If you think the concept of keeping schools and places of worship safe, secure and peaceful is something most politicians could come together in harmony on, you have not visited the B.C. legislature.

Even that mild motherhood goal is prompting arguments on the floor of the house about new legislation purporting to support safe access to those institutions.

When the Safe Access to Places of Worship was introduced three weeks ago, leaders from a dozen different faiths were on hand to support it. Even given the dismaying perceived need for such a bill, it was an uplifting moment, given the strife elsewhere in the world.

But unifying news conferences are one thing. Political debate over the nuts and bolts and the background to the bills is another.

A gathering of leaders of different faiths is sometimes called a “wisdom.” A gathering of politicians of different parties is usually called a dogfight.

Opposition critics went into attack mode over the underlying public-safety issues and political optics, saying if existing laws were enforced, there would be no need for special provisions in the bill.

It aims to curb rowdiness by allowing faith groups to zone entrances to houses of worship as off-limits to interfering behaviour. Signs can be posted banning disruptive actions within 20 metres of entrance ways.

Attorney General Niki Sharma said “increasing frequency and intensity of disruptive behaviour” prompted the legislation.

But Conservative Party of B.C. critics said existing law already covers that, and the bill is a façade to hide the lack of enforcement.

Intimidation, harassment, threats and disturbing worship are already illegal.

“The real question is: ‘Why are we not seeing enforcement?’” asked MLA Steven Kooner.

He said one synagogue is paying $100,000 a month in private security because existing laws are not being enforced. (That bill will increase when the seven per cent provincial sales tax starts applying to security costs this fall.)

“We are seeing words being legislated, but where’s the meaningful action that’s going to protect religious communities?”

He said the NDP government is being reactive to public-safety crises instead of directing the enforcement of existing laws to prevent them from happening.

Conservative MLA Bryan Tepper backed Sharma’s assessment that religious-based threats have increased and steps need to be taken.

“But this bill is not that action. It is pure NDP symbolism, placating the faith community with its shiny new provincial statute while doing absolutely nothing to address the root causes…”

Tepper said it doesn’t include any new officers or new funding or any new tool to what was already available. “It is fake legislation … to let the NDP say they did something while their broader failure on public safety continues to spiral out of control.

“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 or vandalized places of worship.”

He summed it up as “performative nonsense.”

NDP backers of the bill say the government is investing in the hate crimes unit and taking broader action. The bill will de-escalate demonstrations that get out of line.

Similar arguments are underway concurrently over another bill — the Safe Access to Schools Act — that applies the same measures to the K-12 education system.

They were first legislated in 2024, partly due to protests about sexual orientation and gender identity programs. The provisions expire this year, and Sharma said that while the concerns have abated, there is still a need for such a law. So it is being extended for two more years.

Conservatives are skeptical about the need.

MLA Tepper said the government cited 40 disruptive protests since 2023 as the reason for the first bill. But he said he could find no instances of arrests, tickets or charges laid under the law. He said the government has not offered data to support the bill.

Conservatives may wind up going along with the bills. Who wants to be against safe schools and places of worship?

But their points look valid, and they appear to be a long way from fully supporting them.

Just So You Know: Tuesday’s column about a report on the Island Coastal Economic Trust co-authored by former deputy minister Doug Caul referred to him incorrectly as now being a consultant to the premier on the DRIPA amendments.

He is advising the government on the Cowichan land claim court decision.

My regrets for the error.

Lleyne@timescolonist.com

© Times Colonist