Chilliwack – Opinion: Safer schools are not “lip service.” They are a responsibility.
As a teacher and President of the Chilliwack Teachers’ Association, I read in recent Chilliwack media regarding the vote against the Safe Access to Schools Act with both frustration and clarity.
Because this is not complicated.
When elected officials like Heather Maahs and Korky Neufeld vote against legislation designed to make schools safer, we should take them at their word. This is not about nuance. This is not about procedural disagreement.
It is a choice.
And it is a choice that tells students, staff, and families that their safety is secondary to political positioning.
Let us be clear about what safe access zones actually do. They create a buffer around schools so that students are not forced to walk through targeted protests about who they are or what they represent. They ensure that schools remain places of learning, not sites of confrontation. They
establish a basic and reasonable boundary.
In the Legislature, Ms. Maahs argued that these measures amount to “lip service to safety,”suggesting that because they do not eliminate all risk or prevent every act of violence, they are ineffective.
This argument is not only flawed. It is deeply revealing.
Because it sets an impossible standard. If a policy must completely eliminate harm in order to be worthwhile, then virtually every safety measure we rely on would fail that test. Seatbelts do not prevent every injury. Laws do not prevent every crime. School policies do not prevent every incident.
And yet we implement them because they reduce harm, establish expectations, and signal what we value.
That is what this legislation does.
To dismiss that as “lip service” is to misunderstand, or perhaps deliberately ignore, the role of public leadership. Laws are not only about stopping every possible harm. They are about drawing lines.
They are about saying clearly and publicly that certain behaviours are not acceptable in certain spaces.
And yes, they are also about making a statement.
Because statements matter.
In education, we know this better than anyone. The culture of a school is shaped not only by what we do, but by what we say, what we reinforce, and what we are willing to stand behind publicly. When we take a position that students deserve to be safe from targeted intimidation on their way to or from school, that is not empty symbolism. That is the foundation of a safe and inclusive environment.
The suggestion that making that statement is somehow performative or meaningless is not just inaccurate. It is dismissive of the lived reality of students and staff who experience these situations directly.
And this is not a new line of thinking.
This exact rhetoric has been used before. During her time as a school trustee, Ms. Maahs repeatedly opposed motions and initiatives on the basis that they were merely symbolic or amounted to “lip service.” But this framing creates a false and dangerous binary. It suggests that unless a measure is
a complete solution, it is not worth doing.
That is not how systems improve.
Progress in education, and in public policy more broadly, is often incremental. It involves setting standards, reinforcing values, and taking steps that collectively create safer and more inclusive environments. Dismissing those steps because they are not total solutions does not demonstrate
critical thinking. It demonstrates a refusal to engage with the responsibility of leadership.
And leadership, at its core, requires more than critique. It requires a willingness to stand for something.
What message does it send when measures designed to protect students are characterized as unnecessary or ineffective? What does it communicate to students who already feel targeted or marginalized?
It tells them that their safety is up for debate.
That is unacceptable.
It is also worth remembering that both Ms. Maahs and Mr. Neufeld previously served as school trustees during one of the most challenging periods in modern public education. At a time when school communities were navigating a global pandemic and calling for clear, decisive action to ensure safety and inclusion, neither demonstrated meaningful advocacy in those areas.
That matters.
Because what we are seeing now is not a departure from past practice. It is a continuation of it.
And now, hearing Ms. Maahs once again describe measures intended to protect people as “lip service to safety,” one might reasonably conclude that this is less a new argument and more a familiar script.
In fact, if anything, this is one of the more predictable plot lines in recent memory.
When given another opportunity to stand up for safer schools, they have once again demonstrated remarkable consistency.
So no, this is not surprising.
It is, quite simply, entirely on brand.
Sincerely,Reid Clark
President
