 2021, with many being confirmed as arson. Mosques have received federal security funds to combat Islamophobia and hate attacks against Muslim women. We have heard sentiments of uneasiness during Ramadan and when entering mosques and attending services. These sentiments have persisted for years and reportedly have grown in recent years.

[2:55 p.m.]

Recent synagogue attacks come after three separate Toronto area synagogues were shot at since March 2. The shootings prompted police in Vancouver and Victoria to send additional patrols to Jewish places of worship and community organizations.

The Third Party caucus supports the intent of this bill. We do have a few concerns that we expect will be addressed, clarified or potentially amended in committee. There are concerns regarding the broad definition of “interference.” This definition as currently stated would likely overlap with activity that would be present at many protests.

Opponents to the broadness of the definition have stated that “in other words, any protest outside a place of worship would be illegal, regardless of the actual activity taking place in the facility” and further stating that this new law would include those who have recently protested, for example, Indian government events at a gurdwara, Israeli realtors talking about investment opportunities in the occupied West Bank at a synagogue and MAGA concerts at various churches.

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association has similar concerns. “Implementing bubble zones limits peaceful protests and our right to freedom of expression. In a time when having our voice heard is harder than ever, protecting our right to speak out is critical to democracy.”

So the way we’re considering this legislation…. The major considerations are the potential of protesting restrictions on secular events that are held at a public place of worship. There is a need to ensure that those attending these events feel safe, balanced with the public’s right to protest at secular events.

We’ll have some clarification for vague drafting on actions that could lead to arrest, including “impede access,” “disrupt activities,” or “intimidate or attempt to intimidate,” as well as conditions that could lead to arrest, including concern for a person’s physical or mental safety. Clear metrics are needed to evaluate the efficacy and impact of this legislation, including enforcement data, incident prevention, number of institutions using access zones, etc.

As I said, we’ll support this through second reading and seek clarification and potentially amendments at committee stage.

Korky Neufeld: It’s always a privilege to represent the constituents of Abbotsford West, and it’s always an honour as well to rise in this House to speak to issues that impact all British Columbians.

I rise today to speak to Bill 13, the Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act, 2026. This is a bill that touches on something deeply important, not only in law but in the daily lives of British Columbians. It is the ability to gather, to worship and to do so in safety and dignity.

At its core, this legislation is a response to a troubling reality we’ve seen played out time and time again. Across our province, and indeed across our country, we have seen an increase of acts of vandalism, harassment, intimidation and targeted disruption directed at religious communities. So 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.

So before we look at this legislation, we have to ask ourselves a fundamental question. How did we get here?

It just happens that last week, when I was home for the spring break, I sat down with one of the leaders of our Hindu temple. And he explained to me that on a weekly basis — sometimes up to 15 times a month — their temple experiences vandalism, harassment, intimidation, and it’s targeted at their members in their temple.

So 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. And here’s how: by not enforcing existing laws.

[3:00 p.m.]

And that is fundamental. Before we create new legislation…. Do we have laws in place? Are we enforcing those laws? And I would say this is why we need this bill. Because we have not been enforcing those laws.

I rise today to speak about something deeply uncomfortable yet absolutely necessary — the presence and normalization of racism in our culture and how it has quietly, and sometimes loudly, manifested in our communities, our secondary campuses and even the causes we claim are rooted in justice.

Let us begin with what we are seeing here in British Columbia. For over two years now, there have been sustained weekly pro-Palestinian rallies in Victoria over 126 consecutive weeks. These are not isolated gatherings. They are organized. They are persistent and highly visible demonstrations, often marching through downtown and around the Legislature. Police have spent over 10,000 hours managing these events, and now even they are stepping back, acknowledging the strain and scale of these ongoing protests.

Across the province, similarly, demonstrations have taken place, from large-scale marches in Vancouver to encampments and rallies on university campuses such as UBC and UVic. These protests are part of a broader global movement calling for a ceasefire, criticizing Israeli government actions and advocating for Palestinian rights. Yet protesters are allowed to yell and chant: “From the river to the sea.”

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

Recognizing the Member for Victoria–Beacon Hill.

Hon. Grace Lore: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m just seeking your guidance on relevance, given that this is geographically bound in a very clear area around places of worship.

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

We are, of course, debating safe access to places of public worship, and I would appreciate we stay on target with that Bill 13.

Korky Neufeld: Mr. Speaker, I think what has happened is there’s been a cultural shift that has now spread into places of worship. So I don’t think it’s isolated just with places of worship. I think it’s a cultural and societal issue that has persisted since 2021. That is what I’m trying to show — the foundation of how we got here and why we need this bill in the first place.

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

Korky Neufeld: These protesters yell and chant, “From the river to the sea,” which means removing an entire Jewish people from the face of the earth. It’s called genocide.

We have the racist laws that we already have, but they’re not being enforced. By not dealing with these racist actions at the outset, we normalize behaviours. Protesters become emboldened and that’s not okay.

Let me be clear. Peaceful protest is not the problem. Freedom of expression is not the problem. In a democratic society, people have the right to speak, to assemble and to advocate for causes they believe in. But there’s a difficult truth we must confront. Not everything done in the name of justice is just.

Alongside these protests, we’re hearing increasingly troubling reports from Jewish students across Canada, including here in British Columbia. Students who once felt safe on campus now describe environments where they feel unwelcome.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I don’t want to continue to interrupt you, but we debated safe schools yesterday. We are debating, today, safe access to places of public worship.

Korky Neufeld: I guess I’m having trouble. I guess I need clarification from you. If our broader society has allowed certain things that have now crept into worship, how can I not describe what is happening in our culture and our society that is now impacting worship centres?

I will get to that, but I think the foundation is that there has been no enforcement from the federal government or from the provincial government on acts that are breaking racist laws. By doing that, it has emboldened them not just to do outside the Legislature, not just to march down the streets but now they’re coming for the institutions themselves.

I think I’m trying to cover that and make sure that we understand that this has been going on since 2021 unchecked and unenforced. That is why we’re here.

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

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

[3:05 p.m.]

Some Jewish students describe being ostracized by peers. Others say they’re afraid to express their identity openly. The language used is stark. Campuses that once fostered inclusion are now described as places where Jewish students feel shunned and targeted.

Research and accounts tied to institutions like UBC and SFU pointed to rising stress, fear and alienation among Jewish students and staff.

There has been public criticism from academia itself, suggesting institutions are struggling or unwilling — and here’s the key, unwilling — to adequately address the concerns. In front of the Hillel B.C. faculty building at UBC campus, regular protests occurred with intimidation tactics and racist slurs taking place. But Bill 13, Safe Access to Places of Worship Act, will not protect those Jewish students.

Now, let us be absolutely precise because precision matters. There is a clear and critical distinction between criticism of government, including Israel, and hatred or discrimination toward a people, including Jewish individuals. One is protected by political expression. The other is racism. When that line is crossed, even subtly, even unintentionally, it must be called out, and it must be enforced. That is what has been missing since 2021. That has led this government to Bill 13.

Yet across our country and our province, we have done nothing. When students feel unsafe for being who they are, when identity becomes a liability, when fear replaces belonging, we are no longer dealing with activism alone. We are dealing with something darker.

This issue does not exist in isolation. All across Canada, we have seen a disturbing rise in acts of cultural and religious destruction. Since 2021, over 100 Christian churches and places of worship have been burned and vandalized, including several in British Columbia, with no convictions.

You have to ask the question, if there are no convictions, what is the message being sent? The criminals are emboldened: “Let’s keep burning down the churches. Let’s keep harassing people at the synagogue. Let’s keep harassing people at the gurdwara and at the temple.” Why? Because there’s no enforcement. There are no laws. There’s no punishment. That’s what’s missing. That’s why we wouldn’t need this bill if they would enforce the laws that we already have.

These acts followed the tragic and painful discoveries connected to residential schools. Let me say this clearly. The pain of one community does not justify the destruction of another. Burning places of worship is not justice. Targeting communities is not reconciliation. Replacing one form of historical wrong with a present-day hostility does not move us forward, it actually pulls us backwards.

What we are witnessing in different forms is a pattern. Movements that begin with legitimate grievances becoming environments where anger overrides principle; where group identity becomes the target; and where racism is excused, minimized or ignored entirely, so long as it aligns with the right cause. That is a dangerous road.

Because racism does not become acceptable when it changes direction. It does not become justified when it wears the language of activism. It does not become invisible simply because we are uncomfortable calling it out.

If we are to be a society that truly values justice, our standards must be consistent. We cannot condemn hate in one context and tolerate it in another. We cannot demand safety for some while ignoring the fears of others. We cannot claim morality and moral authority while allowing prejudice to grow under our watch.

So what must we do? We must have the courage to act. Action, I would say, is the underlying reason for the need for Bill 13. There’s been inaction since 2021. Antisemitism is real and must be addressed even when it appears within popular movements. We already have racism laws. Government needs to have the courage to enforce them. Protests must remain grounded in respect, not hostility toward identity. Institutions must protect all students equally without hesitation or political calculation.

I want to say…. I want to call on the leaders of UBC and SFU to do the right thing for the right reasons in the right way. Do not allow this dangerous behaviour to continue on our campuses. Racism against anyone and everywhere must be confronted, not rationalized.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, I would appreciate…. We are talking about places of public worship. I would appreciate the focus on that topic.

[3:10 p.m.]

Korky Neufeld: Thank you.

The reason why we need Bill 13 is that there’s an admission of failure to enforce the existing laws we have. We wouldn’t need Bill 13 if the laws on racism that we already have in this land and in this province would be enforced in the first place. There’s a fundamental principle, with no disagreement in this House: every person in British Columbia deserves to access their place of worship free from fear, intimidation or obstruction.

Bill 13 attempts to address this by creating what are commonly referred to as “access zones” or “bubble zones,” extending generally 20 metres around places of public worship. Within these zones, certain behaviours would be prohibited, like blocking access, disrupting services, intimidating individuals or even attempting to persuade someone not to participate in worship.

In many ways, this model is not new. It follows the framework established under previous legislation, particularly the Access to Abortion Services Act and, more recently, the Safe Access to Schools Act. Courts have upheld these laws, recognizing that while freedom of expression is a cornerstone of our democracy, it is not absolute. It can be limited carefully and proportionately, where necessary, to protect the safety and dignity of others.

Let me be clear. The intent of this bill is understandable and, in many respects, commendable. However, it is precisely because this legislation engages in fundamental freedoms that we must approach it with caution, care and a willingness to ask these difficult questions, because alongside the right to worship safely stands another foundational right: the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Bill 13 does not simply prohibit harassment or violence. Those are already illegal under existing laws. The question remains: why were existing laws not enforced at the outset? The bill goes further. It introduces a broad definition of interference, which includes advising or persuading someone to refrain from participating in worship.

Well, that raises further questions, legitimate questions, such as: where is the line between intimidation and expression? Who is going to define that? Who is going to enforce that? That’s a heavy burden to put on someone on the front lines. Could a peaceful protester holding a sign be captured under this definition? Could a quiet conversation, even when conducted respectfully, be deemed unlawful with these zones?

These are not hypothetical concerns. They go to the heart of how this legislation will be interpreted and enforced on the ground. I think sometimes it’s easy for us to sit in this House and to create legislation. We’ve got to actually work it out, play it out. How’s it going to work on the ground to put this kind of a burden on someone? They’re going to have to interpret certain action without it being clear. That’s a burden I wouldn’t want.

We must also examine the enforcement mechanisms within this bill. Section 5 allows for arrests without warrant where an officer believes on reasonable grounds that a person is contravening the act. Now, while warrantless arrest powers do exist in the Criminal Code, their extension into a provincial regulatory framework is significant. That’s a big jump. It is not unprecedented, but it is rare. When we grant such powers, we must ensure that they are exercised with restraint, with clarity and with accountability.

Then there’s also the scope question. This bill allows for access zones to be created through signage posted by the occupier of a place of worship. It allows for flexibility through regulation, meaning that the size, the application and even the types of properties covered could evolve over time. Flexibility in legislation can be a strength, but it can also create uncertainty.

Further questions need to be answered. Will this be applied consistently across communities? Or will one community have different regulations than another community? For people moving from one community to another community, how will they know? Will there be clear provincial standards? I hope so, because that would give direction to those on the ground. How will the public know with certainty where these zones begin and end?

[3:15 p.m.]

Another point that must be raised is this. Legislation alone cannot and will not solve the underlying problem. Communities, particularly Jewish communities and other religious minorities, are increasingly bearing the burden of their own protection. Many are forced to invest heavily in private security, just to ensure that people can attend their services safely.

I was at one of those events. I went to a Hanukkah celebration in Richmond. My goodness; we saw fully geared-up law enforcement with rifles, body armour and helmets, with a big truck standing around this building, just so people can go in and have some sense of security.

The Jewish community alone has spent over $100,000 in security costs, and now they pay more. They’ll pay $107,000, because we just added PST to something. I won’t, you know…. It’s not this bill, I realize, but let’s call it for what it is.

This represents a surge of more than 1,300 percent compared to pre–October 2023 costs for the Jewish community. That’s not small. That’s not insignificant. That is not a sustainable or acceptable long-term solution. If this government is serious about addressing hate, intimidation and targeted harassment, then Bill 13 must be accompanied by meaningful investment in public safety, public policing and community supports. Just to pass it here in Victoria is going to be meaningless.

The key aspect is enforcing existing laws on racism — zero tolerance — but we have seen none of that. Creating the buffer zone is one thing; ensuring that it is respected and enforced is another. That is why new legislation is meaningless unless it comes with enforcement.

Finally, I want to acknowledge an important inclusion in this bill, the sunset clause. The act is set to expire after four years. That is a prudent measure. It recognizes that legislation is being introduced in response to a specific moment and a set of circumstances. It gives future legislators the opportunity and, indeed, I would say, the responsibility, to revisit the law, assess its effectiveness and determine whether it remains necessary. This is good governance, but it also underscores the importance of getting this right, from the beginning.

Bill 13 is, in many ways, a balancing act. It seeks to protect individuals from harm, intimidation and fear, while also navigating the complex terrain of constitutional freedoms. Those are not easy lines to draw. We should support the principle that people must be able to worship safely. At the same time, we must ensure that in protecting that right, we do not unnecessarily or unintentionally erode other fundamental freedoms.

So let us proceed with care. Let us ensure that definitions are precise, that enforcement is proportionate, that rights are balanced, not overridden. Let us remember that the goal is not simply to pass a law or legislation but to strengthen the fabric of a society where people of all faiths and all viewpoints can coexist safely, with dignity and mutual respect.

Hon. Grace Lore: I’m grateful for the opportunity to speak to this legislation. I’ve got a few comments that I want to tie to my community, particularly those who participated on the day the bill was introduced, but I feel called to start my remarks in a bit of response and engagement with the previous speaker.

I heard from my colleague across the way that threats to places of worship started in 2021 and that the origins of these challenges can be found in 2021. I want to draw this House’s attention to the deaths of six people and to 19 more who were injured in an attack on a mosque in Quebec in 2017. In 2020, a mosque caretaker was murdered.

[3:20 p.m.]

We have to come to these conversations, to this debate on this legislation with a lens of the impact of threats to and violence in places of worship. I think members of this House should take that responsibility very seriously.

I will touch briefly on one other remark before I turn to mine. The speaker before me raised very significant concerns for people who fear being who they are, whether that’s in a place of worship, whether that’s at a post-secondary institution, and that we must take action to ensure that nobody feels targeted for who they are or feels unsafe being who they are.

That cannot apply to one group, and I fear that my colleague across the way left that rather narrow. On Trans Day of Visibility, I just feel called to speak to the reality that many people face barriers to being who they are, and we have a responsibility in this House to stand up for all of them.

I think that what this legislation does is give us additional tools to ensure that people are able to live with their faith, to practise their faith and to gather with their community in those sacred places.

On the day this legislation was introduced, I was incredibly privileged to be joined here by a number of faith leaders from my community here — which, I have since learned, is called a “wisdom” — Christ Church Cathedral, Congregation Emanu-El, the Masjid, as well as Khalsa Diwan Society, the temple on Topaz, Church of Latter-day Saints, as well as the Hindu temple.

It was beautiful to have them all here, and they were all here because this is a valuable tool. It is not the only tool in the toolkit for addressing what we’ve discussed. I recognize the concerns members across the way have raised about other tools, overlapping tools, etc. They were here, and I know that, unfortunately, many of them have faced threats, have faced graffiti. I have been to events in my community where police have hung out outside the synagogue or have been near the mosque.

I would say that feels especially true, feels especially heavy in the current global context. I know that members of my community, both Muslim and Jewish, have felt that. I also know that when we introduced this legislation, there was an opportunity for the first time to introduce the new imam to some of the board members at Congregation Emanu-El.

This was an opportunity to introduce several folks who dedicate immeasurable hours of their time and their heart and their energy to their faith but also to their religious community, to their community that comes together at their place of worship for worship but, indeed, to lift each other up, to celebrate births, to hold each other when it comes to loss, weddings, meal trains. The number of things that happen in these communities, in these spaces, touches all areas of our lives.

I feel myself in this moment today feeling that gratitude for what happens in and through religious communities, in all our constituencies, and the weight of some of the previous speaker’s comments and the weight that the world is such that this legislation is necessary at this time.

[3:25 p.m.]

Yet it is. So this is not a piece of legislation that is out of step with other ways that tools like this have been employed. I, as I think all my colleagues are, and some have mentioned several times, a big believer in the right to protest, to have voices heard. I have, as I’m sure we all have in some form, participated. That is essential. Big change in our province, in our country, has happened coming out of protest, out of people organizing, out of people having their voices heard.

In the case of places of worship, you’re going to have to cross the street. We use this tool not as a challenge to the right to protest but as a way of creating that balance, as a tool in supporting the balance between the right to protest and the right to gather in worship.

A reality of rights is that they can exist in tension. There can be a push and a pull. Where we can create opportunities and tools to preserve both, when the solution is a sign clearly articulating a place of worship and the potential to still exercise your voice by crossing the street, we have protected a couple of rights with pretty minimal harm, with pretty minimal onus on all those involved.

So for me, what this offers is a recognition of the importance of sacred places, a recognition of what happens in and by and for communities in those places, and it ensures folks have lots of places to have their voices heard.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Doing so need not prevent someone else from being with community. As was said, I think, by members on both sides of the House, this is not dissimilar to legislation for bubble zones around places people can access abortions. Again, you may protest, and indeed, many people have probably seen folks existing across the street using other tools while people still have the right to safely access a place where they can get health care.

I think that I’ll by and large leave it there, except to tell one other brief story. Members across the way have raised the fear and concern regarding arson of churches over the years, a concern that I share.

I want to tell a little bit about what happened in this community in 2021. On Canada Day that year, a statue of Captain Cook ended up in the harbour. A few days later, a totem was lit on fire at the top of the Malahat.

What happened after that was that all of us elected to this place from the south Island, and not just MLAs but mayors, city councillors and police chiefs, were called with — I don’t know — 36 hours notice down to Songhees. Everybody came. There was conversation at that time in community for none of this and in nobody’s name. We were not going to have a statue in the harbour and a totem burnt. That was not how we were going to collectively address historical and ongoing pain.

Folks came together to hear from the Chief, to witness conversation in community. That was a full room. People whose, I’m sure, schedules were full found their way there.

[3:30 p.m.]

While this legislation gives us important tools, while it protects places of worship and it recognizes people’s right to access them while ensuring that there are ways to have voices heard, distances from which to do it, fundamentally, this is about coming together. It’s about having a conversation of what will happen in our names, what it looks like to decide as a community that people everywhere have the right to safety and support and that we problem solve through connection and not violence, whether that’s to a statue, whether that’s graffiti, whether that’s threats, whether that’s physical violence.

I think of that time and what we got called to listen to, to witness, to do differently and the introductions and the opportunities for connection among the faith leaders who came for the introduction of this bill.

This is a tool that will support us in protecting places of worship at a time when I believe we need to. But fundamentally, what we are all called to do — in this place especially but beyond — is to come together, to problem solve and to believe that connection above all else will move us forward.

Macklin McCall: I’m going to keep this pretty straightforward. People should be able to go to their place of worship and not have to think twice about their safety. That’s it. That’s the baseline.

But that’s not where we are right now. There are people in this province, families, who are making decisions about whether it’s safe to attend a service. They’re thinking about what might be happening outside before they even get there. That’s not normal, and we shouldn’t accept that as normal.

We’ve all seen what’s been happening. There has been an increase in targeting of religious communities and, in particular, a real rise in antisemitism. That’s not something distant. That’s happening here in British Columbia.

When that’s happening, people expect more than statements. They expect action that actually changes the situation. So I don’t think there’s any disagreement in here about the goal. People should be able to attend worship safely. They should not be intimidated, and they should not be blocked from getting in. That’s not a controversial position.

Where this starts to matter is how we get there. If we’re going to bring in legislation like this, then we need to be clear about what it’s actually doing and whether it’s dealing with the real issue or just reacting to what we’re seeing on the surface.

That’s what I want to walk through, and this is where I think we need to take a step back for a second, because this bill didn’t come out of nowhere. Government is responding to something real. There have been incidents. There has been pressure to act, and communities are saying they don’t feel safe. That part is clear.

But the question I keep coming back to is this: how did we get here? When people are having to worry about their safety just to attend worship, that’s not just a one-off issue. That points to something bigger. It tells you that somewhere along the way, the system that’s supposed to prevent that from happening isn’t doing what it’s supposed to do.

Now we’re here bringing in legislation to deal with it.

Again, I’m not saying don’t act. Of course, act.

But we should also be honest about what this represents. This is government stepping in after the fact, trying to manage a situation that has already escalated to the point where people don’t feel safe. I think that matters, because if we don’t look at how we got here, then we’re just going to keep responding the same way every time something like this happens.

There are communities right now that are spending significant money — their own money — just to make sure people can attend services safely. That shouldn’t be the expectation. Public safety is not something communities should have to fund on their own.

So yes, government is acting here. But at the same time, I think it’s fair to say this didn’t need to get to this point in the first place. That’s why, as we go through this, I think it’s important we don’t just look at what this bill is trying to do; we also look at whether it’s actually getting at the root of the problem.

[3:35 p.m.]

Now, I want to be clear about something before I go any further. We support this bill. People should be able to go to their place of worship without being intimidated, without being blocked and without having to worry about what’s happening outside. That’s not something anyone should have to argue for.

The idea behind this, creating a way to protect access, to deal with disruption, that part makes sense. But supporting this bill doesn’t mean we stop asking questions, because this can’t be the only answer and it can’t be treated like it solves the problem on its own. This is one piece, and if we’re being honest, it’s a piece that comes in after things have already gotten to a point where people don’t feel safe.

What concerns me is when legislation starts to become the go-to response instead of looking at whether the system we already have is being used the way it should be. Because we already have laws. We already have enforcement tools. We already have the ability to deal with behaviour that crosses the line.

While I support what this bill is trying to do, protecting people, protecting access, I think it’s important that we don’t treat this as the solution. It’s not. If anything, this should be a signal that something else isn’t working the way it should. And if we don’t address that, then we’re just going to keep coming back here, adding more legislation, trying to deal with the same issue from a different angle. That’s why I think we need to look a little deeper at what’s actually happening and how we’re choosing to respond to it.

That is where I think we need to bring this back to something pretty basic, because this is being talked about as a public safety issue. And I agree with that. If people are being intimidated, if access is being blocked, if there’s a disruption outside a place of worship, that is a public safety issue. There’s no question about that.

But if that’s the case, then we also need to be honest about something else. We already have the laws to deal with that kind of behaviour. They already exist. Police already have the authority to step in when things cross the line. That authority comes from the Criminal Code of Canada, and it covers the exact types of behaviour we’re talking about here. Intimidation, harassment, causing a disturbance, obstruction, mischief, causing fear — these are not new concepts. These are established offences that have been around for a long time.

They’re not just written down somewhere. They’ve been used. They’ve been applied in real situations. They’ve been tested in court, and they’ve been shaped over time to make sure they align with the Charter.

So when I hear that we need to bring in new legislation to deal with this type of behaviour, the question I have is: why? Because from a policing perspective, there isn’t a gap here. If someone is crossing the line into intimidation, there are already consequences for that. If someone is blocking access, there are already ways to deal with that. If someone is creating a disturbance that affects public safety, that can be already addressed.

That’s the system that’s in place. It’s a system that’s designed to balance enforcement with rights. So 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.

Because when behaviour like this is happening, and communities are still feeling unsafe, that tells you something. It tells you that either those laws aren’t being applied the way they should be, or there aren’t enough resources to apply them consistently. And 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. Because if the underlying issue is enforcement or capacity, then adding another layer doesn’t fix that. It just changes how we approach it. And before we move further down that path, I think it’s worth taking a closer look at what that actually means in practice.

This is where I think it’s important to understand what this actually looks like from a policing perspective, because there’s a real difference between enforcing a criminal offence and enforcing a provincial act. Those are not interchangeable.

[3:40 p.m.]

No matter what authority a province gives police, whether it is the ability to arrest or issue a ticket, it does not carry the same weight as a criminal offence. It just doesn’t.

A criminal offence operates at a higher standard. It has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. An officer needs reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed before taking action. There is a process that follows that is structured, well understood and consistent across the country. More importantly, it’s been tested over decades in courts, under scrutiny, with challenges that have shaped how those laws are applied.

So when a criminal charge is laid, everyone understands what that means. The public understands it. The courts understand it. Police understand it. There is weight behind it. There are real consequences attached to it. And there are tools that come with it that allow that situation to be managed properly beyond just the moment.

Provincial ticket is different. It operates at a lower threshold. It’s designed to address behaviour quickly and efficiently, usually for regulatory or lower-level offences.

Again, there is a place for that. We use those tools every day. The Motor Vehicle Act is a good example. The Liquor Control Act is another. Immediate roadside prohibitions. Those are all examples of where a provincial framework makes sense. Those are situations where the goal is compliance, not escalation. They are not designed to replace criminal law. They are designed to sit alongside it for specific types of behaviour.

But what we’re talking about here is different. This is not about convenience or efficiency. This is about conduct that, in many cases, already meets the threshold of criminal behaviour.

If someone is intimidating individuals trying to access a place of worship, if someone is blocking entry, if someone is creating a situation where people fear for their safety, those are not minor regulatory issues. Those are serious. And if they meet that threshold, they should be treated as such, because once you move away from that, once you start addressing that kind of conduct through a provincial framework, you are lowering the standard of response, and that has real consequences.

With a criminal charge, an officer has additional tools. They can release a person on conditions. They can impose restrictions not to return to that location, not to have contact with certain individuals, not to engage in certain behaviour. That creates ongoing protection. It doesn’t just deal with the moment. It manages what happens after.

This legislation doesn’t provide that same level of protection. It allows for an arrest, it allows for a ticket, but it doesn’t carry the same follow-through. And that matters because public safety is not just about what happens in the moment. It’s about preventing it from happening again.

There’s another point here that I think is important. In British Columbia, it is not common for provincial legislation to grant police the authority to arrest in this way. Typically, those powers come from the Criminal Code of Canada, which is a much stronger and more established legal framework. And there’s a reason for that, because an arrest is one of the most serious actions the state can take. It is the state limiting someone’s liberty. It directly engages the right to life, liberty and security of the person. That’s not something that is taken lightly.

In our system, that kind of intrusion is justified when someone commits a criminal offence within a framework that has been tested, challenged and upheld over time. This bill doesn’t come with that same history. It hasn’t been tested in the same way. And yet it is extending that level of authority into a different context.

From a practical standpoint, I’ll say this. If an officer is on scene and the behaviour meets the threshold of a criminal offence, they are going to use the criminal charge every time because it gives them stronger authority, it gives them clearer direction, and it gives them better tools to actually protect the people involved.

So when I look at this, I don’t see something that strengthens policing. I don’t see something that simplifies decision-making. If anything, it creates a parallel option that doesn’t carry the same clarity or consequences as what already exists. That doesn’t make the job easier.

At the end of the day, if someone commits a criminal act, they should be dealt with through criminal law. That’s what the system is there for. The response should match the seriousness of the behaviour, because the punishment should fit the conduct.

I want to talk about something that I think sits at the centre of this, because this bill doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It exists because communities don’t feel safe. When you get to a point where people are relying on legislation like this just to be able to access a place of worship, you have to ask why.

[3:45 p.m.]

Right now there are communities in this province, particularly Jewish communities, that are spending significant money on private security — not occasionally — every month. We’re talking about over $100,000 a month being spent just to make sure people can attend services safely.

Now think about that for a second: families going to worship, and security has to be part of the plan. That shouldn’t be the expectation in British Columbia. And what makes it worse is this. They’re not just paying for that security. They’re being taxed on it — 7 percent on PST — something they are being forced to put in place because they don’t feel protected otherwise. That’s not right.

Public safety is not something that should be downloaded onto communities. It’s not something people should have to fund themselves just to feel safe doing something as basic as attending worship. That’s the responsibility of the government.

So yes, this bill is a step. It acknowledges that there’s a problem, but it doesn’t address why communities are in the position to begin with. Because if people still feel the need to hire private security after this passes, then what has really changed? That’s the question.

You cannot solve a public safety issue by shifting the burden onto the people who are being affected by it. You cannot treat legislation like this as the solution when the underlying issue hasn’t been addressed. Because at the end of the day, people don’t want access zones. They don’t want security barriers. They don’t want to think about any of this. They just want to be able to go to their place of worship and feel safe. And right now, too many people don’t.

I think we also need to talk about what’s happening underneath all of this, because situations like this don’t just show up on their own. When communities start to feel less safe, when people start changing their behaviour, thinking twice about where they go or what they do, there’s usually a reason behind it.

Right now, the provincial RCMP contingent sits at 2,602 officers. That number hasn’t changed since 2012. Over a decade, not one additional officer has been added to the provincial contingent.

Think about everything that has changed over that same time period. Population has grown. Communities have expanded. The demands on policing have increased. The complexity of the work has increased. But the number of provincially funded officers has stayed exactly the same. So I think it’s more than fair to ask: has that had an impact? Has that contributed to what we’re seeing now?

Because policing isn’t static. You don’t just hold the line at the same level and expect the outcome to stay the same when everything around it is changing.

When capacity doesn’t keep up with demand, pressure builds. And eventually that pressure shows up somewhere. It shows up in response times. It shows up in how quickly police can get to a situation when something is happening. It shows up in visibility, whether there are officers present in communities in a way that people can actually see and feel. That visibility matters because policing isn’t just reactive. Presence alone changes behaviour. It deters. It reassures. It creates a sense that someone is there and that something will happen if the line is crossed.

When that presence starts to thin out, people notice. They may not always be able to explain it in technical terms, but they feel it. And when people feel that absence, they adjust. They start looking for ways to fill the gap themselves, which is exactly what we’re seeing here — places of worship bringing in private security; communities organizing their own security measures, spending significant amounts of money just to create a level of security that should already be there. This is not how this is supposed to work.

Public safety is a core responsibility of government. It is not something that should be downloaded onto communities, especially communities that are already dealing with being targeted. And if there had been a sustained effort over the years to increase that provincial complement even gradually, more officers, more presence, more capacity — that would have had an impact. More officers on the ground means more visibility. More visibility means stronger deterrence. Stronger deterrence means fewer situations escalating to the point where people feel unsafe. That’s the connection.

I believe it would go a long way toward what we’re talking about here: people being able to attend their place of worship without hesitation; people feeling secure in their communities without needing to think about additional measures.

Because at the end of the day, public safety isn’t built through legislation alone. It’s built through presence. It’s built through capacity. It’s built through making sure that when something happens, there are people there to deal with it. And if we don’t address that piece, then there’s always going to be reacting after the fact, instead of preventing it in the first place.

[3:50 p.m.]

When I look at this bill, I see something that is necessary, but I also see something that shouldn’t have been necessary. People should not be in a position where they need added protections just to attend worship. It should already be a given.

The fact that we’re here tells us something. It tells us that something in the system isn’t working the way it should. People need to be protected. Access needs to be protected. When there are real concerns about safety, government has to step in.

But we shouldn’t pretend that this is the solution, because it’s not. If the underlying issues aren’t addressed, if enforcement isn’t consistent, if resources aren’t there, if communities are still left to protect themselves, then nothing really changes. That’s what I keep coming back to.

People in this province should not have to think about security when they go to worship. They shouldn’t have to wonder what’s happening outside. They shouldn’t have to rely on private measures just to feel safe. That’s the standard, and right now we’re not there.

Yes, this bill is a step, but it’s not the answer. The answer is making sure that the systems we already have are working the way they’re supposed to, that the laws that already exist are being enforced and that the resources are there to support that.

At the end of the day, this comes down to something simple. People want to feel safe where they live, they want to feel safe practising their faith, and they want to know that the system is there to support that. That’s the expectation, and that’s what we should be delivering.

Amna Shah: I am so pleased to rise to speak in favour of Bill 13, an absolutely essential tool to protect places of worship across our province. I’m hoping that we can all agree on the principle of this bill. I’m hearing quite a bit of agreement already, which I’m pleased about.

I’m hoping to dive into some of the principles behind why this is so important for our communities. It’s not something that was just dreamt up overnight. It’s certainly something that was a result of significant consultation and feedback from communities themselves, faith communities.

Now, I just want to highlight that our democracy is built on the fundamental principles of inclusion and of respect. This includes the ability for you to practise your faith without fear, without intimidation, in safety, especially in sanctuaries like places of worship.

Really, places of worship are important centres of community in our broader communities. They’re especially important for immigrants. I was just recently speaking with a group, a racialized group, who told me directly, and they said: “Our folks who are newcomers to this country, the first place that they will either reach out to is their local church or their local community centre.” These are some of the initial lines of connection that people will have with their community.

Of course, the burden and the expectation on these places are quite high, but these are exceptional places to build connections. That’s why people trust places of worship.

Oftentimes, you will see that there will not just be faith services. There will be community events. There will be classes. I’ve even seen people do yoga at masjids. These are all-around feel-good places for people to come and connect with one another and take care of themselves. Really, these are built on these fundamental principles of inclusion and respect, and that is the heart of who we are as Canadians, as British Columbians.

[3:55 p.m.]

But in recent years, we’ve seen these increased threats, increased harassment, targeting places of worship in our communities. And I’m saying all places of worship — churches, synagogues, masjids, gurdwaras, Hindu temples, Buddhist temples. Across the board, we’re seeing a very concerning trend, and it’s not letting up.

That’s why it was important for us to be able to hear from communities, from our faith leaders in our communities, and ask them: “What can we do to help you? What can we do to support you?” And that is why this government has introduced this legislation to strengthen the protections that preserve the safe access to these places of worship for people who are attending their places of faith, because we know a lot of the fear and the stress that they feel is when they are coming to their place of worship.

I was actually quite proud to stand alongside faith leaders from masjids, synagogues, churches, gurdwaras and temples and support the introduction of this bill not too long ago in the Hall of Honour. We know that these new protections are going to ensure that people can gather in prayer, in celebration, in peace, while respecting the right to peaceful protest. And this is part of our government’s ongoing efforts to protect people in places that are meant to be safe, that are meant to be accessible for everybody.

So back to just seeing the concerning trend of this increasing rise in hatred and hate-motivated incidents targeted at such places of worship, I just want to share how impactful it has been for people in my community to have to deal with some of these hateful behaviours.

You know, I’ve heard stories of people who intend to disrupt the entry of worshippers to their place of worship, purposely ensuring that they’re not openly trying to very in-your-face block people but at the same time, pretending to just be in the way, intimidating, using foul language, making people uncomfortable. And the worst part is that they target our seniors, our kids, people who they feel are more vulnerable. There are individuals who exist like that in our communities. That’s not okay.

People who hold up these places of worship really practise the values of love for everybody, and they’re not the ones to go out there and be just as nasty to people. That’s not who they are. And we know that. We have to step up. We have to be able to protect them. We have to be able to put our foot down and say: “That is not acceptable.” So we have to find a creative way to do this. And I hear from the other side that there’s agreement in principle, but that there are already ways to do it. But this is a way to do it.

So I encourage everybody to support that, because when I hear from youth in my community that they used to go to church with their grandparents every Sunday but are now afraid to do so because they saw somebody with a loudspeaker saying all sorts of nasty things near the entrance gate of their church, and now their grandparents don’t want to go anymore because they don’t want to have to hear that vitriol, that’s upsetting. That’s upsetting.

That breaks the fabric of what brings our community together, and we can’t allow that to happen. That happens at our masjids too. That happens at our gurdwaras too in Surrey. So it’s a very serious issue, and we have to do all that we can do to protect these places of worship.

[4:00 p.m.]

And that is what this legislation is intended to do, to protect eligible places of worship while minimally impairing freedom of expression rights. As government, we are trying to find a balance between upholding people’s Charter–protected rights to free expression and allowing people to access their places of worship. Part of the reason why we chose this existing definition of “place of public worship” is to prevent undue infringement on Charter rights.

We know that more needs to be done to help in other places, to help people and organizations that are targeted by hate, and we’re continually exploring ways to do so. I’ll just address that I heard that there are already laws in place to address this now — you know: “Why do we need this?” Well, if everything is rosy and happy and dandy…. I don’t think that’s the case because, otherwise, faith communities would not be telling us that, would not be disagreeing with that.

Whatever we have now, it’s not enough. That’s why we need this legislation. We spoke to communities. We spoke to faith leaders. We spoke to faith organizations, and this is what they want. We heard loud and clear from them. We want to be able to have some signage that tells people, that deters people from thinking that they can engage in any form of behaviour.

People should be educated to know what they can and what they cannot do in sanctuaries. It should be made very clear to people. You can’t assume that somebody knows. Yeah, somebody may actually not know that what they’re doing is harmful to another person too. Really, one could argue that, but this clearly defines that.

That is why I am such a strong supporter of this legislation, because this was a community-driven, community-led process informing us, to guide us to where we are here today, debating the principle of this in this House. I’m again hoping that everybody agrees with that principle.

We have seen and we have witnessed a worrying rise in police-reported hate crimes over the last several years. Despite these increases in hate crimes, the ones that I’m talking about right now, they remain amongst the least reported offences. Black, Indigenous, people of colour, those of East and South Asian descent, other racialized, Jewish, Muslim, LGBTQ2S+ British Columbians continue to be targeted. It’s clear to me that we have a lot more work to do to ensure that people feel comfortable even reporting hate crimes to the police.

I’m pleased to say that B.C. is the only place in Canada with a dedicated hate crimes team, the RCMP B.C. Hate Crimes unit, which is responsible for investigating, for responding to hate-motivated offences across the province. Again, we see that it works. We see that it helps. So what do you do? You support.

I was so glad that our government took up expansion, to expand that unit to provide five additional officers. This just goes back to the community-led, partner-encouraged way in which we bring forth legislation and in the way in which we shape policy across the province. Really, the goal is protection, protecting our communities.

I want to thank all of those individuals, all of those organizations who took the time out to have such difficult and heavy conversations about these issues, such difficult conversations that that they were put to tears recalling some of the incidents that they have had to go through just simply trying to get closer to God in a place that they see as a house of God.

[4:05 p.m.]

I am a woman of faith, and I’m quite proud to say so. When I think of the protection of my faith, I can’t single that out as being the only thing that’s important to me.

It has to be everybody’s faith that should be protected — not just mine. What hurts somebody in a synagogue will hurt me one day. What hurts my neighbour in the gurdwara will hurt my brother in a masjid one day. I cannot fathom the thought of anybody who believes in something, in the way that I believe, feeling as though they’re hated going into their place of worship.

So I have a message to British Columbians: if you ever experience hateful behaviour, if you ever witness or are the recipient of hateful behaviour, or if you witness a hate crime, please report it. Please report it to your local police. It is important that we understand, that we record, that we give you the supports that you need and then strengthen our legislation to protect you.

Our government has no tolerance for any kind of hate crime or discrimination against any group or individual in B.C. We know that a single incident can even affect not just one person but a group and also a larger community, and that hate can oftentimes be targeted. That’s why we have worked with police to expand accessible, online hate-reporting options, in multiple languages, to reduce barriers to reporting, so that people can access these services in a way that feels easier for them.

These tools, these pieces of legislation, are so important to people because there’s one thing that I’ve noticed about places of worship in my community. They’re run by elders, they are run by dedicated volunteers, they are run by youth, and all of these individuals put the love in there. They don’t have a lot of money, yet they put in everything that they have to not only sustain but to really expand their community within that place and beyond.

It was important to us.… We had heard at the time that there were acts of vandalism, that people were coming in the night, spray-painting nasty words on walls — really, some things that are so disturbing. I mean, I definitely can’t repeat them in this House — it would be unparliamentary language — and I won’t, because I don’t think anybody needs to hear that.

What we decided to do was to deliver grants to enhance safety for groups that are targeted by hate or by violence. This was the anti-hate stream within the civil forfeiture grant program, which provided grants to eligible places of worship that had experienced such hate and that had sustained damages to their sites, and that were seeking to enhance their security measures to protect themselves from these types of things in the future.

I’m quite pleased to know that there are many places of worship that utilized that program and that that program continues. Also, what I know, from my interactions with my community, has been really helpful, especially in places of worship — because this is where the conversations really simmer and get started — is the introduction of our racist incident help line.

[4:10 p.m.]

Some of our communities, their faiths, their places of worship, are often targeted by very racist behaviour. Some of the things that have happened to them have been because of ignorance, because of arrogance, maybe not knowing who they are — but nonetheless harmful and very racist in nature.

While I’m glad that the individuals, who have since then accessed supports via the help line…. It’s sad to see that this resource is needed in our communities.

I agree with some of the members on the other side. We should live in a world where none of this has to exist. I agree. I wish that we did not have to do this at all. I wish everyone cared for each other. I wish people did not hate on each other. I wish people helped make each other feel safe. But that’s not the reality of where we are.

When we bring in legislation, it has to be thoughtful. It has to respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You can’t just really do anything that you want and put down words on a piece of paper. It has to be thoughtful.

There are, yes, sometimes limitations with what it is that you can do. But the important thing is that you’re working with communities to be able to support them in what it is that they want.

There is no uneven application of this. This applies, again, to every place of worship under the definition. So I really just want to stress why it’s important for us to see it that way, because I think that there is a notion out there that this somehow only protects certain communities, certain places of worship. That’s not true.

Communities may have questions, and I know that we’re happy to answer. But in this stage, in this second reading, it should be a very easy yes. It should be a very easy aye. I really can’t imagine that somebody would disagree with the principle of this, so it is really, in fact, very simple.

Just looking to the future of how I see our places of worship really beautifying our communities, which they already do…. Legislation like this gives me hope for them to be able to continue to enrich our lives, not just as legislators but as human beings, as members of the community, as family members, as parents, as daughters, as brothers, as sisters.

Really, that type of love you can’t find in a lot of places. So for individuals in our communities, our faith leaders…. Those who encourage love in our community deserve love and much more. This is one of the ways in which we can express that, actually.

I’m so pleased that this has made it to the floor and that we are engaging in debate on this. But this is not over. This is, again, just one thing that can help us move in the right direction to protect our communities. There’s a lot of work to be done.

I really caution anybody from minimizing the impact of something like this, because when you minimize the impact of this legislation, you minimize the feedback of the individuals who want this. Those were our faith leaders. Those were our faith communities. They are our faith leaders. They are our faith communities. So we’re going to continue listening to them in the development of all subsequent legislation.

[4:15 p.m.]

But as of right now, I think that this is one of the most thoughtful ways in which we could protect our places of worship.

I encourage everybody in the House to join me in supporting this and work on solutions together. You know, we don’t have to constantly go back and forth in arguing about everything in this chamber. There are some things that we can all agree on. It doesn’t need to be a fight. This is one of those things.

We hear beautiful prayers in this House every single day. It’s such a reminder for me and, I think, everybody, all members of this House, about the principles of faith that guide us through life or that, maybe, should guide us through life. It’s beautiful for all of us.

But when we’re talking about this right now, some of the very places of worship in which those prayers are repeated every single day, morning, noon, night…. Why wouldn’t we want to protect that? Why wouldn’t we want to support this wholeheartedly and say: “You know what? Yes, we have more work to do, but this is going to get us there. Absolutely.”

I encourage all of our colleagues to support this bill. Thank you for listening.

Heather Maahs: Let’s start by talking about what Bill 13 is and what it isn’t.

We’ve seen support for this bill from organizations like CIJA. I would encourage everyone here to read their press release and understand why they feel this legislation is necessary. Their concerns are real. The fear and the rise in antisemitism that Jewish communities are experiencing today is real, and it’s serious.

But as the opposition, it is our responsibility to look beyond support, beyond headlines and beyond intention and ask a very simple question: does this bill actually solve the problem that it claims to address? If it does not, then we are not doing our job.

In order to battle antisemitism and hostilities around other faith groups, we must look to the root of the problem that Jewish people have faced for hundreds of years. And that is tolerance for hatred against them. Hatred has been ignored. It has been excused. At times, it has been justified. History has shown us very clearly where that leads.

Now, in this day and age, this is no longer something that only Jewish people are facing. This is something that Christians also are now experiencing. We’ve seen this recently with the federal Bill C-9. This newest iteration of legislation has raised serious concerns because it promotes, in effect, hostility towards both Jews and Christians in what we refer to as Judeo-Christian values. We know this is not speculation, because a federal minister explicitly named three books of the Bible that he considers to be hate speech in justifying his bill.

All that to say, as a Christian, I stand in solidarity with the Jewish community. We have seen what persecution has done, especially during the Second World War, and we cannot allow ourselves to go down that path again. Jewish people must not be persecuted for who they are as a people, and they must not be persecuted for their religious beliefs.

Perhaps this bill is well-intentioned by the government. Perhaps they truly believe — and as we have heard, they do believe — that this is the solution, or the beginning of the solution, to the increasing number of attacks on Jewish people.

[4:20 p.m.]

If that is the case, then I will say this. I applaud that effort. But effort is not the same as effectiveness, because all we need to do is look at what happened with the Safe Access to Schools Act. That legislation came about after a large-scale protest, particularly from parents and citizens who disagreed with SOGI 123. What did the government do? They decided to create safe access zones around the schools, effectively limiting the ability of parents and taxpayers to express their concerns.

Although that bill was presented as a way to protect children, what it actually did was censor people who disagreed with government policy. In many cases, a lot of those people were the parents themselves.

Now we’re seeing the same approach again. Bill 13 proposes to create protective zones around places of worship. But we have to ask, what does that actually accomplish? Does it prevent antisemitism? Does it stop violence? Does it reduce the need for synagogues to spend $100,000 every month on private security due to the risk of terrorism? The answer is obvious. It does not. It is, quite simply, paying lip service to safety.

Putting up a barrier does not stop someone who is intent on doing harm. We know this. We have seen school shootings. We have seen acts of terror. We have seen violence carried out in spite of every effort to create safe zones.

In Canada and B.C., we have seen churches burned to the ground. The last one was in Burns Lake. That was in December this past year. To suggest that drawing a boundary around a place of worship will prevent arson or destruction is simply not grounded in reality.

So what are the actual issues that are creating the need to protect places of worship? We don’t have to look far. Every single Saturday, there is a pro-Palestinian protest on the front lawn of this Legislature. Within those protests, we hear calls for Israel to be removed from the map. That is antisemitism. At the same time, we have one of our largest unions in this province, the BCTF, endorsing boycotts against Israel in solidarity with that movement. So we have to ask, isn’t that hate speech? Don’t we already have laws against that?

Here’s the point. Restricting where people can protest does not change what they are saying, it does not eliminate hatred, and it certainly does not solve the problem.

So what is the solution? The solution is not new legislation that limits where people can stand. The solution is enforcing the laws we already have. We already have laws against hate speech. We already have laws against inciting violence. We already have laws against destruction of property and terrorism.

Let’s empower the RCMP and law enforcement to enforce those laws. We heard this morning that the RCMP have not increased their numbers since 2012. That’s a problem. Let’s support them in doing their job without infringing on the rights and freedoms that are protected under the Canadian Charter. In reality, this bill flies in the face of that Charter.

One of the most troubling aspects of this bill, just like the Safe Access to Schools Act and similar to the federal Bill C-9, is the expansion of police powers. This bill allows for individuals to be arrested, without a warrant, based on what is described as “reasonable grounds.”

[4:25 p.m.]

That is a significant shift because now we are no longer dealing strictly with clear violations of the law. We are dealing with subjective interpretation, and that should terrify us. It gets worse because the bill also allows action to be taken against someone who is considered “likely” to contravene the law. Not someone who has done something wrong but somebody who might. This introduces the concept of a potential crime and, on the face of it, that should concern every single one of us because that is a dangerous precedent for us to set.

We are placing an enormous burden on law enforcement. Police officers are now expected to act not just on evidence but on judgment, on interpretation, on what they believe might happen. The officers I’ve spoken with want no part of that. They want clarity. They want objectivity. They want to enforce the law as it exists, not to be put in a position where they must interpret intent.

There is also inconsistency in this bill. Unions, for example, are not affected in the same way. They are allowed to picket within these zones because their activities fall under what is considered “prescribed.” So again, we have to ask, if this is about safety, why are there exceptions? Why are some groups allowed to operate within these zones while others are not?

As His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, it is our job to look at this bill, and every other bill, objectively. What we are saying is this. This bill will not accomplish what the title suggests. It will not achieve what organizations like CIJA are hoping it will achieve. It is at best a well-intentioned attempt, but it is not the solution because it does not address the root of the problem. It does not stop antisemitism, it does not stop violence, it does not stop churches from being burned down, and it does not remove the need for costly security measures.

What it does do is create the appearance of action. It allows the government to say they have done something but in reality, it is virtue-signalling. This bill needs to go deeper. It needs to address the root of the problem and that starts with enforcing the laws that already exist.

Nothing is more sacred than the freedom to worship and the freedom to speak. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is very clear: “Everyone has the fundamental freedom of conscience and religion; thought, belief, opinion and expression; peaceful assembly; and association.” These are not suggestions. These are rights.

While this bill claims to protect access to places of worship, that has never been the core issue. The core issue is safety. The issue is violence. The issue is hatred. Those laws are addressed not by restricting space but by enforcing the law.

I will say this to government in conclusion. This is a nice try. It’s a great attempt. But this isn’t it. We owe it to the Jewish communities. We owe it to people of faith. We owe it to every Canadian to do better than this.

Claire Rattée: This bill is about something that should never be controversial in a free and democratic society. That is the simple right of British Columbians to attend their place of worship in safety, without fear, without intimidation and without disruption. We have a responsibility in this House to ask the obvious question, though. Why is this necessary right now?

[4:30 p.m.]

We are not debating this legislation in a vacuum. We are debating it at a time when antisemitism is rising at an alarming rate, when religious institutions are being targeted, when families are afraid to attend services and when communities are being forced to take safety into their own hands.

Nowhere in this province is that clearer than in the Jewish community, where in British Columbia today, Jewish organizations are spending over $100,000 every single month on private security just to protect their schools, their synagogues and their community spaces. We should all pause and reflect on what that means, because that is not normal, that is not acceptable, and that is not something any community in this province should have to shoulder on their own.

Yet at the very same time that these communities are being forced to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars just to protect themselves, this government is taxing that security, applying 7 percent PST to the very measures people are taking to keep their families safe.

So while this bill acknowledges a real problem, it also highlights a deeper failure. If this government had done its job on public safety, if communities felt protected, if law enforcement and resources were keeping pace with rising threats, then we would not be in a situation where people are forced to hire private security just to be able to attend religious services.

This bill creates what are commonly referred to as “bubble zones,” establishing a 20-metre access zone around places of worship where individuals cannot block access, disrupt services, intimidate individuals or engage in behaviour that causes fear for physical or mental safety.

These are not radical ideas. In fact, they are based on legal frameworks that have already been upheld in this province. We have seen similar protections in place under the Access to Abortion Services Act, and the courts have been very clear that rights like freedom of expression are not absolute and can be reasonably limited, especially when the goal is to protect vulnerable people accessing lawful services. And that is exactly what this bill is attempting to do. It is trying to strike a balance between the right to protest and the right to worship safely.

Let me be clear. We strongly support the right to peaceful assembly. It is a fundamental freedom protected under the Charter. But there is a line. There is a difference between peaceful protest and intimidation, between expression and harassment and between dissent and deliberately targeting people as they try to enter a place of public worship. When that line is crossed, government has a responsibility to act.

But legislation alone does not create safety. You can draw a line on a map, you can define a 20-metre boundary, you can pass legislation in this House, but if there are not adequate police resources, consistent enforcement and meaningful consequences, then those lines become purely symbolic. People are not asking for symbolism right now. They are asking for safety.

I also want to address another aspect of this bill that deserves attention, which is that under clause 5, police are given the authority to make warrantless arrests for violations of this act. While similar powers exist in other legislation, this is still a significant tool that underscores the seriousness with which these offences should be treated.

But it also raises an important question, which is whether this power will actually be used. We have seen time and time again in this province that laws exist on paper, but enforcement falls short in practice. So the question for government is not just whether it will pass this bill. The question is whether it will ensure that it is enforced, because without enforcement, this bill risks becoming yet another example of government responding to a crisis with legislation without addressing the underlying causes.

And those causes are real. We are seeing rising hate, increased polarization, a breakdown in public safety and a growing sense among many communities that they are on their own.

If this government were taking this crisis as seriously as it requires, they would address the underlying issues that are contributing to it. Rather than pointing the finger at others, they would address this issue by leading by example.

When they were told that there was a problem with antisemitism within their own caucus, rather than address it, they mocked the member that raised it and publicly shamed her.

Rather than addressing extremism and terrorism within our own province, they let Charlotte Kates, the international coordinator for Samidoun who referred to the October 7 attacks as heroic and brave, walk free and continue to spread hate and fear in our communities — a choice that has directly contributed to the fear and violence that we are seeing today.

When faced with difficult choices on this matter, they always seemed to make the wrong one.

This government could have prevented this from being a problem in the first place if they had the courage to act when it mattered. None of this would have been necessary if they had chosen to lead by example, to prosecute those who broke the law, to enforce the laws that were already on the books. But they did not, and now we are here.

Protecting places of worship should not be controversial. It should not be partisan, and it should not take rising threats and targeted incidents to finally act. This should be a basic function of government.

And that brings me to my final point. If this government is serious about standing against antisemitism, if it is serious about protecting faith communities and if it is serious about public safety, then this bill cannot be the end of the conversation.

[4:35 p.m.]

We must support stronger enforcement, support better resourcing for police, support real consequences and end policies that shift the burden of safety onto communities themselves, including ending the taxation of security services that people are being forced to rely on, because no one in this province should have to pay extra just to feel safe attending their place of worship. Not now and not ever.

We will continue to hold this government accountable to ensure that this is not just another symbolic gesture but a meaningful step toward restoring safety, dignity and security for every British Columbian.

George Anderson: As I begin, I would just like to say thank you to the communities that participated in the consultation for this bill.

I rise in support of Bill 13, the Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act, and I do so with a very clear understanding of what is before us. This bill is not about choosing one religion over another. It is not about preferring faith over non-faith. It is not about insulating belief from criticism. It is not about declaring that disagreement is unlawful.

It is something more basic than that. It is about whether a person in British Columbia can approach a place of worship in peace. It’s about whether a parent can walk a child to a synagogue, a mosque, a mandir, a gurdwara or a church without wondering what waits at the door. It’s about whether an elder with a cane, a family member arriving at a funeral, a young person coming for prayer or a newcomer seeking community must first run through a gauntlet of menace before they may enter a sacred space.

That isn’t a small question because the freedoms that we celebrate in this country are not abstractions floating above the ground. They are lived, they’re embodied, and they’re exercised by human beings in real places. Places where people worship are not the places where protests should be taking place.

A right that exists only in theory but fails at the threshold is weakened in right. A democracy that cannot protect the walk to worship has a misunderstanding of what freedom requires. In a free society, people will differ. They will differ passionately. They will differ morally, politically, philosophically and spiritually. That isn’t a weakness of our democracy; that is one of the defining strengths of our democracy.

But the line we must hold is this: that disagreement should never be and cannot be intimidation, and protests cannot become domination over another person’s access to a protected civic and spiritual place. That’s what Bill 13 recognizes. In my respectful view, I recognize it with care because one of the most important things to understand about Bill 13 is that, similar to Bill 12, it is not a broad instrument of suppression. It’s drafted with a very narrow instrument of access.

That distinction matters because the state should not police theology. It shouldn’t be casting its judgment over who chooses what their faith is. The state should never decide which prayers are worthy and which are not because the state does have a solemn obligation to ensure that all British Columbians, regardless of their faith, can gather in safety and dignity under the protection of the law. That is not the state taking sides in religion. That is the state taking the side of public order and freedom under the law.

[4:40 p.m.]

One of the things that did impress me about the different communities that came out to participate in this particular press release was the variety of faith organizations saying that this was the correct decision to make.

When people target places of worship, they’re not merely expressing a view. They are striking at belonging. They are sending a message to a community: “You may be present here, but you may not be secure here. And you may gather here, but only on the terms set out by those outside your doors. You might worship here, but only if you accept harassment as the cost of doing so.”

That is not pluralism, and that type of behaviour is something that all British Columbians should reject.

That’s why it was impressive to me to see the variety of groups such as Reverend Dan Chambers of the United Church of Canada and many others who came forward to say this is the right direction and that British Columbia needs to ensure that places of worship are respected.

There has been some discussion about whether or not there is a need for this particular type of legislation. Well, I’d like to lay out some facts and some statistics. Stats Canada reported 1,342 police-reported hate crimes targeting religion in 2024, essentially unchanged from 2023, but following a 154 percent increase from 2020 to 2023.

In 2024, most religion-targeted hate crimes were directed at Jewish and Muslim communities, with the remainder including other faith communities, such as Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist and Christian communities. And we have to be careful with numbers, but we should not be casual about what they reveal, and that is that the pressure on religious communities in recent years has been real and it has not been confined to one tradition.

That wider context matters because this bill should not be understood solely as a response from one community alone. It should be understood as a statement of principle for everyone. For the Jewish family who is headed to a synagogue, for a Muslim family, for a Sikh family, for Hindus, for Christian families gathering at their place of worship. For the person of deep faith or the person rediscovering their faith. For the mourner, for the volunteer, for the person seeking meaning after loss. For the child who does not yet have the words for theology but knows whether or not parents have made the entrance feel safe or frightening.

That child matters in this debate because in law, we often speak in the language of balancing proportionality and statutory interpretation. And those are important aspects to consider. The question that I believe is very important when we take away those legal tests is whether or not that child remembers the door to prayer as a place that was welcoming or a place that was fearful. That is the human question beneath this bill. And that is why I support it.

What also persuades me is the architecture of the bill. Section 1 is more important than it may appear at first reading. It doesn’t leave the term “place of public worship” hanging in there as an undefined abstraction. It ties the definition to existing categories under the Community Charter, Vancouver Charter, and Taxation Act, which allow regulatory-making authority to include or exclude classes of property. Section 1 also defines “interference.”

Section 2 sets out the core prohibitions. Here, again, the bill is more disciplined than some of the critics may suggest. It prohibits four things in access zones — impeding entry or exit; disrupting activities; engaging in defined interference; intimidation, including conduct or words that could reasonably be expected to cause concern for a person’s physical or mental safety.

[4:45 p.m.]

It also prohibits wilful participation in a gathering whose participants are engaging in that conduct. That last feature matters because organized intimidation can be every bit as coercive as an individual act, and the law should not be blind to that.

Just as importantly, section 2 does not sweep everything into its grasp. It expressly exempts activities authorized by the owner or occupier, lawful strikes, lockouts, picketing under the Labour Relations Code and any prescribed activities or classes of activities — again, a very clear delineation in this bill which demonstrates restraint.

When we look at sections 3 and 4, that conclusion is even furthered, in that there are no traps in this particular bill. It’s not an invisible offence zone that a person stumbles into by accident. An access zone is established only when signs are posted and clearly visible in daylight under normal weather conditions from specified approaches. Those signs must identify the place of worship, indicate the areas included in the zone and set out the relevant prohibitions. The bill even prohibits removal, alteration or defacement of those signs by persons other than the owner or occupier.

In other words, the law insists on notice, and notice matters because notice is part of fairness. It is part of legality, and again this bill, with its narrow focus and sunset clauses that are included, demonstrates the intent of restraint.

The multi-use building feature is also important, because not every congregation occupies a stand-alone building. Some lease spaces. Some share spaces. Some worship in mixed-use facilities. Some are newer communities without the financial means to own large, dedicated properties. A bill that protected only stand-alone institutions would fail many of the very communities most vulnerable to intimidation.

Bill 13 does not make that mistake. It recognizes the practical realities of religious life and a diverse, modern province. That, too, is part of equality.

Then we arrive at sections 5 and 6, which look at enforcement. Whenever a bill authorizes arrest without warrant, legislators should pay attention. We should never become casual about such powers, but neither should we pretend that ongoing obstruction or intimidation at a site of worship can always wait for ordinary timelines to unfold.

Section 5 authorizes warrantless arrests only where a police officer believes on reasonable grounds that section 2 is being contravened. That is not a hunch. That is not a vibe. That is a recognized legal threshold. It is there for a reason.

Section 6 adds an injunctive remedy through the Supreme Court available on application by the Attorney General or any other person, including interim, without-notice relief where the circumstances justify it. That tells me that this bill is not built on punishment first. It’s actually built on the prevention and restoration of access, which is the intent and purpose of this bill.

If the issue is that people cannot safely enter a place of worship, then a legal response that arrives only after the damage is done is incomplete. Injunctive relief matters because it allows the law to respond prospectively, not retrospectively. It allows a court to say: “This conduct must stop now.” This is what a serious access statute should do.

Section 8, as I was mentioning earlier, is also significant. The act is repealed four years after coming into force, unless repealed earlier by regulation.

[4:50 p.m.]

That means the House is not being asked to write a permanent blank piece of legislation that will go on, where some members of the opposition have raised concerns about whether or not this is the right piece of legislation that will actually address the concerns of different faith communities.

It actually says this is time-limited, a right is being reserved, and we have an obligation, as legislatures, to revisit the measure to ensure whether or not it is necessary. Similar to the Safe Access to Schools Act, another measure and marker of proportionality…. When a legislature chooses to add a sunset clause, in my opinion, it acknowledges that extraordinary or targeted measures need to be reviewed and not normalized forever.

That brings me to the Charter as well, because we should confront it directly. Any serious speech in support of this bill must do so. Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects freedoms of conscience and religion, freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly, all of which are subject to reasonable limits that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

That means we do not honour the Charter by invoking only the freedom we happen to like in the moment. We honour the Charter by taking all of its guarantees seriously and by doing the work of reconciling them through law.

This is what I do not accept — a simplistic framing that says any restriction near a place of worship must automatically be an affront to liberty. I would ask: liberty for whom? Freedom for whom? The person speaking, of course, but also the person who is walking in, the elder arriving for prayer, also the child entering a service, also the family member attending a funeral, also the congregant whose right is not merely to believe privately but to join a community and practise that belief safely.

The Charter is not a hierarchy in which one person’s liberty devours another person’s security. And section 1 of the Charter exists precisely because a mature democracy understands that rights sometimes press against one another in real space. When they do, the answer is not to abandon the law. The answer is to legislate carefully, and that, in my view, is what Bill 13 does. It is a prescribed law. It is a geographically limited law. It is a law that’s activated only through posted notice, and it is tailored to access.

It leaves open, broad alternative avenues for public expression beyond the zone. It preserves lawful labour activity. It excludes private residences and non-public areas. It includes judicial supervision through the injunction process, and it sunsets. There are no incidental details. They are the very features that make the bill measured.

Let us be honest about the distinction at the heart of this debate. There is a profound difference between expressing disagreement with religion and confronting people at the place in which they worship.

Last year I had the privilege of touring the Vancouver Holocaust education museum, and I met with Nico Slobinsky. We were having this conversation about the rise of antisemitism and the challenges that the people he knows, his community, is facing every day. I still remember the comments that he made to me: “People are free to protest, but why do you need to protest at the place where I go to pray?” That moment has continued to stick with me since we met last year.

[4:55 p.m.]

I’m glad that we are moving forward with this piece of legislation or this particular bill to ensure that people who are going to a sacred place know that they can feel safe within the place that they go to worship.

I’ve said this earlier that I don’t believe that this bill in any way makes a criticism of religion — that it’s unlawful, etc. It’s not. People are free to argue, to write, to organize, to preach contrary views, to protest elsewhere, publish articles, hold signs in lawful places, advocate for reform, denounce institutions and contest ideas. Our public squares remain open.

But what this bill says is narrower and entirely reasonable: you may not convert the immediate threshold of worship into an instrument of fear. That is civility backed by law, and I think we should reject the notion that the only liberties worth defending are the loud ones.

There is a liberty in quiet arrival, and there is liberty in safe entry. There is liberty in being able to step through a door without being harassed, jostled, surrounded, taunted, photographed or made afraid. There is liberty in collective worship, unbroken by calculated disruption. Sometimes the law must protect those quieter liberties precisely because they are easier to overlook.

There are many faiths throughout British Columbia, throughout Canada, throughout the world, and I can think of the times of entering my own church and knowing that I could walk through that space without fear. It wasn’t until having, again, attended an event with the Jewish community that I saw armed guards — to see a negativity around a space in which people were trying to connect with their community.

People deserve to be able to worship in whatever way they want without intimidation. People should not have fear to pray in their sacred spaces for fear that others may come and disrupt their moments of worship. That is something that I believe all of us as legislators should be able to uplift, to ensure that people are able to pray, to worship, to practise their faith in the way that is most meaningful to them.

I mentioned earlier in my comments that the interfaith response to this bill is very telling. You have leaders from the Sikh, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Christian communities each describing in their own way the destabilizing effect of threatening or agitating conduct around worship spaces, and the value of clear access protections. And that breadth matters. It is an interfaith appeal for the ordinary conditions of belonging.

That is what moves me about this bill, because places of worship are not only important because they host formal religious observance. They’re important because they are often among the last places in public life where people can gather across generations, where children see elders, where meals are shared, where grief is carried together, where loneliness is interrupted, where newcomers find orientation, where traditions are passed on.

In many communities, a place of worship is not only where people pray. It’s where they’re fed, where they’re welcomed, mourned, married, remembered, where they are taught to serve a cause that is larger than themselves.

[5:00 p.m.]

Last year I gave a speech that I titled “The Courage to Belong.” I think that this bill gives people that opportunity to have that courage to belong. And in that moment, I said:

“Courage is a bridge between fear and fairness. Courage is the act that precedes compassion. We cannot legislate love, but we can lead with courage. We cannot erase the past, but we can face it with courage. We cannot stop every act of hate, but we can drown it out with the sheer volume of courage and care.

“Hate divides easily, but courage unites us deeply. If hate spreads like fire, then let courage spread like light so that in our time, let it be said that British Columbians stood together, that we had the courage to see one another fully and to love one another fiercely.”

That is, again, the basis on which we are speaking about this bill. I think it is so important that we ensure that people who are also trying to live their everyday lives can know that they don’t have to worry to do something as basic and as profound and as important to them as to be able to feel safe as they enter a place of worship.

Intimidation works precisely by forcing the target to absorb the burden — to hurry, to lower their eyes, to alter their route, to change their behaviour, to bring fewer children, to skip a service or just to not go at all; to wonder whether today is worth the stress, to begin slowly and quietly to withdraw. That’s why the law must intervene before exclusion succeeds in practice.

Bill 13 responds to that reality. It says that in British Columbia, access to worship cannot depend on a person’s tolerance for harassment. It says that religious freedoms will not be confined to the inside of a building when the state shrugs at what happens at the perimeter.

When we protect minority communities, we strengthen our democracy. When we insist that a person may approach a place of worship in peace, we do not diminish liberty. We deepen it. We deepen it by saying that neutrality amongst religious organizations does not mean passivity in the face of intimidation. We deepen it by saying that equal citizenship includes the right to arrive without fear.

Let me say this as plainly as I can. You may disagree with a faith. You may reject religion entirely. You may criticize institutions, doctrines, histories, belief. All of that remains part of a free society, but you are not free to turn another person’s place of worship into a theatre of intimidation. You are not free to make the doorway to prayer a site of coercion. You are not free to subordinate another person’s security to your chosen mode of demonstration when the law has made a narrow and reasonable line.

That line is what Bill 13 draws, not recklessly or permanently but clearly. And sometimes that is what the law is meant to do, to draw a line clearly enough so that communities know that they are protected and society knows that it will not accept it.

I support this bill because it reflects a decent society’s minimum promise to its people that if they gather lawfully to pray, to mourn, to celebrate, to seek God or stand simply in community with one another, they will not be forced to do so under a cloud of intimidation. That is not a grand demand. It’s a modest one.

Once people lose faith that they can enter a sacred space in peace, we see the erosion of trust. Belonging erodes. Pluralism erodes, and when pluralism erodes, democracy is poorer for it.

[5:05 p.m.]

I support the bill because it, again, puts liberty…. It gives liberty a structure in which there are practical protections.

As I begin to close, I just want to say that I believe that in British Columbia, every person should be able to walk through the doors of places of worship with dignity and safety and with peace. I don’t think that that is too much to ask of a province. In my view, it is the least a province should guarantee.

For those reasons, I support Bill 13. Thank you very much.

Sheldon Clare: Bill 13 — Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act. Well, I rise today to speak about some aspects of this bill that give me some concern, regarding the conflict between fundamentally protected rights that this bill seeks to address.

Clause 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject to such reasonable limits in law that are justifiable in a free and democratic society. Well, what are those conflicting rights and freedoms?

Well, in the Charter, we have section 7, under legal rights. This is section 7, and I quote: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

Section 8: “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.”

Section 9: “Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.”

Now, that’s an important set of fundamental freedoms that we have in our constitution. I think that that’s a pretty good basis to have a look at this. But there are other things too like the freedom to worship. My colleagues have talked about this on both sides of the House and how important that is, regardless of what your religion is.

That is section 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms, and I quote: “(a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association.” These are fundamental principles that we have.

What we have here is a problem that has at its essence a conflict between fundamental freedoms.

Now, there is another problem. I’ll talk about this a little bit more as well, but there is another problem here. When we look at our distribution of legislative powers in the Constitution Act, 1982, as amended to the present day, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 91 has a very interesting preamble, which I think we need to be reminded of in the provincial legislature. I also want to look at a piece of section 92 in relation to this bill.

Section 91 says:

“It shall be lawful for the King, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subject by this act, assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces and for greater certainty but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms of this section. It is hereby declared that, notwithstanding anything in this act, the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subject next hereinafter enumerated.”

That is to say, I want to draw your attention to section 27. Section 27 is the criminal law, except the constitution of courts of criminal jurisdiction but including the procedure in criminal matters. The criminal law is in the purview of Canada — the state, the federal government.

Now, in these powers, we also have section 92, the provincial power. Section 92 says in it, and I quote: “In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subject next hereinafter enumerated.”

[5:10 p.m.]

That is to say, I would draw to your attention section 15: “the imposition of punishment by fine, penalty or imprisonment for enforcing any law of the province made in relation to any matter coming within any of the classes of subjects enumerated in this section.”

When I read those sections — and I could do that, but it wouldn’t be of much use — I don’t really see a section in this particular part of the Constitution Act that is directly relevant to the purpose of Bill 13.

That gives me some concern, as a legislator. I think we’re all aware, in this House, but it’s worth stating that the main purpose of law is to change behaviour which society finds abhorrent. It is pretty clear to all of us that behaviour blocking people from places of worship and limiting their ability to worship freely is an abhorrent behaviour.

The question in my mind is: whose role is it to make laws about that behaviour? Well, the Criminal Code of….

Deputy Speaker: Member, we’re just going to have the committee report out.

Sheldon Clare: Yes, thank you. I move adjournment of debate and reserve my right to continue.

Sheldon Clare moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Committee of Supply, Section C, reports resolution and completion of the estimates of Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction and seeks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: In the tiny House, I call committee stage on Bill 8.

In this chamber, I call continued debate on Bill 13.

Second Reading of Bills

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

Deputy Speaker: Member for Prince George–North Cariboo continues.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was on such a roll there. I’ve got my thought disrupted. I’ll have to recollect.

Again, we are trying to stop a behaviour that is bad, and the question of the matter is: what role do the various legislatures have in preventing that abhorrent behaviour?

Well, the main tool for such acts which are perceived to be criminal is, of course, the Criminal Code of Canada. There are a number of sections in the Criminal Code of Canada which, on the face of it, would appear to deal with such things as harassment and intimidation, assault and any kind of violence that may occur in a protest. So when we’re looking at changing behaviour, we already have laws intended to stop, prevent or change bad behaviour.

When we’re considering making a law, what do we look at when we are trying to change this behaviour?

We have a situation here where we have an aspect of this behaviour under consideration that is part of one of our freedoms, one of our constitutional, Charter–protected rights. When there are values that are in conflict, then the role of legislators, both federally and provincially, is to find the balance. When we look at the basis of those freedoms in the Constitution Act, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in sections 2, 7 and 24, we see, as I have read, that there are parts of the law that will be in conflict.

What we need to look at is the interests of the parties concerned in this conflict, and the Criminal Code is the source of limits that are put in legislation to change these bad behaviours. So what behaviours does Bill 13 purport to change? Well, vandalism, intimidation, harassment, disruption of religious practices.

Well, it seems to me, in a quick run through the Criminal Code….

And I’m not a lawyer. I’m a legislator, not a lawyer. I make laws. I don’t argue them in court. I argue laws in this House, as do my colleagues on all sides. It seems to me that we already have some pretty significant tools to stop this kind of behaviour, were they to be properly employed.

[5:15 p.m.]

Political protest, for example — or political belief, I should say — is protected in our provincial human rights code.

Now, the rise in protests against religious groups — particularly antisemitism, protests against Muslims, protests against people who are sometimes seen as being and wrongly perceived to be some kind of a threat by others — is a terrible, terrible problem that does need to be dealt with.

But when we see things being let slide, then there is a real concern that perhaps legislation isn’t really the issue here. It’s enforcement. It’s the problem with letting things go and not dealing with bad behaviour that is already against the law or could certainly be interpreted to be that way.

I have a concern when we start getting into regulation and making regulation the basis of a quasi or parallel criminal law practice. I think that’s a dangerous path to trod when we are looking at provincial legislation, because when we’re making laws….

Criminal law is not our responsibility; it is the federal powers’ responsibility. So we need to be very cognizant of the fact that if we are trying to change behaviour, we need to make sure we’re doing it with the tools we have. When we start looking at attempting to make what are almost Criminal Code–type laws and hiding them in the guise of regulation, I think we’re being a bit disingenuous about what we’re trying to do here.

I want to ask the question: does this bill solve the problem of hostility to faith groups? I would argue that it does not. I would argue that tolerance for hatred has long been ignored and even, in some cases, justified in this province. We have been seeing it on a daily basis in various forms, and it needs to be dealt with, with the tools that exist in the legal framework that we currently have.

So when we look at a law, I think one of the things that, for me, is an essential element of examining law is not the perceived good that a law might perform but rather the harm that may occur from a bad law.

One might say: “Well, this law has a clearly strong purpose of good and honest intent.” But I ask you: could this law be misused? Could we find a situation where a provincial use of an arrest without direct apparent cause or without warrant is appropriate? Could we find this being stretched to other areas? Could we find that legitimate protest on very real grounds is stymied and stifled because of an agenda that may come from all sorts of aspects of government or other purposes?

I think history has shown us that when you start to make laws and you start to go down a path like that of mixing regulation and law and providing very powerful tools of enforcement….

[The bells were rung.]

I guess I need to pause for that.

I’m concerned about how we get down a path of having a law that is there to legitimately assist with…. I think the intent of protecting people engaged in worship and at places of worship is a laudable one. I don’t see anything wrong with that. I have a concern when we start having arrests without warrant, and when we start looking at the fact of a legitimate protest, and how you determine what is a legitimate protest and when you start asking about questions of harm.

What is the harm, some might say, of having a protest? What is the harm of having a protest at a church? Well, there may be real harms to that. There may be harms that need to be dealt with in a direct and real fashion.

[5:20 p.m.]

However, if we go down the path where protest is something that is not permitted — legitimate protest in our constitutional monarchy, in the frame of our Westminster parliamentary system — then we’re going down a path that leads to a dark place. It leads to a path of lack of respect for law, lack of respect for order, and it goes to the fundamental purpose of sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act of Canada, which is to provide for peace, order and good government.

Do we have peace? Perhaps not. Do we have order? Hmm. Whether we have good government or not, well, of course, is a matter for debate. On the opposition side of the House, one would often argue: “Probably not.” On the government side, they would always say: “Well, most certainly.” I think that’s a matter where we determine such things in elections.

Again, what will this bill actually do to solve this problem? Is this going to prevent people who have decided to take action in protest and cause trouble for others? No. The tools to stop that are already in existence. We can already stop that, were we to properly fund our police services in this province and increase the ability of the police to do their job under the proper, due supervision of the laws of the land, if we were to make sure that there is a clear understanding that those laws will be enforced.

I think of what was done several years ago in one of the major American cities in terms of enforcing minor infractions, which were on the books as laws, things like graffiti, jaywalking and so on. When those laws started to be enforced properly, well, what we saw was amazing, a reduction in crime, property crime, crimes against the person, everywhere.

That was New York City. That was an amazing achievement. I spent a fair bit of time in that city in another role that I had, and I was surprised at how clean the streets were and how polite and friendly New Yorkers were, because that was not what I had been told or expected to see. It was a direct effect of good, clear understanding of the role of law and the need to support reasonable enforcement of law to change what was bad behaviour.

If we’re going to change bad behaviour, we need to do it in a way that meets with our constitutional rights and freedoms, as established in the Charter, and to make sure that those constitutional rights and freedoms are not treated lightly in any way, shape or form.

When I see regulation being something to deal with Charter rights, I get a little concerned, because when I think of what those rights are about, they should not be able to be tinkered with, willy-nilly, by regulation. If there is a need to make an ordinance, to ticket or to prevent people from engaging in disruptive behaviour, that’s easy enough to do, but I think this goes a little farther than that in this bill.

The intent of this bill seems to be quite laudable. It seems to have the ability to do a number of things, but I think there is a need for some serious amendments to make sure that it will actually perform the purposes that it desires to or purports to actually make happen.

There is an argument that law must be assessed on its potential for harm rather than for its perceived good. That’s the point I raised earlier. It’s a central tenet of classical liberal philosophy. It originates from that famous classical liberal philosopher, John Stuart Mill. It’s known broadly as the harm principle.

The harm principle basically argues that the state’s power should be restricted primarily to preventing harm to others rather than enforcing morality or promoting a specific vision of what is perceived to be good. When we are considering this, which involves a perceived good, we have to look at a number of aspects of assessing this law for the potential harm it could do.

[5:25 p.m.]

Now, in the harm principle, Mill argued: “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his or her will, is to prevent harm to others.” Laws that restrict a person’s liberty for their own good — to stop a person from self-harm and so on — could be viewed as a form of paternalism. This is rightfully viewed with some suspicion, because when one tries to do that, they’re often making a mistake. It can often be quite subjective and fallible that way.

Now, there are also notions of harm that are not trivial. When we consider Justice Arbour in the Canadian jurisprudence, who argued that the criminal law should only intervene when the conduct causes non-trivial harm or a significant risk of harm to others, there is certainly a place for the law to deal with the situation envisioned by Bill 13.

Again, I think that argument has already been had. We already have a lot of law in the Criminal Code. If used effectively, well understood and empowered by government for law enforcement to work on, we’ve got that.

The other thing that law is based upon is risk-based assessment. Rather than relying on the best intentions — there’s a place that’s very warm or very cold, depending on one’s point of view, that is claimed to be paved with those best intentions — laws can be evaluated on the nature, the severity and the probability of risk that they pose on a citizen’s life, liberty or security — the security of the person, if you would.

Another aspect of assessing law by its potential for harm includes overbreadth and arbitrariness. Modern legal tests, and this is especially the case in Canadian constitutional law, focus on whether a law’s effect is grossly disproportionate to its objective. A law may well have a super-fantastic, great intent, such as public safety, such as the need to protect places of worship and worshippers at those places. However, if it is too broad, then it has the potential to inflict unnecessary harm.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

There’s also the question of perceived good or intent. Laws in all Houses are often passed with incredibly solid, noble intention. They may be things to improve the health of the public, to serve a moral purpose or, as is the stated case in Bill 13, to protect public safety. However, sometimes these intentions may be viewed as paternalistic or based on the subjective values of a majority view.

The other aspect of a perceived good versus potential harm, when you look at potential harm or outcome, is that you must look at the potential for harm based on the tangible consequences, the disproportionate effect upon those vulnerable groups and the infringement on such things as freedom of expression or systemic disadvantages.

The balance of Bill 13 remains as it is. There is a need to balance the ability of people to protest freely, along with the need to provide for public safety and freedom of religious expression. The bill does not single out any particular religious group or organization, and it’s good that it does not do that.

However, when we’re looking at fundamental Charter rights and looking at the division of powers in the Canadian Charter, I think it’s very important that we filter this bill through those lenses to make sure we’re not making any kind of mistake that may lead to a further problem down the line or create a precedent that would allow for other legislation to be similarly crafted that could have a broader or more dangerous aspect to it.

[5:30 p.m.]

We need to make sure that we are aware of those things.

Now, it’s certainly the case that it’s difficult to define exactly what harm is and how you determine who is being harmed. In this particular dichotomy, we have harm to freedom of expression and that resulting liberty, but we also have the harm of people wishing to worship freely at their places of worship.

When we look at schools of thought such as legal moralism, certain actions are perceived to be immoral and thus should be made illegal even if they do cause no harm to others.

One might say: “Well, I’m not doing anything harmful. I’m just standing here protesting. I’m holding a sign.” Okay. Now, what does that mean when the police officer or the law enforcement officer is not looking? Are they doing something else? Are they coming up to someone in a threatening manner? What are they doing? Is it intimidation? When does it become assault? These are all legally defined aspects of the criminal law.

So when we’re considering Bill 13, which wants to be able to allow police to arrest or issue tickets to anyone found impeding access, disrupting or interfering with these zones or attempting to intimidate an individual within 20 metres of the particular property, well, we need to be cognizant. This is similar to the School Act that is already in existence. It’s important to protect people’s rights, but it’s important not to sacrifice people’s rights inappropriately.

When we have people’s rights at question, I think it’s very important to run those rights through the relevant legislation that is the essence of how this country was formed and started. That comes from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution Acts, from 1867 forward.

It always bothered me when I was teaching that students, dare I say most citizens, did not know anything about their own constitution. That constitution forms the basis of what we do here, it forms the basis of what happens in Ottawa, and it forms the basis for bills like Bill 13. And it isn’t the same type of legislation as our neighbours to the south, with their emphasis on individual rights and freedoms. Our constitution is more of an administrative document about how to operate a series of Crown colonies and how to bring them together.

When they repatriated the constitution and brought the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in, in 1982, that changed things.

Now, Bill 13 is a descendant of all of that law, and thus, it needs to be filtered through that law very carefully to make sure that the balance is maintained and that the provincial Legislature is not overstepping its bounds in attempting to create quasi Criminal Code law for a provincial purpose.

With that, I just want to conclude and say that we do have some tools to deal with this problem. These are real tools with real teeth, and I think it’s important to understand that we need to be making use of those existing tools when we are dealing with the actions that are happening in our province as we go on.

I’m not sure that having another law made in this House is going to change people’s behaviour. As I said at the start of my remarks, the purpose of law is to change behaviour that society regards as abhorrent or inappropriate. If we’re going to change people’s behaviour, perhaps what we need to do is consider the enforcement of the law we have. That law was already made because those sorts of behaviours were not appropriate in any way, shape or form.

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I just wanted to add a few elements to this debate and to say it’s an honour to rise in the House and have an opportunity to express my support for Bill 13, the Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act. I wanted, really, to provide a bit of an historical perspective.

Now, as has been canvassed very thoroughly in this debate, the origin of the need for this bill has been very eloquently expressed by my friend and colleague, the member for Surrey City Centre, in reflecting on the process that was undertaken under the leadership of our Attorney General to consult with, to pull together, leaders from different faith communities, to really understand their experience, what was happening for them in community, in mosques, in churches, synagogues, temples, gurdwaras, in places of worship across the province in a time where we have seen a rise in hate, a rise in racism, not only in our province but arguably across the country.

A real outreach to those communities and a coming together in a kind of maybe even unprecedented show of solidarity across all of these different groups supported by our government to arrive at what could be a collective response to the rise in hate and hateful behaviour and activities that many communities have been experiencing…. I am very grateful for the work that has been done by my colleagues who come from these communities and who have deep, deep relationships and deep community rootedness with many faith-based groups, and who can speak so eloquently to the need.

I would agree with members who have expressed the seriousness with which we must take measures that we implement when we are balancing different rights. This is not a normal course of business. This is not something we would do as a matter of course. These are steps that we take in extraordinary times in order to protect people who are extraordinarily at risk.

I think, as my friend and colleague, the member for Nanaimo-Lantzville, very articulately explained the legal lens on this and the balance between how we balance rights, how we apply the Charter of Rights in this case, how we maintain that tension between rights that are in conflict…. Under the Charter and in our democracy, we understand that there can be rights that do come into conflict, that do brush up against each other. We understand the importance of having not only robust conversations but robust mechanisms for addressing those situations.

Just to refocus a little less on the abstract and more on what has actually been happening for communities on the ground, because the description of this legislation, really, came from the lived experience of communities…. We understand that this bill would create an access zone around places of worship in which there would be specified forms of harmful behaviour that would be prohibited, and it could be an offence to engage in certain behaviours that caused harm or disrupted people.

The kinds of harms that we’re talking about and the kinds of behaviours we’re talking about are using objects or a barricade to obstruct access to a place, using one’s body to physically impede access, disrupting activities like prayers or meetings occurring at the place of worship, intimidating or threatening people trying to access the place of worship, attempting to persuade people to not visit the place of worship.

[5:40 p.m.]

In essence, engaging in behaviour that goes far, far beyond what we would think of as appropriate expressions of disagreement with an idea or appropriate expressions of political protest…. That’s not what we’re talking about here.

What we are talking about here is behaviour that does real harm to people. As we’ve been going through this debate, and over the course of the development of this legislation, I’ve really been drawn back to a similar kind of time we were in 30-odd years ago, when the Access to Abortion Services Act became a necessity and became a reality.

I want to assure members from across the way who are concerned that we don’t have appropriate historical precedent for this approach or that it might not work or that it’s not a proven approach. We haven’t seen…. We need to be concerned about if this is going to create undesirable precedence. I just want to say that we already have a very solid tried-and-true precedent that was the basis for the development of this approach.

It came about, unfortunately, out of necessity at a time when women, when health care workers were the subject of repeated activity at places where women were trying to access health care. Individuals who were opposed to the right of women to access health care used objects to barricade or obstruct access, used their bodies to physically impede women from accessing health care, disrupted the activity of a woman trying to access health care, intimidated and threatened women and their care providers who were trying to access or deliver health care, and certainly attempted to persuade women from not receiving the reproductive health care they needed.

They certainly tried to persuade providers of that care to not provide that care, and in very completely unacceptable ways, to the point where Dr. Garson Romalis, who was a leader in women’s health care, was the subject of an attempted assassination. He was shot in his kitchen while having breakfast.

There was violence, intimidation. It was completely unacceptable, and it necessitated a first-in-Canada kind of response to protect women and to protect their health care providers. British Columbia led then, in 1995, with the Access to Abortion Services Act, as we are leading now to protect faith communities.

I will tell you my recollection of that time, and I was there because I was involved at that time in the B.C. Coalition for Abortion Clinics. I was in those early meetings where our organization, where the abortion clinics, advocates for women’s health, attempted to persuade the government of the day that this was a necessary thing.

It wasn’t easy, because the very concerns that have been raised and have been the subject of discussion in this House about how we ensure that the right to free speech, the right to protest…. How do we ensure that putting restrictions there does not interfere with other rights? All of that discussion about how we balance rights was very much the consideration that went into the Access to Abortion Services Act at the time, not just in terms of discussions between advocates and government, but in the broader scope.

Labour was very concerned about the implications for potentially restricting appropriate forms of democratic process, which we hold very, very dear in our society. All of these competing concerns and interests had to be navigated at the time.

But I can tell you that I also very much remember the palpable sense of fear, of threat, that women experienced, that we as advocates who spoke out for the right to abortion experienced. The workers, the nurses, the doctors, the administrative staff, the folks who worked at clinics experienced it trying to get to work every day.

[5:45 p.m.]

So if you can just imagine for a moment what it would be like to be a woman in search of health care trying to access the place where you can go to get the health care that you need, and you have to wade through a line of protesters, ten deep, people who are yelling at you, who are insulting you, who are hurling invectives at you at a time when really what you just need is to be cared for. You need to have access to the care that you need in an appropriate….

Deputy Speaker: Member, I can appreciate the seriousness of what you’re explaining to us. Will you tie it back to Bill 13 for me?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Sure. I’ll tie it back directly to what I’ve heard, what many of us have heard from experiences in our communities of individuals trying to wade through protesters who show up at places of worship and try to impede access.

There are very real parallels in terms of some of the concerns that have been raised in this House around…. Does this work? Do we have historical precedents? Don’t we already have provisions in place? Don’t we already have laws? Don’t we already have enforcement mechanisms that would be appropriate? Do we really need this bill?

I’m here to say that, based on the precedents of this bill, this bill is necessary. When I look back to the experience we had in 1995, I’m not sure it was so much an enforcement question. It was a question of how we, again, balance off those rights.

I will just say that this is not a new approach. It’s an approach that has found validity, that has been tested in the courts. It has been challenged in the courts and upheld. So I think we can be assured that the due diligence that has gone into ensuring that there are the appropriate checks and balances, the tried-and-true checks and balances, has been considered. Once again, British Columbia is a leader in standing up for and protecting communities that are at risk.

I think we can only come to a conclusion that says that hate and intimidation, which are the generators of the need for this bill at this time, have no place in our society. The right to protest and to free speech are core, absolutely core, democratic values in our society. We can hold all of those notions, not only in our minds at the same time but in our law at the same time.

So I am very honoured to be able to stand up and support this very necessary legislation.

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

Freedom of religion is not theoretical. It’s walking into a church on Sunday. It’s attending a mosque on Friday. It’s gathering at a synagogue, a temple or a gurdwara. The question before us is this: can people do that without fear?

In 2021 alone, multiple churches in British Columbia were burnt — four in just a matter of days. Across Canada, more than 30 places of worship have been destroyed by fire. That should concern every one of us in this House.

In Vancouver alone, there were 47 antisemitic incidents in 2023, and these included threats, harassment, vandalism and attacks on Jewish institutions, including synagogues. The point is that attacks on worship are on the rise in our nation and in our province.

[5:50 p.m.]

I believe that we are all here because we want to leave a better future for the next generation. And that future must include something fundamental — that our children in this province can walk into a place of worship without fear. If we cannot guarantee that, then we still have work to do.

Let’s bring this theory into real life. In the Fraser Valley, in communities like my own, Mission, B.C., places of worship are not just buildings. They’re where families find support when life falls apart, new immigrants find community, people gather when they’re grieving and where hope is rebuilt week after week.

I have stood in those buildings, and I have sat with people in those pews, and I have prayed with families going through some of the hardest moments of their lives. And I can tell you this: when fear enters those spaces, it changes everything. Those are supposed to be the safest places in our communities.

Let’s talk about what this bill does. Bill 13 creates access zones about 20 metres around places of worship. Inside those zones, people cannot block access, disrupt services, intimidate individuals or interfere, even by trying to persuade someone not to enter. Police can arrest without a warrant if they believe these rules are being broken, and courts can step in. At its core, this bill creates a protective buffer.

But let me be clear. We support the principle of this bill. I think it’s been said many times today, but no one should be harassed on their way into worship. No one should be intimidated for practising their faith, because freedom of religion means nothing if we are afraid to walk through the door.

This bill exists because something has gone wrong. We see a rise in vandalism, harassment and targeted hate. We need to say it clearly. Government did not act early enough. When communities are forced to respond on their own, there is already a failure of leadership.

We now have situations where Jewish communities are spending over $100,000 a month on private security just to protect their places of worship. Let that sink in. I think we need to let that sink in, because that is not for luxury. It is not for an expansion. It is for basic safety. When people have to pay for their own protection just to pray, government has already fallen behind.

While this bill is a step, it is not a solution. And British Columbians are starting to recognize that pattern. We see it across sectors. A problem grows. Communities feel pressure, and the government responds with legislation but not with the full weight of action required to actually fix it.

And that’s what concerns me here, because creating a 20-metre access zone is one thing, but actually ensuring people are safe within it is something else entirely.

We cannot pretend that drawing a line on the ground automatically creates safety. Safety comes from presence. It comes from enforcement. And it comes from knowing that when something happens, someone will respond. Right now, too many communities do not have that confidence.

So let’s actually talk about what’s happening on the ground. We have faith communities right here in British Columbia spending tens of thousands of dollars every month on private security, not because they want to, but because they feel they have no other choice. And that should stop every one of us in this House.

When citizens are forced to step in and fund their own protection, this is not a sign of strength in public safety. It is a sign of a gap. When safety becomes something you have to buy, government is no longer delivering it.

[5:55 p.m.]

If the government is serious about protecting places of worship, then it must answer some very real questions. Where are the additional policing resources tied to this bill? What enforcement plan exists beyond signage and boundaries? How will smaller communities like those in the Fraser Valley and up north be supported when resources are already stretched thin?

In places like Mission, we already know what it feels like when systems are stretched. We’ve seen it in our health care, we’ve seen it in our emergency services, and now we’re seeing the same pressure show up in public safety and around places of worship across this province.

This bill gives police the power to arrest without warrant. This is a significant expansion of authority. But authority without capacity is not effectiveness. There are not enough officers. If there are not enough officers, if response times are already strained, then who is actually enforcing these zones? You cannot enforce a promise without the people to back it up.

There is also a deeper issue. What this bill is really responding to is a rise in hate. The legislation alone does not address that. We need stronger public safety strategies, clearer consequences for targeted harassment and leadership that is proactive, not reactive. If we are always responding after the fact, then communities will always be the ones to step up behind the risk.

This is where the difference lies. Government says, “We’ve introduced a bill,” but communities are asking: “Will you actually stand with us when it matters?” Government says, “We’ve created a zone,” but families are asking: “Will someone be there if something happens?”

We will support measures that protect people any day, and we will also continue to push, because British Columbians deserve more than a line on the pavement. They deserve real safety. They deserve real support. They deserve a government that does more than respond, a government that takes responsibility.

In Mission, we don’t talk about our stretched systems as theory. We are living it. We’ve watched our emergency close — not once. For the last two weeks, it’s been shut down every evening. Every time this happens, the message to the community is clear: you’re on your own tonight. Families are redirected, first responders are stretched, neighbouring hospitals carry the load, and the people feel it immediately, instantly.

What we’re seeing in this bill follows the same pattern. When the systems are stretched and resources aren’t there, when enforcement is uncertain, people have to step in. Communities have to adapt, and slowly and quietly, the responsibility shifts.

This is exactly what is happening with places of worship. Faith communities are not just opening their doors anymore. They are hiring security. They are monitoring their entrances. They are preparing for risk, not because they want to, but because they feel they have to.

This is not what public safety is supposed to look like. Public safety is not something communities should have to build for themselves. It is something they should be able to rely on. You can’t legislate safety and then outsource responsibility.

If this government is serious about protecting faith communities, then this bill cannot be the end of the conversation. It cannot be the headline. It cannot be the talking point. It cannot be just about an announcement. It cannot be where the work stops.

Passing a law is one thing, and making people feel safe is something else entirely. Right now there are gaps between what is being announced and what is being experienced. Communities feel that gap.

[6:00 p.m.]

Let’s talk about what needs to happen next or what could happen next. We need visible policing presence, not just policies but people on the ground. We need real enforcement capacity because a rule means nothing if there’s no one there to uphold it. We need targeted support for communities facing hate, not generic responses but focused action where it is needed most. We need to address, frankly, that this shouldn’t be happening at all.

It’s sad. It’s sad that I’m even having to say what we could be doing because of the hate that we are experiencing and the acts of violence against places of worship. But here we are.

We have communities being forced to hire private security and then being taxed on it. That doesn’t make sense to me. Why, in this climate, when the reality of both sides…. We are recognizing there is a problem. Now we have put a tax on our security guards. They’re paying to protect us, and now they’re having to pay the tax on top of it.

This is not just a policy gap. This is a disconnection from reality. You can’t say one thing and do another. That’s the definition of insanity.

If safety is a priority, it should be funded like one. Leadership is not about reacting when things get bad. Leadership is about recognizing where things are going and acting before they get there. But too often we see a pattern. Government waits. Communities absorb the impact. Pressure builds. Only then legislation arrives. By that point, the damage is already being felt, trust is already shaken, and communities are already adapting on their own. That is not proactive leadership; that is reactive governance. When government arrives late, communities pay the price.

We need to reverse that. We need a government that steps in early, not after the fact; that listens before crisis, not after it; and that protects before people feel unsafe, not after they already do. The role of government is not just to respond to risk but to prevent it.

At the heart of this bill is something very simple. People want to feel safe. They showed up to the announcement because they want to feel safe. They want to trust that this bill will help that process. They want to feel safe to gather. They want to feel safe to worship. They want to feel safe to believe. In a province as diverse as ours, that matters more than ever. Our diversity is not our weakness, it is our strength, but only if people feel free to live it out.

Yes, I support this bill. But let’s not stop here. Let’s do the real work. Safety is not created by a 20-metre boundary. It is created by leadership that acts. It is created when government takes full responsibility for the people it serves.

The first and most immediate step that government could take alongside this bill is visible, dedicated policing around places of worship. It creates a boundary. It defines space. It sets rules within that space. But a boundary on its own does not create safety, presence does.

[6:05 p.m.]

Right now Bill 13 establishes access zones around places of worship. We need to ask the obvious question. Who’s going to be there to enforce it? Because if no one is there, that boundary becomes symbolic and not practical.

We need to make sure that funding targeted patrols during high-risk times — not randomly, not occasionally, but strategically — during the Sabbath, during major religious holidays, large gatherings and community events because those are the moments when vulnerability is the highest and when presence is the most….

The reason I wanted to say some of those things is because we have to be clear on the plan when we are leading. We cannot be vague when we put forward a bill. We have to actually follow it through right to the end and communicate it effectively to British Columbians.

It can also mean working directly with local police departments to develop faith-based safety plans because not one size fits all policy. It’s not a one-size-fits-all. Plans that reflect the realities of each faith-based community…. What a synagogue may need may be different from what a church or a mosque or a gurdwara may need. The people who understand those risks best are the communities themselves.

We must ensure that rapid response protocols are clearly in place because when something happens near a place of worship, time matters. Minutes matter. People need to know — not hope, not assume, but know — that someone will respond quickly, that they will not be left waiting, and that they will not be alone in that moment.

Another practical step that could be taken immediately is the government could remove the PST on security services. As the opposition, it is my job to oppose, but it is also my job to potentially bring things that could make the bill better. Faith communities are having to do…. I have it here again. They’re forced to hire private security not because they want to expand, not because they’re choosing to but because they feel they have no other option. As they’re paying for that, they’re now having to be taxed on it.

If the government is serious about standing with faith communities, this is one of the clearest ways to show it — not with words, not with statements but with action that people can actually feel.

There comes a point in every debate where we have to stop speaking like legislators and start speaking like leaders. Because outside this chamber, this is not theoretical. People are not debating definitions, and they are not analyzing clauses. They are asking: “Am I safe? Safe to walk into my church; safe to bring my children to synagogue; and safe to gather, to pray, to believe.” If the answer to that question is anything less than a clear and confident yes, then we still have work to do.

I refuse to accept a province where fear follows people into sacred spaces. I refuse to accept that communities should have to hire guards and lock their doors or look over their shoulders just to worship. I refuse to accept a government that can check a box with legislation and call the job done. This is not the finish line; this is the starting point.

[6:10 p.m.]

I’m so happy to hear that so many faith leaders came out to that announcement. But I would be embarrassed if the government did not take this bill and do right by the people of British Columbia, because they have been advocating for being safe for a very long time.

So I celebrate with them. It is the start. It is not the beginning…. I hope that the government will do right by British Columbians.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I would call on the minister to close up the bill.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oh, we have to move second reading first.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Member.

Okay, Members. Sorry, I thought the minister may have some closing remarks.

But the question is, of course, today, second reading of Bill 13, Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act.

Motion approved.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I now move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: In this House, I now call second reading on Bill 11.

Bill 11 — Residential Tenancy
Amendment Act, 2026

Hon. Christine Boyle: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

The policy outcome under this bill provides new tools to more effectively respond to urgent health and safety issues in supportive housing through amendments to the Residential Tenancy Act.

Although serious safety incidents are rare, when they occur, supportive housing operators need the right tools to quickly de-escalate and address risks. The amendments are designed to keep tenants, guests and staff safe, which is critical to continuing the important work of addressing homelessness and helping people find stability in their lives.

Tenants will continue to have protections under the RTA and through the residential tenancy branch’s dispute resolution process, which was a priority for government as well as groups engaged.

The bill contains provisions that are specific to supportive housing, including creating a new reason to end tenancy if a tenant or their guest possesses a weapon on the supportive housing property or a weapon is found in a tenant’s rental unit; and enabling regulations to allow housing providers to temporarily relocate tenants to de-escalate situations when there are significant health and safety risks to other tenants, guests or staff.

Beyond supportive housing, the bill clarifies the applicability of the RTA by creating a new authority to designate specific addresses as transitional housing. The bill also builds on existing eviction provisions to better protect workers and guests on all rental properties.

Everyone deserves a safe place to live and work. This bill is a critical step towards improving safety and stability for people who live and work in supportive housing across British Columbia.

Claire Rattée: You’ll have to forgive me. I am waiting for my speaking notes to be brought in, but I’m going to start talking about this bill anyways.

I just want to say, on Bill 11, that my initial thoughts are that this is obviously something that’s important and needed. We understand that this is very important to address the issues that we’re seeing currently in supportive housing units, and I understand why the ministry decided to bring this forward now. There has been a lot of public outcry and concern over what goes on in these units.

The issue is that this bill in no way, shape or form goes anywhere close to actually addressing the problems that we’re seeing in these units.

[6:15 p.m.]

I have some pretty serious concerns around how the consultation was done. My understanding is that there was consultation that was done with a limited working group that was established last summer. This included people from B.C. Housing as well as some of the supportive housing providers.

Whatever those recommendations that came out of that were, I do not know, because that hasn’t been made public. But I highly doubt that this even slightly grazes the surface of what was needed coming out of those consultations.

Then the other consultations were done with the Human Rights Commissioner and some tenancy advocacy groups to try and find a balance. The problem is that there was no consultation done with law enforcement. There was no consultation done with fire departments, who we know are responding there constantly. There wasn’t consultation done with municipalities.

I understand that there’s a fairly limited scope with this piece of legislation, but the reality is that everyone in this House, I think, knows that we need to go much further than that. There are so many issues to address right now within supportive housing.

I want to begin today not with policy but by talking about people, because this bill is about where people live. It’s about their homes, and if we lose sight of that, if we reduce this just to technical amendments and enforcement tools, then I think we miss the reality of what is actually happening across this province, and we’ll miss the point of why these legislative changes were needed in the first place and why many more are also needed.

I want members of this House to picture something very simple. Picture your home. Picture your bedroom. Picture the place where you were supposed to feel the safest. Now imagine you can’t sleep at night because of constant noise right outside of your window. You are breathing in drug smoke that you did not choose to breathe in. You are afraid to walk down your own hallway. You are worried about who is coming in and out of your building. You are unsure whether there will be violence. You are unsure whether there will be a fire.

You raise these concerns over and over again, and nothing changes. That’s what we’re talking about today.

I want to start with Erin’s story, because a story like hers should define this debate. Erin is a disabled mother of six children living in B.C. Housing. For three years, she reported a leak above her unit. Not a minor inconvenience — a leak that rotted her ceiling, a leak that made her only washroom unsafe and unusable, a leak that rendered part of her home unusable.

Three years of asking for help, three years of being ignored, three years of raising her children in those conditions, and what was the outcome? Was the unit fixed? Was the building held accountable? Was the system corrected? No. They tried to evict her. They tried to displace her family. After three years of neglect, the solution was to remove her.

I want us to sit with that. That is not a story about enforcement. That is a story about failure, a systemic failure — a failure to maintain housing, a failure to respond to legitimate concerns, a failure to treat people with dignity. Yet we are here debating legislation that expands the ability to remove people from their homes without addressing the conditions that led to the situation in the first place.

Erin’s story is not an outlier. It is part of a pattern. I also want to talk about Diana, 56 years old, disabled, living in a B.C. Housing building. What she described to me is something that should deeply concern every single member of this House.

For nearly seven years — seven years — she has been dealing with constant noise, drug smoke entering her unit, violent incidents, harassment, fear. She told me that right outside her window, the window of a seniors unit, within the courtyard, they put a gazebo in, a covered picnic table area. That space has simply become a hub for drug activity, right outside her bedroom window — for gatherings at all hours, for dealers, for behaviour that has completely taken over that entire section of the building. The simplest solution, which would be moving the table, has not been done.

Think about that. We are debating legislation about safety, and a basic environmental change, something that could immediately improve safety and quality of life, has not been implemented She has complained repeatedly. There has been no action taken on it. She’s not even asking for all of this behaviour to stop. She just doesn’t want it outside of her window.

Diana told me she cannot sleep. She told me she has been punched in the head. She told me that she has been stalked by individuals coming into the building. She told me that she has been verbally abused, repeatedly. And she told me something that I think should stay with all of us. There are no consequences, no meaningful intervention, no improvement. Just ongoing exposure to unsafe conditions.

What does Bill 11 do for Diana? Does it move the table? No. Does it address the drug smoke? No. Does it improve building safety? No. She was punched in the head. It does nothing for that. It doesn’t address if somebody is punching somebody. Does it ensure security for her? No. It creates more pathways to remove people, sure. But it wouldn’t even provide the opportunity to evict the person who punched her.

[6:20 p.m.]

Then there is Dayna, a resident of northern B.C. for 33 years. She lived in the same apartment for 14 years, a quiet building, a respectful environment, a place where people knew each other, where people felt comfortable.

Over time, she watched that change. She described overcrowding. She described strain on shared resources. She described noise, disruption and the loss of what once made that place feel like home. She talked about how difficult it has become to do something as basic as laundry, how parking is no longer available, how the building no longer functions the way that it once did.

What struck me the most about Dayna’s message was not anger; it was sadness. It was the sense that something stable, something familiar, had been lost, that the system is no longer working for people who have lived in these communities for decades, that access to housing has become so strained that people are being pushed out, not because they want to leave but because they have no choice.

Again, Bill 11 does not address that. The issue is not just behaviour. It is capacity, it is planning, and it is system design.

Now, I’m going to return to these stories throughout my speech because they matter and because they illustrate something that policy alone cannot. I will likely talk about a number of other situations that I think are relevant and that highlight the need for more serious and substantive changes to the Residential Tenancy Act and how we approach supportive housing in this province.

I’d like to talk about what this bill does, because on the surface, it sounds like action. It expands eviction powers. It allows tenants to be held responsible for their guests. It introduces temporary access restrictions, and it increases the authority of the residential tenancy branch.

The question is not whether it does something. The question is whether it does the right things, whether it does enough and whether it addresses the actual causes of unsafe environments. That, in my opinion, is where it fails. The reality is that the safety issues in these buildings are not primarily behavioural. They are environmental, they are structural, and they are systemic.

Drug use inside of buildings: secondhand smoke from fentanyl and methamphetamine moving through ventilation, under doors, into units; people exposed in their own homes; workers exposed in their workplaces. There’s nothing in this bill that addresses that.

Fire risk: butane torches; unsafe electrical setups; and increasingly modified e-bikes with lithium batteries, rapid ignition, toxic smoke, difficult to extinguish, stored in buildings not designed for that risk. What does this bill do about that? Absolutely nothing.

A fire department analysis identified 41 high-risk buildings — 41 — and this legislation introduces no new fire safety standards. It doesn’t address any of those high-risk buildings. It doesn’t actually address fire risk at all, even though we know it’s one of the most significant challenges that we’re facing right now, specifically in downtown Vancouver, when it comes to supportive housing.

Now, building design. These buildings were not designed for high acuity populations. They’re being used as care environments without care infrastructure. And we are surprised when there are safety issues?

Also, the mixing of populations. We have seniors, families, people in recovery, people actively using — all placed together without proper supports, without thoughtful placement — as well as people suffering from extreme mental illness. Then we call the result a safety issue. This is a system design failure.

I want to be clear that I can understand the intention behind this legislation, behind the ability to evict if someone has a weapon in a supportive housing unit, but another issue that is not addressed is that in many of these buildings, people simply feel unsafe — and for good reason. What happens if a young woman has a weapon on her, not to attack someone but to defend herself? That hasn’t been addressed in this legislation. We haven’t even addressed what the definition of a weapon is. Likely that’s yet another thing that’ll be left to regulation.

Now let’s talk about enforcement. Who enforces this — the housing workers, the managers, security? Do they call in the RCMP or the police? There’s nothing that clarifies that in this piece of legislation. There’s nothing that explains to the tenants; there’s nothing that explains to the operators; there’s nothing that explains to RCMP or police, fire departments and paramedics.

I don’t know. It’s not made clear in this legislation. We don’t know who is supposed to enforce these new rules. We don’t know how people are supposed to respond. This just creates more confusion and uncertainty. Very simple things should have been outlined in the legislation.

We also don’t know what the definition of a weapon is. Who decides what’s a weapon? Who confiscates it? Is it even confiscated, or are people supposed to be evicted with their weapon? Do they pose a risk to public safety? Are they being evicted with the weapon in hand, and now we’re just turning that back out onto the street? What happens after the removal? These questions are not answered.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Noting the hour, I reserve my right to speak again and move adjournment of debate.

Claire Rattée moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Stephanie Higginson: Section A reports progress on Bill 2 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Section C reports progress on Bill 8 and asks to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:25 p.m.