First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Thursday, October 9, 2025

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 81

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Contents

Routine Business

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 29 — Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2025

Hon. Jodie Wickens

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

Claire Rattée

Hon. Niki Sharma

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

Lawrence Mok

David Williams

Statements

Vancouver Canucks

Hon. Terry Yung

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

Hon. Nina Krieger

Bill 18 — Sexual Violence Policy Act

Hon. Jessie Sunner

Jeremy Valeriote

Bryan Tepper

Stephanie Higginson

Lawrence Mok

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson

Korky Neufeld

Amna Shah

Rosalyn Bird

Sunita Dhir

Heather Maahs

Thursday, October 9, 2025

The House met at 1:02 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 29 — Child, Family and

Community Service

Amendment Act, 2025

Hon. Jodie Wickens presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a

bill intituled Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2025.

Hon. Jodie Wickens : I move that Bill 29 be introduced and read a first time now.

It is my honour to introduce amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service

Act. This statute is the foundational legislative framework for the child-protective

system in British Columbia.

Every day child protection workers meet families who are facing some of the most challenging

times of their lives. They work to keep children safe and supported. This can mean

working with families to help care for their children and connecting them with the

supports that they need, or it can mean making incredibly difficult decisions, such

as to remove a child from an unsafe home.

Above all, the most important thing at the centre of all of this work is the safety

and well-being of children and youth. That is what I am most concerned about as a

mother and as the minister. It’s what families and staff in community are most concerned

about.

The legislation I’m introducing today is about safety plans, which are one of the

least intrusive measures available to help keep children and youth safe and supported.

[1:05 p.m.]

A safety plan is a voluntary, short-term and collaborative process between a child’s

parents and ministry staff. They are a common tool used in the early stages of a child

protection response, while an initial assessment or investigation is underway or a

decision on a court order application is pending.

Safety plans are used to mitigate safety concerns in a way that supports the child

or youth so they are able to remain safely with their parent or a trusted adult. Safety

plans include information related to the concerns at hand, names of the parties involved

and a description of the respective roles of the plan and actions to be taken to ensure

that a child is safe.

The amendments will make it clear that the safety planning process provides the space

to build or strengthen involvement with an Indigenous child’s community to support

their sense of belonging and connection to culture, languages and customs.

The Speaker : The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. Jodie Wickens : I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Ravi Parmar : This House continues second reading on Bill 17.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Intimate Images Protection

Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

(continued)

Claire Rattée : I’m speaking today to Bill 17.

I just wanted to start by saying that there were a lot of really powerful speeches

given on this yesterday from colleagues on both sides of the House, and I really appreciated

hearing those stories. This is a very important piece of legislation. Those personal

stories are a really important part of it.

If you would allow me, I would just like to really briefly say, because it’s my first

time speaking outside of question period as we’ve come back into this session, that

I’m really grateful for this experience, for the people of Skeena putting their faith

and their trust in me to serve them here. I think that this piece of legislation could

potentially be very helpful to a lot of people in my riding and throughout this province.

Bill 17 is an important piece of legislation that proposes to amend both the Civil

Resolution Tribunal Act and the Intimate Images Protection Act. The subject of this

bill is deeply painful for many British Columbians, but it is precisely because of

that pain and because the stakes are so high that we must engage with this bill fully,

sensitively and empathetically.

This is a very important issue, now more than ever, due to the changing digital world

and the rising frequency of intimate images being shared without consent. At the core

of Bill 17 is a promise that individuals who have had intimate images shared without

their consent will have a faster, more accessible and more victim-centred path for

relief.

The government is rightly seeking to shift the burden away from victims; to reduce

barriers of cost, delay and legal complexity; and to send a strong social message

that non-consensual distribution of intimate images is not merely a private affront

but a deeply harmful act deserving serious remedy.

I support that intent, and I believe that the law must evolve to reflect the realities

of our digital age where photos, videos, live streams, AI-generated fakes and the

instantaneous spread of content make intimate image abuse devastatingly easy and damaging.

But support in principle is not enough.

[1:10 p.m.]

For laws to protect rather than injure, they must be well-designed, trauma-aware,

resourced and coherent. That’s why I’d like to use today’s speech to voice both encouragement

and caution and, during committee stage, to press for stronger safeguards.

We must never forget that behind every claim, every statutory term and every decision,

there is a human being — someone who has trusted another person, shared a private

moment, intentionally or not, and been betrayed; someone whose reputation, dignity,

self-esteem and emotional well-being are at risk.

In our digital era, the sharing of intimate images without consent no longer requires

secret cameras or stolen prints. It can happen with a tap on a smartphone, screenshots,

forwarding, reposting, deepfakes and algorithmic spread. The velocity and scale of

distribution often mean that even if you succeed eventually in getting something taken

down, copies spread elsewhere in degrees you can’t trace.

The harm is not hypothetical. Survivors describe relentless humiliation, fear, suicidal

ideation, loss of employment, social isolation and lifelong shame. I know many people

who have been affected by this issue, and the consequences really are devastating.

Our legal system must respond with compassion, speed and sensitivity. Traditional

courts — with costs, delays, procedural complexity and the trauma of exposure — often

discourage victims from coming forward. Many never do. The psychological barrier is

immense.

So when government proposes a pathway via the tribunal, with simpler processes, lower

cost, confidentiality protections and more speed, we must take that seriously. We

must also ask: does the design live up to the ideal, and will implementation realize

rather than frustrate that promise?

Already under the existing Intimate Images Protection Act, the Civil Resolution Tribunal

may issue protection orders to delete, de-index or require removal of content, as

well as award damages up to $5,000. But many survivors and advocates say that it is

insufficient both in scope and remedy, given the lives upended by these violations.

The new bill seeks to change that landscape. As one organization puts it, survivors

need an alternative and faster option to remove content and seek compensation. The

longer these images remain on the internet, the more difficult it will be to ever

fully remove them.

Already in May of this year, the CRT awarded $5,000 in one of the first intimate-images

cases. That is a start, but for many victims, the real losses go far beyond what $5,000

can cover, particularly if you factor in the potential future financial implications

if the distribution of such images cannot be contained and potentially affects employment

opportunities.

We also have a recent, real-world signal that the stakes are not abstract. In one

high-profile case, the CRT fined X, formerly Twitter, $100,000 for failing to remove

a non-consensual image after an order, when the platform attempted only a geofencing

workaround. That decision underscores two things. One, the tribunal and laws must

be capable of holding internet intermediaries accountable. Two, the symbolic and practical

power of robust statutory design is ideal.

On the topic of the digital world online, all of those things that I think are making

these amendments important, things really are changing when it comes to the use of

cell phones, the use of the internet. For me, when I was in high school, it was kind

cell phones and things like that. So I’ve seen, firsthand, how difficult it can be

to kind of catch up with that.

Parents struggle. Even nowadays many of my friends, my nieces and nephews that I see

using cell phones, using the internet at very young ages…. It’s just different. It’s

what’s expected now. It’s normalized, but that comes with a lot of potential consequences.

I think it’s really important that when we’re looking at legislation like this, we

take into account how to make sure that those potentially harmful side effects of

this digital age are properly mitigated.

Currently intimate-image claims are handled under the Intimate Images Protection Act,

which gives the CRT authority for certain protection orders and limited damages.

Bill 17 goes further. It embeds direct authority in the Civil Resolution Tribunal

Act to deal with intimate-image claims. In other words, it makes intimate-image claims

a formal part of what the CRT can adjudicate. That clarity is essential.

Under current law, intimate-image claims are effectively treated as small claims in

many respects. Bill 17 removes them from the small claims classification, distinguishing

them from ordinary, transactional small debt or strata disputes. That is a signal

that these cases are more serious, more complex and deserve their own category.

[1:15 p.m.]

Perhaps the most dramatic change, under Bill 17: the cabinet may set a monetary cap

on CRT decisions, in intimate-image cases, of up to $75,000. A significant leap from

the existing $5,000, this is intended to allow victims to seek meaningful compensation

without moving into the court system. It may also help to work as a deterrent for

perpetrators in the future.

Importantly, Bill 17 also allows claimants to bring or continue intimate-image claims

in Provincial Court, even when the CRT would otherwise have jurisdiction. In other

words, the bill does not force victims into one forum. Victims can choose what route

makes sense for their circumstances. This could potentially have both positive and

negative consequences.

The CRT will be given the authority to make, vary or cancel orders in intimate-image

claims, not just static protection orders but dynamic remedies. Further, the CRT may

withhold publication of decisions in these cases to protect victims’ privacy and reduce

the risk of revictimization. Claims already filed under the small claims tribunal

framework that relate to intimate images will also be reclassified automatically as

intimate-image claims once Bill 17 comes into force. Some amendments to limitation

deadlines and procedure are also included.

Under the bill, the minister is granted limited powers to indirectly collect personal

information about an affected individual or the alleged perpetrator where that information

is reasonably necessary to support an aggrieved person’s claim or risk management.

Also, if there is a perceived risk to the victim from threatened distribution, the

minister may collect necessary personal information. These powers would also be delegable

in writing.

The bill contemplates that sections 1 through 9 come into force via regulation and

that the other provisions come into force on royal assent. That staggered approach

is to allow for administrative preparation.

In

summary, Bill 17 seeks to make intimate-image claims a fully integrated and elevated

part of our tribunal landscape, increase financial-remedy ceilings, preserve victims’

forum choice, protect privacy and provide additional supports and information-gathering.

All these goals are worthwhile and important to strengthen British Columbians’ sense

of safety and security when it comes to their personal lives, particularly in today’s

current landscape of the digital era and an increase of young people incorporating

technology into every facet of their lives.

While the vision of Bill 17 is compelling, we must recognize that design does not

guarantee outcome. A well-intentioned statute poorly implemented can hurt more than

help. Here are what I see as potential concerns, not to reject this bill but to challenge

us all to fix its vulnerabilities in committee stage.

One of the central features of Bill 17 is the dual route. Victims may choose CRT or

Provincial Court, even for similar fact patterns. That flexibility appears well-intended

but also carries potential risk. For example, some claimants may shop for the forum

that seems most favourable to their case — for procedural advantages, legal representation,

higher damages, etc. — which would undermine consistency. As a result, we may also

see inconsistent decisions on nearly identical facts because different adjudicators

apply statutes or tests differently.

Unrepresented or vulnerable victims may also be forced to choose incorrectly without

sufficient legal guidance and end up in a forum less appropriate for their case. To

mitigate this, this legislation must include strong guidelines, clear procedural defaults

and extensive supports or decision aids for victims in making the forum choice.

Allowing the CRT to withhold publication of decisions addresses a pressing need. Victims

must be protected from renewed exposure, doxxing or further harassment, yet complete

secrecy is not harmless. Over time, this could also lead to the body of precedent

and jurisprudence withering; systemic patterns such as biased decision-making, algorithmic

inequities or tribunal backlog pressures becoming impossible to detect; or litigants,

courts, academics and advocates lacking the ability to compare

interpretation, consistency

or development of the law.

We must strike a balance: privacy for victims but transparency for accountability.

At committee, I would like to see rules proposed for anonymized summaries, redacted

opinions or a public register of an anonymized case law rather than wholesale suppression.

The CRT’s existing mandate deals mainly with strata disputes, small debts, minor vehicle

collisions and other relatively mechanical adjudications. Handling intimate-image

claims is a far more delicate task involving emotional trauma, mental health consequences,

complex digital evidence and high stakes.

[1:20 p.m.]

A few other potential concerns around the CRT’s capacity would be whether the CRT

has staff and tribunal members with trauma-informed training, sensitivity to gender-based

violence, anonymity protocols and appropriate supports. Given their current scope

of mandate, I would think likely not. Will the influx of new cases, especially under

the higher cap, overwhelm the system, causing delays or shortcuts?

The government also mentions there are currently 381 intimate-image-related cases

before the CRT. We need projections. How many new claims might arise under a $75,000

cap? If we assume even a modest multiplication factor, can the CRT respond promptly?

Without additional funding, the CRT could become backlogged, which would undo the

promise of speed. The government must commit to dedicated funding, recruitment of

specialized members and ongoing training before expanding jurisdiction. Any expansion

of jurisdiction without commensurate resourcing risks delay. Victims seeking fast

relief might find themselves in month-long or year-long waits during which harm compounds.

Similar challenges have emerged in other tribunal areas — for example, strata and

property fee disputes. We must prevent a scenario where a judge or tribunal becomes

the bottleneck rather than the remedy.

The proposed ministerial power to collect personal information about an affected individual

is delicate. While the intent is to support victims in showing wrongdoing or risk,

we must guard against abuse. I would ask: what are the oversight, internal controls,

privacy safeguards and limits on delegation? How will such data be stored, used and

protected under FOIPPA or other privacy law frameworks?

Might this power chill fair process, being perceived as government overreach or intrusion

into individual privacy? And should there be a harms-benefits test, third-party oversight

or judicial authorization before information-gathering? We should refine these powers

at committee to ensure transparency, accountability and rigorous privacy protection.

This bill is predominantly civil in nature. It does not itself create new criminal

offences, nor does it strengthen active coordination with police, Crown counsel or

criminal justice agencies. That means that some offenders may continue to operate

under the assumption that civil remedies are the worst they might face. Victims may

also face duplication, confusion or advice from criminal counsel that discourages

civil claims while pursuing police routes.

Further, the signal to public safety actors and internet platforms may be muted absent

stronger legislative teeth. If the law aims to deter non-consensual distribution,

we need parallel investments in policing, criminal law awareness, platform accountability

and public education. To address the concerns around the dual forum choice, we could

mandate that victims be offered legal advice referrals, plain-language decision aids

and a forum-choice decision memo to help them choose CRT versus Provincial Court.

We could also ensure an opt-in system of adjudicator or case manager preferences,

specifically if a victim prefers a male or female due to the sensitive nature of these

offences. Another option would be to guarantee that support persons or advocates may

accompany victims through the process without being disqualified.

To address concerns around publication, we could require that all CRT decisions be

published in anonymized form unless the tribunal members order specific suppression

or design a publicly accessible anonymized

summary registry or headnote database to

preserve precedence and systemic transparency.

Another option would be to impose mandatory reporting by the CRT to legislative oversight

bodies or an ombudsperson about case volumes, delays, cancellations and rejection

rates.

Establishing a specialized intimate-image division within CRT, with members trained

in gender-based violence, trauma, psychology, digital forensics, privacy and youth

issues; requiring ongoing training in trauma-informed practices, cultural competency,

equity and mental health in decision-making; and ensuring dedicated staffing, funds

and tech capacity before the expanded jurisdiction becomes active will also likely

be needed.

To create clear jurisdictional guideposts, we should supply statutory criteria or

presumptions to guide when a case should go to CRT or Provincial Court, limiting forum

shopping. Where possible, have default assignment rules for unrepresented victims.

An example would be automatically filing in CRT unless damages exceed a specific threshold

and specifying thresholds or opt-up rules to reduce overlap and conflict.

To address privacy oversight for ministerial information powers, we could mandate

judicial or quasi-judicial oversight or reporting for ministerial data collection

and require ministerial collection to be documented, justified and subject to review.

[1:25 p.m.]

Incorporating sunset clauses, periodic audits, limiting delegation, requiring rigorous

internal privacy protocols and reporting to the Information and Privacy Commissioner

could also help.

Stronger platform accountability and enforcement mechanisms would also be necessary,

adding rules to allow CRT to issue site-level or platform-level orders, in addition

to individual takedowns when proliferation is extreme; requiring frameworks for international

platforms to respond to British Columbia orders, mirroring the lessons from the case

I mentioned previously with regard to X; ensuring funding or processes to assist victims

to enforce removal, compliance or follow-up administrative penalties.

To ensure a smooth transition and reasonable timelines, a preparedness requirement

should be enshrined in the act so that the CRT may not accept new high-value intimate-image

claims until capacity benchmarks are met, such as staffing, infrastructure and training.

When victims of non-consensual, intimate-image-sharing reach out for help, they are

not asking for vengeance. They are asking for dignity, safety, justice and control

over what was taken from them. Bill 17 is a step to modernize our legal apparatus

and close a gap in access to justice.

Good intentions must also be matched by strong structure. It is not enough to say

faster; we must ensure faster. It is not enough to say choice; we must make choice

meaningful and fair. It is not enough to promise privacy; we must enshrine balance

and accountability. And it is not enough to expand jurisdiction; we must fund, train,

staff and monitor the system that must deliver.

Therefore, I lend my support to this bill in principle and look forward to working

constructively in committee to shore up its weaknesses, strengthen protections, ensure

oversight and calibrate for real-world use. I believe that by combining empathy, legal

precision and rigorous review, we can transform Bill 17 into legislation that truly

gives survivors recourse, dignity and hope, while maintaining fairness, transparency

and systemic integrity.

I look forward to seeing this bill go to committee stage and to receiving feedback

from victims, legal advocates, privacy experts, tribunal staff and civil society —

all voices that must shape this final statute. I encourage the government, opposition

and all members of this House to treat this bill not just as a political markup but

as a moral imperative deserving of care.

I thank you for the time today, and I look forward to debate on the floor and in committee.

Deputy Speaker : Seeing no further speakers, the Attorney General to close debate.

Hon. Niki Sharma : I move second reading.

Deputy Speaker : Members, you’ve heard the question.

Division has been called.

[1:30 p.m. - 1:35 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker : Members, the question is second reading of Bill 17 intituled Intimate Images Protection

Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings .]

[1:40 p.m.]

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.

Motion approved.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : I call continued second reading debate on Bill 12.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle

Amendment Act, 2025

(continued)

Lawrence Mok : I rise to speak to Bill 12, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025.

The people in my riding of Maple Ridge East, in Mission and across British Columbia

want a driver licensing system that works, one that is efficient, modern and fair.

Everyone agrees that the driver licensing process should be faster and less confusing,

but British Columbians also expect their government to act with transparency and accountability

when it wants to change the rules that affect millions of drivers.

Bill 12 claims to expand and modernize licensing and reduce backlogs. Yet when we

examine the bill closely, we find something very different, a bill that hands sweeping

new powers to ICBC and government cabinet, powers that can be used by them to change

testing, training and standards with little or no public consultation.

The Conservative caucus supports genuine streamlining and improved road safety, but

what we oppose is unchecked authority that replaces clear law with discretionary regulation.

That is not modernization. It is centralization.

The most consequential pieces of this bill are found in sections 23 and 25. These

amendments allow the cabinet to prescribe different amounts of driving experience,

waiting periods and even testing requirements for different classes of persons. They

also give ICBC the ability to decide whether a driver even needs a test. That means

the standards for earning a driver’s licence, something fundamental to daily life,

could change by regulation behind closed doors with no debate in this Legislature.

[1:45 p.m.]

Flexibility is fine when it is defined, but flexibility without limits becomes arbitrary

power. It allows rules to be rewritten quietly, leaving drivers to navigate a moving

target. That is not how accountable government should function. Modernization should

make the system clearer and more predictable and not more confusing for the people.

In addition, Bill 12 is full of undefined terms like “prescribed classes” or “prescribed

considerations.” Those phrases may sound technical, but they matter. They decide who

must take a test, how long someone must wait or what experience counts.

Furthermore, what exactly is a class of persons? Is it an age group? Is it a region?

Is it a profession? We don’t know, and neither do the people affected. For commuters

in Maple Ridge and Mission, who rely on the Mission Bridge, the Lougheed Highway and

the Golden Ears Bridge to get to work, these changes could mean longer waits or inconsistent

standards.

For small business owners who depend on employees with class 5 or class 7 driver licences,

uncertainty in regulation means uncertainty in staffing. If this government plans

to treat people differently, then it should do so through open legislation and not

through undefined regulations that can change at any time.

The central change in Bill 12 is the removal of mandatory testing for certain drivers.

Under this bill, ICBC may decide a road test isn’t necessary for some applicants moving

from a novice to a full licence. That might sound efficient, but testing isn’t red

tape. It is a safeguard. It ensures that every person behind the wheel has demonstrated

driving competence, not just accumulated time.

ICBC’s own data shows distracted driving and inexperience remain leading causes of

serious accidents. In 2023, the Lower Mainland accounted for nearly half of all crash

claims in the province. The solution is better training and more access to testing

and not lower standards.

Maple Ridge and Mission families tell me their kids sometimes have to wait weeks or

even months for a drive test date. That’s very frustrating. But the solution for the

government is to hire more testers and expand capacity and not to remove tests altogether.

We need a driver licensing system that rewards skill and responsibility and not simply

endurance.

Bill 12 also lowers the self-application age for a full licence from 19 to 18. That

change could make sense. Many young people work or attend college outside their hometown.

When you combine it with the removal of mandatory road testing, it raises some serious

concerns.

Graduated licensing exists for a reason. It builds good and safe driving habits through

structured evaluation. If we were to shorten the process or waive the test, we would

surely undermine that foundation.

In communities like Abbotsford, Maple Ridge and Mission, young drivers face complex

conditions such as fast highways, rural roads, winter rain and growing road congestion.

They need robust, evidence-based driver education. If the government wants to shorten

wait times, it should first prove that approved courses deliver the same safety outcomes

as testing. Without that evidence, we are taking a gamble with public safety.

[1:50 p.m.]

Another issue at large is fairness. Bill 12 exempts certain existing licence holders

from new distracted-driving restrictions for motorcycle learners, meaning older licences

are treated differently from newer ones. Two people could ride the same road at the

same speed using the same type of vehicle, but only one would face penalties. That’s

arbitrary and confusing. Safety rules should apply based on risk, not on when someone

happened to get their licence. If a measure is important enough to include in legislation,

it’s important enough to apply universally.

Perhaps the biggest red flag is how much of this bill is deferred to future regulations.

There’s no requirement for government cabinet to consult the public, report to the

Legislature or publish data on outcomes. In practice, entire policy frameworks could

be created by order in council.

That is government by regulation, not representation. British Columbians deserve better.

The Conservative caucus strongly believes that every major change to licensing standards

should come back to this House for review and that ICBC should publish annual safety

reports showing whether these reforms are making our roads safer. Transparency builds

trust. On the contrary, regulation in the dark erodes it.

For people in Maple Ridge and Mission, a driver’s licence isn’t a luxury; it is a

necessity. Many residents commute daily to Abbotsford, Port Coquitlam, Coquitlam,

Burnaby or Surrey for work. Transit options are limited. Driving is part of life.

So when rules change without warning, it affects real households, parents driving

kids to hockey practices, tradespeople hauling equipment and seniors visiting their

family doctors.

ICBC’s decisions shouldn’t be made in isolation from those communities. Government

should consult municipalities and driving schools before changing wait times or testing

rules. If efficiency is the goal, then let’s expand regional testing capacity so people

don’t have to drive to Langley or Coquitlam for a test. Let’s use technology to improve

scheduling, not to eliminate safeguards.

With regard to evidence and data, a responsible reform process starts with data and

ends with transparency. If this government believes these amendments will maintain

or improve safety, then it should prove it by publishing the collision statistics,

showing the comparison between tested and untested drivers and allowing independent

evaluation. Without that, Bill 12 simply asks British Columbians to accept risks on

faith, and faith alone is not evidence.

Safety is not a partisan issue. Every MLA in this House wants to see fewer accidents

on the road and safer communities, but safety cannot be achieved by assumption. It

must be earned through measurable standards.

Now let’s take a look at clause 10 of this bill, which gives cabinet general power

to make any regulation needed to implement the amendments and even to decide when

the act comes into force. That kind of open-ended authority tilts the balance too

far toward executive control. This Legislature should never surrender its role in

determining when and how laws take effect. Oversight is not an inconvenience. It is

a constitutional responsibility.

I want to recognize one positive element in Bill 12, the intent to strengthen safety

for motorcycle learners by mandating protective gear and limiting device use. I agree

that those goals are great and make sense. But again, the specifics are deferred to

cabinet.

[1:55 p.m.]

We ask: what is protective equipment, when is it required and for which classes? Riders

and police need clear, consistent rules, not shifting regulations. If gloves, boots

and jackets save lives, then let’s put that in the statute itself where everyone can

see it.

The Conservative Party’s approach to licensing reform is grounded in three simple

principles. One, transparency. Major changes to public safety laws must be debated

openly, not hidden in regulation. Two, competence. Testing and training must remain

evidence-based, ensuring every driver meets consistent standards. Three, fairness.

No exemptions or double standards. Rules must apply equally to everyone on B.C. roads.

We support genuine modernization that reduces bureaucracy while strengthening safety.

We oppose anything that concentrates power without accountability. Modernization and

oversight are not opposites. They work best together.

In closing, Bill 12 could have been a model of balanced reform, an opportunity to

improve efficiency, embrace data and enhance road safety. Instead, it expands discretion

and leaves critical decisions to ICBC and cabinet, far from public view.

For communities like Abbotsford, Maple Ridge and Mission, where driving is part of

daily life, clarity does matter. People need to know what the rules are, how they

are enforced and that they apply to everyone equally. Streamlining is good; don’t

get me wrong. But secrecy is not. Efficiency is valuable, but accountability is essential

too.

While we support the goal of safer, more efficient licensing, we cannot support a

bill that achieves it by weakening oversight. So let’s bring these changes into the

open, ensure they are guided by evidence and keep competence, not convenience, at

the heart of driver licensing in British Columbia. That is the Conservative vision

for safe, fair and accountable reform.

David Williams : I rise today to speak of Bill 12, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025, a bill that,

at first glance, appears to make practical updates to our licensing and safety laws.

But details matter. This legislation gives sweeping new powers to ICBC and the cabinet,

reshapes how young drivers progress through the system and imposes new safety requirements,

yet it does so without clear legislative boundaries or fairness between urban and

rural communities in British Columbia.

We all support safer roads. The question is whether this bill achieves that goal fairly

and with accountability. Little by little here, we’ll go through a few things.

Clause 1 is minor. It’s mostly a grammatical correction, but it does mark the calm

before the storm. Beyond this simple word change, every following clause touches on

how people live, work and travel in this province. We must not allow housekeeping

language to disguise a deeper shift of power. Like I said, words matter. Any lawyer

will tell you that.

Clause 2 gives the cabinet the power to prescribe different experience requirements

for different classes of persons. That flexibility might sound harmless, but when

government can redefine who qualifies for a licence by regulation, it does take that

decision away from this House and from legislators.

[2:00 p.m.]

If we are to treat one group differently from another, whether it’s newcomers, youth

or even seniors, those distinctions should be debated openly, not buried in regulation.

It should be with input, fairness and transparency.

Clause 3 is the engine of the bill. It expands ICBC’s power to decide who must test,

how long drivers must wait and which education programs can shorten those waits. That

doesn’t sound very democratic to me. Safety education is great, but fairness must

come with it.

Let me share a story of how this could affect certain groups of people, I’ll give

an example of a young person. Say they live in Grindrod, which is a small community

just outside of Enderby, a very small community, rural. They finish high school, and

let’s say they go out and get their first job. It may be at a nursery, or it may be

at a small farm operation. In order to have that job, they need a licence, because

they have to do deliveries. But the nearest ICBC-approved training centre may be in

Vernon.

To get the course, you might have to go to Kelowna. That’s hours away, and you might

have to book it months ahead. Without that course, you face a longer waiting period.

You can’t remove your N, and you can’t move on to get a full class 5.

Meanwhile, the same student living in a large urban centre probably could take the

course within the next week and get their licence within days or weeks. That’s not

because one is more skilled than the other. It’s simply because of where they live,

geography. Bill 12 rewards those who can access or afford these approved courses and

penalizes those who can’t.

Regions like Salmon Arm, Shuswap, Fort St. John or Burns Lake…. That becomes a two-tiered

licensing system, in my mind. Well, people who live in urban areas, those that are

fortunate to live in a large urban area where courses are readily available, great.

The people who live in the rural areas have to wait, and they’re unfairly penalized,

in a roundabout way.

Furthermore, clause 3 lets ICBC decide which out-of-province licences or offences

count towards B.C. records. Well, that’s a major policy power being handed over to

a Crown corporation without any legislative checks. Again, that’s not democracy.

I do believe in education courses, of course. I think that’s a very good thing. Back

when I was in high school, they offered…. Through the high school, if you joined and

took a licensing program to get your driver’s licence, they would actually offer credits,

and it would go towards part of your high school graduation program.

To me, that seems like a very good option, and it was offered through the school.

They had licensing training companies that they worked with. Again, I don’t know if

that’s something that was explored, but it’s certainly something that should be looked

at.

Anyway, let’s move on here. Clause 4 lowers the independent application age from 19

to 18, which makes sense. It aligns with other provinces, and I don’t see any issue

with that. But if young people still face higher barriers to advancement due to the

distance or cost, the change is just symbolic. It really doesn’t mean anything. Turning

18 should open doors, not highlight inequalities.

Clause 5 mandates that certain riders wear prescribed protective clothing and footwear.

We all want everybody to be safe. We want riders to be safe. We want drivers to be

safe. The issue is that “prescribed” is underdefined. What exactly does that mean?

[2:05 p.m.]

Until the regulations are written, police and riders alike won’t know what qualifies.

And if the regulations require expensive or brand-specific gear, small-town riders

and poor old delivery workers could bear the unnecessary costs. During these unaffordable

times, I don’t think that anybody can afford any additional costs.

Safety rules should be clear, affordable and practical, not written in a way that

only professionals can meet. Clause 5 bans novice and learner drivers from using electronic

devices entirely, even hands-free GPS or mounted phones. The intent is good; the problem

is enforcement. An officer on the roadside now has to interpret not only the behaviour

but also the driver’s licence class.

A class 7 driver may be fined for glancing at a GPS, while a class 5 driver next to

them can legally use it. Doesn’t sound very fair, does it? That inconsistency undermines

respect for the law and makes enforcement subjective. I don’t think when it comes

to regulations or law that it should be subjective.

Clauses 7 to 10. These are basically transitional and regulatory powers, right? Clauses

7 to 10 basically let cabinet handle a messy transition, including deeming class 7

licences to be class 5 and class 8 to be class 6. In principle, it smooths out administration,

but in practice, it could create unequal treatment and confusion.

Two drivers with the same experience could be classified differently, and employers

or insurers may struggle to keep track. Such changes belong in legislation, not hidden

behind cabinet orders.

Clause 11, basically, is a repeal of an old provision. This repeal cleans up an old,

never-enforced amendment. That’s fine. We do want to get rid of old stuff that doesn’t

mean anything. It reminds us of how many laws get passed and never proclaimed. We

need fewer symbolic bills and more fully implemented and practical ones.

Finally, the act comes into force by regulation, which clause 12 outlines. That means

the cabinet decides when and that the public won’t know when that happens. It seems

this happens a lot with many of the bills presented. It shouldn’t happen. A fair system

should give citizens a clear notice of when the new requirements take effect, clear

and defined.

Bill 12 aims to modernize our licensing framework, and some elements do that just

fine. But modernization should not come with the cost of transparency or fairness.

This bill concentrates the authority within ICBC and the cabinet and leaves critical

definitions for future regulations and, unintentionally, creates barriers for rural

youth and low-income drivers.

One thing I certainly believe in is getting rid of any kinds of inequalities. It should

be fair across the province, and it should be fair across demographics and income

classes. I don’t think that the bill fully addresses that.

We can and should support safer roads. That goal also must be paired with equal opportunity.

Every British Columbian, from Vancouver to Salmon Arm to Stewart, way up north, deserves

a fair path to earning their licence. We can all agree on that. But let’s fix this

bill by defining protective gear standards before the enforcement starts, guaranteeing

access to improved training in all regions or removing the long waiting period incentive

until equal access is guaranteed.

[2:10 p.m.]

Where are the training places going to be and how many? How many people can we expect

are going to be taking advantage of this program? We need clear stats. It should be

fair across the province, or there should be a slight deviation across the province,

limiting ICBC’s discretion by embedding key criteria into law.

Again, no one entity should have the discretion to lay down regulations unless it

has public input and is legislated, requiring public consultation before new licensing

rules or testing requirements take effect, right? There definitely should be public

consultation.

If all those changes are made to Bill 12, Bill 12 could indeed enhance safety and

efficiency, but as it stands, it risks deepening divides and eroding trust in the

fairness of our system.

The story I presented about the person from Grindrod isn’t unique. It represents hundreds

of young people across our province who simply want to work and to drive safely and

to move forward in life. And they want to do so without being penalized because of

where they live.

Let’s ensure that when we modernize our motor vehicle laws, we modernize them for

everyone. Let’s not leave anyone behind. Not just those who happen to live near an

ICBC training centre or within reach of an urban convenience.

Anyways, like I said, the essence of the bill is good, but it’s not without its flaws,

and it’s certainly not without its inequities.

Hon. Terry Yung : If I may seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Statements

Vancouver Canucks

Hon. Terry Yung : It’s been a long week, and I just got some good news. As some of our hockey fans

might be aware, today is the season opening for the Vancouver Canucks, who play at

Rogers Arena, which happens to be my riding of Vancouver-Yaletown. I understand the

game is sold out.

I just wish everybody here, along with me, to wish the Vancouver Canucks a great season,

a winning season.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle

Amendment Act, 2025

(continued)

Hon. Ravi Parmar : I move second reading.

Deputy Speaker : Members, the question is second reading of Bill 12, intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment

Act, 2025.

Division has been called.

[2:15 p.m. - 2:20 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker : Before we continue, I’m going to ask MLA Davis just to confirm.

I understand you are in a private room. Would you please confirm it? MLA Davis, do

you confirm that you are in a private room?

Pete Davis : I am in a private room, yes.

The Speaker : Okay. Thank you so much.

[2:25 p.m.]

Members, the question is second reading of Bill 12, intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment

Act, 2025.

Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings .]

Hon. Nina Krieger : I 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. Ravi Parmar : We are now moving on to second reading of Bill 18.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Bill 18 — Sexual Violence Policy Act

Hon. Jessie Sunner : I move that the bill be read a second time now.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill 18, the Sexual Violence Policy

Act.

Before we begin, I’d like to acknowledge that we’re gathered today on the territories

of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking peoples, the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.

[2:30 p.m.]

I stand before you today as the Minister of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills

but also as someone who believes deeply in the transformative power of education.

Our colleges, universities and institutes are places of learning, of growth and of

discovery. They are places where young people come to find their voices, to shape

their futures and to build our communities, but for far too many, these spaces have

not always been safe.

Let me share a story. It’s not a single story but a reflection of many. It’s a story

of a student, bright, ambitious and full of promise, who experiences sexual violence

on campus. In the aftermath, she feels isolated, unaware of where to turn. She worries

about being believed. She fears retaliation. She questions whether her institution

will support her, whether justice is even possible.

This story is not fiction. It’s real, it’s lived, and it’s wholly unacceptable. Sexual

violence is never acceptable — not in our homes, not in our workplaces and certainly

not in our post-secondary institutions. Today we are taking another step forward in

changing this story.

Since 2017, every public post-secondary institution in British Columbia has been required

to have a policy in place addressing sexual violence. This was a critical first step.

Our understanding of sexual violence has evolved since then. We’ve continued to listen

to students, faculty, staff, Indigenous and Métis partners, and community organizations.

We’ve heard about the gaps in our current framework. We’ve heard about the barriers

that survivors face when trying to report incidents. We’ve heard about the need for

trauma-informed approaches, for transparency and for accountability. And we have acted.

Over the past two years, our ministry has undertaken a comprehensive review of the

Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act. We held consultations across the province

with student societies, sector associations, unions, Indigenous and Métis partners

and community-based service organizations. We asked hard questions, and we listened

to difficult truths, and we committed to doing better. The result of that work is

what brings us here today.

Today I am proud to stand and support Bill 18, titled the Sexual Violence Policy Act,

new legislation that replaces the previous act and marks a significant step forward

in our collective efforts to prevent and respond to sexual violence in post-secondary

communities.

This legislation is more than a set of rules. It reflects our values. It is a declaration

that every person — student, staff member, faculty member, contractor, volunteer or

board member — feels safe, supported and empowered. Let me walk you now through what

this new act will do.

First, it expands the scope of sexual violence policies beyond students. For the first

time, institutions will be required to include all members of their community — faculty,

employees, contractors, volunteers and board members — because sexual violence does

not only occur between students, and our protections should reflect that.

Second, it strengthens consultation requirements. Institutions must engage meaningfully

with their communities when reviewing and updating their policies. This includes forming

an advisory committee, which must include students and community members, to guide

their policies, because policies must reflect the lived realities of those that they

are meant to protect.

Third, it enhances transparency and accountability. Institutions will now be required

to make annual reports on sexual violence policy implementation and make them publicly

available. These reports must include information on prevention, awareness and response

initiatives by the institutions, because we know that transparency builds trust.

Fourth, it reduces barriers for survivors. The act provides institutions with express

authority to share information about interim measures and case outcomes with survivors.

This addresses long-standing concerns about privacy and ensures that survivors are

not left out in the dark about the outcomes of their cases. Rather, this process centres

survivors and provides them with greater autonomy in the reporting process.

[2:35 p.m.]

Fifth, it establishes consistent standards provincewide. The act expands the government’s

regulation-making authority, allowing government to set clear, consistent expectations

for all public post-secondary institutions, because safety should not depend on where

you live and how an institution decides to implement standards.

These changes are more than just legislative. They are cultural. They send a clear

message that sexual violence in any form is unacceptable, and we will never tolerate

it.

All of this being said, we also recognize that this can’t be accomplished through

legislation alone. That’s why, alongside the new act, we are launching the sexual

violence action plan, which is a comprehensive roadmap to guide our efforts in prevention,

response and support. The action plan includes 12 concrete actions under five strategic

priorities.

First, lifting up Indigenous approaches. We have worked with Indigenous partners to

develop intersectional training resources that reflect Indigenous knowledge systems

and support reconciliation. We are setting standards to ensure policies are responsive

to UNDRIP, the calls to justice and the calls to action.

Second, increasing prevention through awareness and training. We have provided training

resources tailored to the needs of international students, graduate students and those

affected by technology-facilitated sexual violence. We are establishing education

and training requirements for institutions to address sexual violence proactively.

Third, we are improving institutional responses. We are developing guidelines for

trauma-informed investigations, creating a roster of trained investigators and setting

standards for accountability measures. Institutions will be required to communicate

transparently with survivors about the status and outcomes of their investigations.

Fourth, we are improving data collection and reporting. We have released a toolkit

to help institutions prepare annual reports, and we are creating a

schedule for future

iterations of the student perceptions of sexual violence survey and committing to

publishing the results.

Fifth, we are strengthening privacy and confidentiality. We are developing standards

of confidentiality in cases of sexual violence and providing guidance on the use of

non-disclosure agreements.

Three of these actions — developing training resources, releasing the reporting toolkit

and creating intersectional supports — are work that has already been completed. This

legislation will support the implementation of several others, and we will continue

to work closely with our partners to complete the rest.

This action plan is more than a document. It is a commitment, and it is a promise

to survivors that we see you, we hear you, and we are acting. This work does not exist

in isolation. It builds on the broader efforts of our government to address gender-based

violence across British Columbia. We are proud of the gender-based violence action

plan and the Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity and the gender equity office.

We are proud of the legislative amendments to Bill 17, the Intimate Images Protection

Act, which strengthen protections against online sexual harassment and non-consensual

image-sharing. And we are proud of the partnerships we’ve built with the Ending Violence

Association of B.C., the AMS Sexual Assault Support Centre and countless others who

have contributed their expertise, their passion and their lived experience.

We’re proud of the progress that’s been made so far. Since 2017, our government has

invested over $2 million in sexual violence prevention and response in post-secondary

communities. We have developed open-source training resources, enhanced reporting

systems, supported rural and remote campuses and reached out to students to better

understand their diverse experiences.

The results speak for themselves. In our most recent survey, 88 percent of students

said they feel safe from sexualized violence in their post-secondary communities,

which is up from 78 percent in 2022. We are making progress, but we know that there

is still so much more to be done. There’s more to be done, and we will continue to

do more. We will continue to work with institutions as they implement these changes,

even in the face of financial pressures.

[2:40 p.m.]

We will support our institutions by providing guidance, training and tools to help

them better support survivors. We will monitor implementation. We will hold institutions

accountable. We will ensure that survivors have access to the support they need, whether

through campus services, community organizations or provincial resources such as Here2Talk

and VictimLinkBC.

We will continue to update our annual sexual violence awareness campaigns to reflect

best practices and sector needs. Preparations for the 2025-2026 campaign are already

underway, with a launch anticipated in early 2026. And we will keep listening, because

this work is never done, because the needs of survivors evolve, because our understanding

deepens, because our commitment must be unwavering.

Today I invite each of you in this House to join us and support this bill. Join us

in building a culture of safety, respect and inclusion across British Columbia’s post-secondary

sector. Join us in standing with survivors, in believing them, in supporting them

and in fighting for them. Join us in ensuring that every student, every staff member,

every faculty member, every community member knows that they matter, they are protected

and they are not alone.

Together, we are rewriting the story. Together, we are building safer futures.

Thank you for your support. I really do look forward to having support from our entire

House in forwarding this very important legislation in this House.

Jeremy Valeriote : Thank you to the minister for walking us through this legislation.

Thank you to the opposition for letting me go first so that I can make a meeting in

a few minutes.

I’m pleased to rise to speak to the Sexual Violence Policy Act. This bill addresses

some key issues regarding the ongoing gaps in sexual violence protections for survivors

and accountability from the institutions we expect to protect them. Updating this

act is a demonstration that our understanding of sexual assault, its consequences

and how to seek justice are evolving.

I want to add a trigger warning, for anyone at home listening, that this is a heavy

topic, and I urge people watching to take care of themselves, first and foremost.

There’s plenty of evidence that we as a society are slow to respond to sexual violence

and are not prioritizing survivors and accountability. This is evident in how courts

treat perpetrators when they are athletes, celebrities or have promising careers ahead

of them. We prioritize their well-being over the survivors’.

We recently learned that our national sports leagues have secret funds to pay off

survivors of abuse and associated legal fees to protect their players. It seems assault

is an integral part of sports culture, not just the exception. We also see this in

decreasing access to sexual health services and education.

The Green caucus intends to support the government on this second reading because

it is a demonstration of this government doing good work on an important issue. It

intends to address some major gaps in how we understand and address sexual assault

and how to ensure public institutions make their campuses as safe as possible for

everyone.

As the father of 11-year-old daughters, I don’t have to think about this for a few

more years, and I’m putting it off as long as possible, but graduating high school

and going off into the world is supposed to be the start of an incredible journey.

You leave your small town, your family and the friends that you’ve known since kindergarten,

and suddenly you’re a stranger in a new place.

You have to cook for yourself, get to class on time, make new friends, but you no

longer have a curfew. Maybe you’re going to the bar for the first time. Suddenly there

are lessons to be learned, like having a buddy system, what a Burt Reynolds is and

how you get home safe.

Post-secondary is an opportunity to learn about ourselves, to figure out what the

future could look like and how to get there. It’s also supposed to be a safe space,

whether it’s learning new things in class, hearing new ideas or trying new experiences.

But not all experiences are good. Some can be quite bad, as we know.

When things go wrong, we expect we’ll be protected by the adults around us — our mentors,

teachers and leaders.

This legislation makes a very important distinction. It changes the language describing

assault to sexual violence, rather than misconduct. This new definition creates the

inherent understanding that sexual assault is a serious offence and a violation, not

just bad behaviour.

[2:45 p.m.]

Hopefully this doesn’t happen, but if you were to get punched in the face, you would

probably describe this as a violent attack and expect it to be treated as such. But

for some reason, the discourse and resulting policies on sexual assault have sidelined

and downplayed its severity. Any attack on someone’s body, mind or soul is

an act

of violence.

Alongside language modernization, this act will require all 25 of British Columbia’s

public post-secondary institutions to establish and implement a policy to address

sexual violence and have clear procedures for allegations. This includes establishing

an advisory board that must include student representation. We’ll also ensure everyone

on campus is safe, because assault is not limited to students. B.C. students have

been calling for these changes for years, and they are long overdue, but better late

than never.

Here’s some data I would like to share with the House. Sexual assault is the most

underreported violent crime in Canada. A StatsCan survey done in 2019 revealed that

almost three-quarters of students at Canadian university campuses had witnessed or

experienced unwanted sexual behaviour. One in ten female students experienced a sexual

assault in a post-secondary setting.

From 2021 to 2022, reported sexual assault in B.C. rose 15 percent. From 2017 to 2022,

police reported sexual assault increased 38 percent among men and women.

However, women are five times more likely to be sexual assault survivors than men.

Those who identify as bisexual experience sexual assault nearly 29 times higher than

heterosexual Canadians. Women with a disability are four times more likely to be sexually

assaulted, and 70 percent of trans youth in Canada have experienced sexual harassment.

Indigenous women and girls are 16 times more likely to be murdered or disappear.

These are horrifying statistics, and they’re unacceptable. Sexual assault is a highly

gendered crime, with women and girls accounting for 90 percent of reported survivors,

and 74 percent of survivors knew the person accused of the crime.

Learning how to protect themselves from assault is something that women and queer

folk learn at a very young age. It’s part of a daily routine. This is where, as a

male, I am speaking on behalf of some of the people who helped me write this or wrote

this speech for me. They are some of our young caucus team. This is something that

I can’t possibly understand, so I’m really grateful for our caucus staff for helping

me to understand.

Here are some of the things that are done daily to avoid assault. Out for a walk and

someone is coming? Move to the other side of the street. Taking out headphones walking

through the woods, through a tunnel or a dark street. Calling a friend to share a

location. Walking with our keys through our fingers. Putting a coaster on top of a

drink. Wearing a nail polish that changes colour to see if a drink has been drugged.

Pretending to be in a relationship to avoid confrontation. Changing one’s clothes.

Making eye contact or avoiding eye contact. Changing walking routes. Changing gyms.

Not running when it’s dark. Not running when it’s early in the morning. Locking the

car doors as soon as we enter a car. Parking in well-lit areas. Getting escorted to

cars. Avoiding elevators. Avoiding the stairs.

This is a mental load and a burden that I don’t have to experience, and I am chagrined

to understand that others do have to think about this at all times. It’s a systemic

and cultural problem.

Just this summer an independent review of the province’s justice system warned that

gender-based violence has been “normalized.” According to the report, 94 percent of

sexual assaults were not reported to the police. Part of the blame can be placed on

a lack of access to justice for survivors, institutional barriers and lack of accountability

within institutions.

This bill addresses one of these issues. Trauma-informed, transparent and accountable

policies are the very least of what we can expect from our public institutions to

protect their students and staff. Open, accountable, inclusive and trauma-informed

policies, working groups and pathways to justice are only a start.

This legislation is another step to ensure that policies and annual reports are publicly

available every year and updated to ensure they offer the best available protection

for survivors. We need to simplify the pathways for survivors to come forward, to

be heard, to be taken seriously and to be protected by their peers and institutions.

One of the ongoing issues regarding sexual violence cases is the use of non-disclosure

agreements. Too often they are used as gag orders that enable the concealment of harmful

behaviours.

[2:50 p.m.]

The Third Party has previously called on this government to limit the use of NDAs

in cases of assault, harassment and discrimination. Although this bill does not directly

address the use of NDAs as a tool of silence, it’s important that this work is being

done to fix this issue.

In a perfect world, kids are sent to school without a care in the world, but we know

that that’s not the case. Until you’ve existed in a world where every turn feels like

a new danger, it’s difficult to explain the significance of clear, consistent and

consultative policy — policy that is meant to help and not silence.

For policy to be successful, its corresponding services need funding. A continuum

of care for assault survivors includes on-campus supports, such as support centres.

These can be run by student organizations and can provide much-needed ground support.

We’re looking forward to hearing from this government on how they intend to implement

these changes in a good way and support institutions to achieve the best possible

outcomes.

Bryan Tepper : I rise today to speak to Bill 18, the Sexual Violence Policy Act of 2025. I’m proud

to speak to this legislation today in my capacity as MLA for Surrey-Panorama and critic

for Post-Secondary Education.

This legislation deals with an issue that can reach every student, faculty member

and staff at our universities. While surveys show that 71 percent of students have

witnessed unwanted sexual behaviour, I would suggest that most of the rest just didn’t

realize that they had.

It is the right of every person to feel safe, respected and protected when attending

or working at British Columbia’s public post-secondary institutions. Sexual violence

is not just a legal or administrative concern. It is a human one that affects trust,

dignity and the very sense of belonging that higher education is meant to inspire.

This bill seeks to strengthen protections and modernize processes so that post-secondary

institutions can respond better when harm occurs at work, proactively, to prevent

it. These are positive goals that I think all members can share. The existing 2016

act was a first attempt to set a consistent framework for handling sexual misconduct

at universities and colleges. Nearly a decade later, it’s clear the landscape has

changed.

It is important to remember where we started. The original Sexual Violence and Misconduct

Policy Act of 2016 was created after years of advocacy from students and survivors

who felt that their universities were not listening. That legislation was, in many

ways, the first attempt to impose a uniform standard of accountability across all

post-secondary institutions. It set the baseline.

Every campus needed a written policy, a process for disclosure and a commitment to

review, but in the years since, the world of post-secondary education has evolved.

Awareness has grown, yes, but so have expectations. The early framework relied too

heavily on self-reporting and left too much discretion in institutional hands. Some

schools developed robust procedures and survivor supports; others offered compliance

by paperwork alone.

The new 2025 act is, therefore, both a response and a correction. It acknowledges

that sexual violence prevention cannot remain a patchwork, a system dependent on who

happens to be in the president’s office. It recognizes that university autonomy must

be balanced with public accountability, and it signals that this Legislature is aware

of the lived realities of students who have struggled for fairness and clarity for

nearly a decade.

As Conservatives, we can appreciate that progress should be evolutionary, not revolutionary,

grounded in evidence and informed by experience. Bill 18 reflects that steady improvement.

This new legislation replaces that earlier act and broadens its reach to include not

only students but also faculty and staff. It introduces requirements for advisory

committees, consultation and annual reporting. It mandates training and gives institutions

clear responsibilities to educate, prevent and respond.

[2:55 p.m.]

These are positive updates. They reflect an understanding that preventing sexual violence

is not a single-policy matter. It’s about improving culture, clarity and accountability.

According to Statistics Canada, nearly seven in ten incidents of sexual assault on

campus go unreported. In 2019, nearly one-quarter of female university students reported

experiencing unwanted sexual contact in a single academic year. Behind every statistic

is a story, and too often, those stories never reach the light of day.

We have seen the consequences of silence. The controversies at major institutions,

from the University of British Columbia to universities in Ontario and Alberta, show

that culture can change only when leadership acts.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Other provinces have already introduced binding campus safety standards, public data

requirements and survivor-centred training. B.C.’s new framework brings us closer

to that level of accountability. At the same time, we must be cautious. Legislative

change should not simply be reactive to headlines. Our aim must be consistency so

that a student in Cranbrook enjoys the same protections as a student in Vancouver.

A policy that lives only in a binder is not enough. It must live in the conscience

of the institution.

The Conservative caucus is happy to support the principle of Bill 18. We believe that

safe learning environments are an essential component of academic freedom and fairness

for students. Bill 18 introduces several important new layers of reporting, consultation

and training.

When it comes to responding to sexual violence, survivors must be supported. At the

same time, due process must be respected. Institutions must have transparent procedures

so that no one is left in the dark and everyone can have confidence in the outcome.

Transparency, however, cannot exist without fairness. While we must always believe

survivors and support them, we must also preserve due process. A true culture of respect

protects all parties, the survivor seeking justice and the respondent entitled to

a fair hearing.

Across Canada, there have been troubling examples where campus tribunals acted hastily,

without clear evidence or procedural safeguards. This undermines trust and invites

legal challenges. B.C.’s legislation must therefore strike a careful balance between

compassion and consistency.

A strong framework should include independent oversight, clear timelines for investigation

and protections for privacy and procedural rights. If universities fail to apply those

principles, they risk eroding faith in both their policies and their leadership.

The Conservative caucus supports an approach that places justice at the centre, not

ideology; not expediency but fairness. That is what sustains trust in our institutions.

There are also practical realities we should keep in view. Whenever new duties are

placed on institutions, they come with costs: time, administration and personnel.

Smaller colleges and regional campuses may not have the same capacity as large universities

to meet every reporting or training requirement.

We need to ensure that these expectations are realistic and supported so that compliance

does not become a burden that diverts resources from teaching and student support.

That concern is especially true outside the Lower Mainland. Smaller colleges in regions

such as the Kootenays, the North or Vancouver Island do not have the administrative

infrastructure that major universities possess. When government imposes new reporting

obligations, those tasks often fall to one or two overstretched staff.

[3:00 p.m.]

If compliance becomes a matter of forms rather than outcomes, we risk undermining

the very goals this bill sets out to achieve. The ministry must ensure that all institutions,

large and small, receive the resources and training necessary to meet these standards.

Otherwise, the legislation risks creating a two-tier system, one for metropolitan

universities with compliance offices and another for rural campuses forced to choose

between meeting provincial mandates or funding student programs.

This issue is not bureaucratic; it is moral. Rural students deserve the same level

of safety and responsiveness as any other British Columbian. Our government must not

download responsibility without support. A shared-service model or targeted grants

could help small campuses build the capacity they need.

Similarly, clarity will be needed where these new obligations intersect with the work

of other bodies such as the Civil Resolution Tribunal. That tribunal already faces

an expanded workload under recent legislation, and we would not want to see delays

or confusion over jurisdiction. Our goal should be to simplify access to justice,

not complicate it.

A common thread in this bill is the idea of transparency, and that is essential. Trust

is built when institutions are open about their policies, honest about their performance

and accountable to their communities.

When a student or staff member makes a disclosure, they should know exactly what will

happen next. When an institution publishes an annual report, it should tell the truth

about how many incidents were addressed, how many were resolved and what lessons were

learned, without breaching privacy but without hiding behind process either.

Transparency is not about assigning blame. It is about ensuring that those in power

answer to the people they serve. That principle should guide not only our universities

and colleges but this Legislature as well.

If there is one place where prevention can make a difference, it is education. Education

is the foundation of prevention, but it must begin long before students arrive at

university. Respect and responsibility are learned first at home, reinforced in schools

and tested in adulthood.

We cannot expect universities alone to fix cultural decay that starts much earlier.

Provincial curriculum must support age-appropriate lessons in consent, personal boundaries

and digital citizenship. Families should be partners in that work, not spectators.

When students enter post-secondary life, they should already understand that freedom

and accountability are two sides of the same coin. Our universities can then build

upon these values with consistent messaging through orientation programs, student

mentorships and leadership training. In this way, prevention becomes cultural, not

merely procedural.

Rules matter, but character matters more. That is where education and morality intersect

and where a free society reminds its young people that liberty without virtue becomes

licence. Consent at its heart is an expression of liberty, the freedom to choose and

the obligation to respect that choice. Teaching consent properly means teaching that

freedom and responsibility go hand in hand.

Students must be empowered to speak up, to seek help, to know that silence is never

the price of belonging. If this bill helps to reinforce that message in every classroom

and every orientation week, then it will have served an important purpose.

[3:05 p.m.]

When parents send their sons and daughters off to university or college, they are

placing enormous trust in those institutions. It’s not only an investment in education.

It’s

an act of faith that their child will be safe, respected and supported.

This trust cannot be maintained through policy manuals or bureaucratic structures

alone. It is built through culture — a culture that honours family values, that encourages

personal responsibility and that reminds every student that freedom is inseparable

from respect.

The protection of students’ well-being must go hand in hand with the preservation

of the principles that built our communities: decency, fairness and respect for human

dignity. That is what we should want for British Columbia — institutions that reflect

the values of the people who built them, that serve families as much as they serve

industry and that recognize that every policy begins and ends with human dignity.

As we debate Bill 18, let us remember that safety and morality begin in homes, in

communities and in the classrooms that teach not only facts but virtues. If our post-secondary

institutions can rediscover that mission to educate both the mind and the character,

then this legislation will have done something truly meaningful for the next generation

of British Columbians.

Bill 18 is a step forward in an ongoing effort to make our post-secondary institutions

safer and more accountable. It’s not perfect, and no law ever will be. But it represents

a positive attempt to confront a difficult reality that sexual violence remains a

persistent challenge and that society must respond with compassion, enforcement, clarity

and courage.

Our support for this bill comes from that understanding. We support it not because

it involves every problem but because it moves the conversation forward and creates

a framework for continued improvement.

At the same time, we remind the government that real progress will depend on listening

to students, to survivors, to faculty and to the institutions themselves. Implementation

will matter more than announcement. Indeed, that is where the true test will lie.

Legislation can set expectations, but follow-through determines impact. Who will ensure

that annual reports are accurate and comparable? Will the ministry publish a provincewide

summary of campus incidents and resolutions?

The government should commit to transparent evaluation. A central, public dashboard

could allow parents, students and legislators to track progress, not to shame institutions

but to encourage accountability.

There should also be regular, independent reviews of institutional compliance, perhaps

every five years, to ensure that universities are not simply ticking boxes. Without

consistent oversight, even well-intentioned laws lose their meaning.

In addition, the ministry must coordinate with the Civil Resolution Tribunal and human

rights bodies to avoid duplication or jurisdictional confusion. Students deserve clarity,

not bureaucracy.

Implementation, not press releases, will determine whether this bill delivers real

change. We must ensure that the measures introduced here are fair, transparent and

sustainable. We must also keep sight of the deeper goal to build a culture of respect,

where both safety and freedom can thrive together.

That is what the people of British Columbia deserve, and that is what we will continue

to stand for on this side of the House — freedom with responsibility, justice with

fairness and compassion guided by principle.

I’d like to finish by noting that this bill states that the Offence Act does not apply

to it. I believe this is an important addition to the bill, as we do not want bad

actors to use this as a way around reporting to police. All reports of sexual violence

should be reported to police so that criminal investigations can be undertaken and

the truth can be exposed. We know far too many cases go unreported.

[3:10 p.m.]

When we step back, Bill 18 is about more than campus policy. It is about what kind

of society we want British Columbia to be. A university is a mirror of the community

that built it. If our campuses reflect respect, fairness and integrity, it is because

those values are alive in our homes, our churches, our families and our schools. The

reverse is also true. When moral courage weakens in society, our institutions falter.

This legislation, then, is not simply administrative housekeeping. It is a reminder

that self-government begins with self-respect and that freedoms we cherish must be

exercised with moral responsibility.

As Conservatives, we believe law should serve people, not replace conscience. We support

measures that strengthen character as well as compliance. We want universities that

are not only safe but also noble, places that shape good citizens, not just good employees.

If Bill 18 helps renew that ideal, if it helps a generation rediscover that respect

and responsibility are inseparable, then this debate will have been worthwhile.

Stephanie Higginson : I rise today in support of Bill 18, the Sexual Violence Policy Act, and I am quite

thrilled to hear that, so far, there seems to be unanimous support for the bill. The

proposed Sexual Violence Policy Act will replace the current legislation, the Sexual

Violence and Misconduct Policy Act, which was put into place in 2017, introduced in

This work, Bill 18, the Sexual Violence Policy Act, will close gaps in the existing

framework and establish clearer, more consistent standards across public post-secondary

institutions. It will help post-secondary institutions strengthen their prevention

and response efforts and reduce barriers for survivors seeking support.

All public post-secondary institutions have had a policy in place since 2017, and

this new act will help improve prevention of and responses to sexual violence in the

public post-secondary sector by strengthening consultation requirements, increasing

accountability and transparency in annual reports, reducing barriers for people when

making formal allegations of sexual violence and helping support institutions to develop

policies that are guided by a trauma-informed approach.

These proposed changes respond to the feedback that we heard from students, employees,

Indigenous partners and community partners. The existing act came into effect in 2017,

but since then, the ministry has received a lot of feedback from students, from staff,

from Indigenous partners and community organizations about opportunities to strengthen

and improve the current act’s provisions and implementation. In response, the ministry

undertook a comprehensive review of the existing policies and engaged with post-secondary

communities and partners to inform the development of this new legislation.

Through the course of this week, we have heard a lot of concerns on some of our bill

debates from the opposition about engagement, so I think it is important to highlight

who we engaged with and how we engaged to inform this work. It was brought on by requests

from the communities impacted by sexual violence to review the current act.

We talked to First Nations and Métis partners, to public post-secondary institutions,

to student societies, student-led sexual violence organizations, subject-matter experts,

community organizations, post-secondary-sector associations and staff and faculty

unions.

In the summer and fall of 2022, the ministry conducted a series of consultations and

focus groups with external partners to collect input on the previous act, the Sexual

Violence and Misconduct Policy Act.

[3:15 p.m.]

The feedback from 2022 engagements informed the draft version of the current action

plan. The ministry then engaged with the post-secondary sector and First Nations and

Métis partners between January and April 2024 to validate the draft of the action

plan and make sure it met its needs. During these engagements, participants shared

that the action plan addressed many of the current issues in the sector, including

those identified in previous engagements in 2022.

If we already had

an act, then why did we need to update it? Because we heard from

the stakeholder groups that there were gaps in the existing act. But more importantly,

we should always strive for continuous improvement.

The Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act was introduced in 2016 and put into

place in 2017 in response to a growing number of sexual violence incidents at public

and post-secondary institutions.

Under the act, all public post-secondary institutions in B.C. are required to establish

and update their own sexual violence policy, provide an annual report to their board

on the implementation of the policy and review their policy at least once every three

years to ensure it remains effective. The proposed Sexual Violence Policy Act will

replace the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act, and the proposed new legislation

of these requirements will remain in place.

The proposed legislative changes aim to close gaps and improve responses to and prevention

of sexual violence in public post-secondary institutions, including:

Setting objectives for sexual violence policies that promote a culture of consent

and accountability with proactive prevention and response.

Expand the scope of policies beyond students to include faculty, employees, contractors,

volunteers and other institutional community members.

Enhance consultation requirements to ensure effective policy reviews by requiring

institutions to establish an advisory committee that includes student representation.

Update language and terminology to better reflect best practices that are trauma-informed

— for example, using the term “sexual violence” instead of “sexual misconduct.”

Provide express disclosure authority for institutions to give survivors information

on investigation outcomes. Can you imagine not knowing the outcome of the investigation

of your own assault because of privacy?

More transparent and accountable annual reports through public availability of reports,

including information on prevention and response efforts.

Expand regulation-making authority to ensure consistent policies.

One of the key aspects of the improvements of this act is to lift up and amplify the

importance of Indigenous approaches to this work. Thanks to the relentless focus and

resilience of our First Nations and Métis partners, we now know more about the importance

of making space for the ancient wisdom of the lands that we are on to inform our work.

This is critical not only for Indigenous victims but also for non-Indigenous.

It is important to look at the success of the past work but also to identify areas

of improvement. The results from the ministry’s 2025 student perceptions of sexual

violence survey show that 88 percent of students agreed that they felt safe from sexual

violence in post-secondary communities, up from 78 percent in 2022.

That shows that we’re making progress, but it’s that 22 percent that we must focus

on, that 22 percent that keeps us up at night and where we know Indigenous women are

heavily overly represented.

I want to highlight that this work aligns with the government’s priority to create

safer communities and end gender-based violence. I’m proud of this work. I’m proud

to be part of a government that prioritizes women’s safety.

We heard a speech just a minute ago from a member of the Green Party talking about

things that the young women on his staff have to do on a regular basis. They read

out a list of actions that they take.

I have to tell you that except for the jogging part and also the drinks at a bar —

those days are left behind for me, mostly — many of those things that they listed

I have done in the last five days. Walked with keys between my hands. Crossed the

street just the other day to avoid a close contact. Took a different elevator. Called

a friend while walking home alone because somebody was walking very close to me.

I want to thank my colleagues for this critical work. It’s necessary. It’s important.

It’s relevant.

I look forward to supporting the bill as it moves forward to committee stage.

[3:20 p.m.]

Lawrence Mok : I rise today once again to speak but this time to speak to Bill 18, the Sexual Violence

Policy Act, 2025 — legislation that seeks to expand, modernize and strengthen the

framework for how sexual violence is viewed and addressed within our post-secondary

institutions.

At its core, this bill is about ensuring that every student, every faculty member,

every staff person, every contractor, including board members, can study, teach and

work in an environment that is safe, respectful and free from fear. That goal is something

we all share and cherish.

While I want to begin by affirming my support for that principle, for the commitment

to safer campuses and communities, I also believe we must look carefully at whether

this legislation will actually achieve that outcome or whether it risks becoming yet

another framework that looks good on paper but lacks the teeth to deliver meaningful

change.

Bill 18 repeals and replaces the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act passed

in 2016. That earlier law required post-secondary institutions to create and maintain

a sexual misconduct policy that applied primarily to students.

This new legislation expands that coverage — now including faculty, staff members,

contractors and board members — and modernizes language, mandating shifting from “misconduct”

to “sexual violence.” It introduces mandatory advisory committees, consultation processes,

annual reports and requirements for training and surveys.

These are all important steps. Expanding protections beyond students to include the

broader institutional community recognizes that sexual violence does not discriminate

by role or title. It can occur between students, between staff, between staff and

student or in any direction of power. That reality needs to be reflected in law, and

I commend the government for acknowledging it.

What this bill still lacks is substance beyond structure. It tells institutions how

to report, how to consult and how to meet bureaucratic compliances. But it doesn’t

tell us how survivors will actually be supported or how accountability will be enforced

when an institution fails to act.

We have seen time and again that policies alone do not change culture. They can, at

best, provide the scaffolding, but it is the will, the follow-through and the consistency

of enforcement that determine whether they mean anything in practice.

If we look more closely at the clauses in this bill, we will see a great deal of emphasis

on process. For example, clause 3 requires that every post-secondary institution establish

and implement a sexual violence policy that sets up procedures for disclosure, for

formal allegations and for disciplinary action. That’s fine. That’s structure.

Clause 5 then requires that every institution review its policy every three years

or when directed by the minister. Again, that is structure. Clause 6 creates an advisory

committee, clause 7 outlines consultation requirements, clause 8 allows the minister

to direct surveys, and clause 9 mandates annual reports to the governing body.

[3:25 p.m.]

While those are well-intentioned measures, they all focus on how institutions communicate

and report rather than on what actually happens to a survivor who discloses abuse.

So we ask questions like: where are the minimum standards for victim-support services?

Where are the timelines for action once a complaint is made? Where is the requirement

that investigations be handled independently, not internally, to avoid bias or institutional

protectionism?

It is one thing to ask post-secondary institutions to foster a culture of consent.

It is another to make sure that when someone comes forward, they don’t face weeks

or even months of waiting, silence or intimidation. There is a difference between

a framework and a solution.

Talking about clause 10 and privacy concerns…. Clause 10, which authorizes post-secondary

institutions to provide information about the outcome of a formal allegation to the

complainant, is a welcome improvement. Survivors deserve to know that their case has

been taken seriously and to be informed about any action taken.

Even here, the bill leaves significant discretion to the institutions themselves.

It says they may provide that information, not that they must. That kind of vague

language is often where real accountability dies in practice. If the government truly

wants to empower victims, it should require transparency, not merely allow it.

At the same time, we must be mindful of protecting due process and privacy for all

parties involved. Striking that balance between confidentiality and accountability

is critical, and it’s not entirely clear that this legislation has done so.

Clause 6 and clause 7 mandate the establishment of advisory committees and consultation

processes before policies are even developed or reviewed. Including students and ensuring

diversity in these committees is essential, but I worry that this bill may unintentionally

create more administrative weight than real engagement. We have seen similar committees

established in the past, well-meaning but quickly bogged down in procedure, reporting

and internal politics.

If these advisory bodies are to mean anything, they must be empowered to challenge

institutions, not merely endorse them. They must be more than symbolic. They must

have the authority and independence to hold universities and colleges accountable

for real change.

I must also say that this bill focuses too narrowly on post-secondary institutions.

Sexual violence is not confined just to those settings. Trade programs, apprenticeship

sites and community training centres are also educational spaces, many with young

or vulnerable learners often working in close quarters or isolated environments.

These environments can also carry risks, and it’s not clear that they are fully captured

under this framework. If we truly, truly want to make a provincewide impact, we must

extend these principles of safety, consent and accountability beyond the traditional

university or college campus.

Moreover, this bill doesn’t address what happens when institutions fail to uphold

their responsibilities. There is no penalty, no enforcement mechanism and no oversight

beyond self-reporting. A university can publish a glossy policy, hold a few training

sessions and submit an annual report. But if victims are still being silenced or re-traumatized

by internal processes, then what have we really accomplished?

[3:30 p.m.]

Many young women, men and non-binary students who have gone through the institutional

process have described it as more painful than the incident itself. They recount stories

of being passed from office to office, of delays stretching for weeks and months,

of being told to be patient, where the alleged attacker continued to attend the same

classes or work in the same building. That is not justice. That is not compassion.

If we are serious about tackling sexual violence, we must prioritize survivor-centred

supports. That means guaranteed access to counselling and mental health resources.

That means clear and enforceable timelines for investigations. That means independent

review bodies that ensure fairness and consistency. That means funding for prevention

and awareness programs that reach beyond compliance checkboxes. None of these elements

are found in this legislation.

Now, let’s examine clause 13. Clause 13 gives regulation-making powers to cabinet,

meaning the government can determine through regulation how procedures will be defined,

how consultations will be conducted and what information must be reported. That flexibility

can be helpful, but it can also be dangerous. We have seen too many examples where

regulation replaces responsibility. Governments announce bold principles, then quietly

water them down in regulation later.

If this issue is as important as the government claims, then those core standards

should be written directly into the legislation, not left to cabinet discretion. Survivors

shouldn’t have to wait for regulations to find out what rights they actually have.

Culture change is not achieved through paperwork. It is achieved through true leadership,

through empathy and through a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths. This bill

says all the right words: consent, accountability, respect, prevention. But those

words will mean very little if they are not backed by funding, transparency and measurable

outcomes.

Every annual report required under clause 9 should include not just summaries but

useful data such as how many disclosures were made, how many resulted in investigations,

how long they took to resolve, what supports were provided to victims. Without that

kind of useful data, we are just operating blindly.

In conclusion, yes, I think I can support the principle of Bill 18 because any step

forward, any step towards safer campuses, is a step worth taking.

Let’s be very clear. This is not the finish line. It is a framework, one that still

leaves too much undefined, too much to regulation and too much faith in systems that

have already failed too many people.

Sexual violence is not an abstract policy issue. It is real. It is painful. It is

ongoing. And every time we stand in this chamber to legislate on it, we have a moral

duty to ensure that our words will translate into real protection, real accountability

and real justice for survivors.

[3:35 p.m.]

British Columbians deserve more than another policy binder sitting on a shelf. They

deserve institutions, both public and private, that act swiftly, transparently and

compassionately when harm occurs. That is how we build campuses and communities that

are not just compliant but genuinely safe.

With this, I make my case.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : Because they asserted their right to take space in what was once considered a men’s

profession, 14 female engineering students were shot on the campus of the École Polytechnique

on December 6, 1989. The Montreal massacre changed our country, and we now name acts

of femicide. This horrific violence against women because they were women shocked

people around the world, and Canada in particular honours and recognizes December

6 every year.

The intersection between post-secondary campuses and violence against women is very

well established. I was very honoured when I became Member of Parliament in 2015 to

be named the critic, for the New Democratic Party, for the status of women. My legislative

analyst, Jannie Bédard Guillemette, was born on December 6. She’s from Quebec. The

spirit that she brought to our work I want to recognize in particular.

Hi, Jannie.

I got to meet so many advocates from across the country who had been galvanized by

repeated violence. What I describe is an actual act of femicide, but of course, the

student movement to recognize sexual violence on the campuses of Canadian post-secondary

institutions was very strong. The survivors experienced, across the country, a fragmented

patchwork of often inaccessible policies and services, so I heard a lot about student

movement efforts in every province to tackle campus rape, sexual violence. The federation

of students committed a lot of their political capital to advocate on this issue.

At home in Nanaimo, where I’m elected in the riding of Nanaimo–Gabriola Island…. It

hosts Vancouver Island University, the student union there, and Nanaimo’s Haven Society,

which is a provincially renowned group that provides shelter to women and their families

at their very worst time. They activate every year very strongly during the United

Nations’ 16 days of activism to end violence against women.

One of the annual actions that they take is what they call the Clothesline Project.

We’ll see, on the campus at Vancouver Island University in Nanaimo, art and kind of

dirty laundry, in effect. Their goal is to air out and break the silence against the

critical issue of violence against women.

The Vancouver Island University Faculty Association women’s and gender equity committee

does really groundbreaking work in our community, raising the alarm on sexual violence

and harassment on campus.

The British Columbia Federation of Students, again focusing on sexual violence on

campus.

The Vancouver Island University Students Union, very clear and strong on this issue.

They also were some of the initiators of a really important program that’s available

for anybody at a British Columbia post-secondary university or college, Here2Talk,

24-hour access to mental health supports that our government has funded. Very important

work.

I’m also really proud of Vancouver Island University and the MBA program, not necessarily

where you think that there is going to be a bastion of feminist action. The MBA Games

in 2017 made its total focus creating safe spaces and safe places across the country

so women and children are free from all forms of violence on post-secondary campuses.

[3:40 p.m.]

The organizing team from Vancouver Island University, the MBA program, raised over

$300,000 that year for the Moose Hide Campaign, their charity of choice. You can still

business administration perspective to raise awareness and to raise funds.

The British Columbia Federation of Students women’s caucus has been a very strong

activist on this issue. Student unions across British Columbia under the umbrella

of the Federation of Students have been partnering with and amplifying the voice of

stolen sisters.

A powerful organization that I tapped on a lot when I was doing federal work was OurTurn.

It assesses university campuses across the country. It gave Canadian universities

a grade of C-minus for their campus rape and sexual assault policies.

Altogether, why is this so important? My colleague the House Leader, I’m pretty sure,

from the Green Party, not the interim leader of the Green Party…. In any case, the

West Vancouver–Sea to Sky member named this very well.

This is young people’s, and particularly young women’s, first time away from home.

They don’t have their usual support systems. They are singularly vulnerable at this

time. Their campus should be a safe place where if they are assaulted, if there is

any violence or harassment against them…. They really rely deeply, more than any other

time of their life, probably, on having a caring and consistent approach and way to

respond to be safe in the moment and then to pursue justice. That vulnerability means

that this is our particular responsibility.

Now let’s turn to the British Columbia response, which we are debating here today.

I’m so encouraged…. Although I got that real wake-up call from the student movement

across the whole country about the failure of many provinces and, certainly, failure

of the federal government to adopt a consistent response. I did hear this.

If you’ve got sisters from two different families that go to universities in two different

provinces, we really hope that there is an equivalent system of care to catch them

if something goes wrong. There is often just that interfamily, or within networks

of friends, coaching about who you can turn to.

At that time, we were arguing strongly for a federal framework, which just has not

come. So British Columbia has gone ahead and taken the responsible thing. British

Columbia continues to lead nationally on supporting efforts to prevent and respond

to sexual violence in the post-secondary sector. B.C. was one of the first provinces

to pass legislation that requires post-secondary institutions to have a sexual violence

policy in place, and that has been achieved by all our post-secs in British Columbia,

for which I’m grateful.

I recognize the sector is under a lot of pressure in many ways. They have responded

to and adopted this work that was required in legislation. I don’t take that for granted.

I’m grateful for that.

Things have evolved since then, and the minister described this quite clearly in her

speech at the point of second reading. Both the recognition and the nature of sexual

violence has changed. Also, we have learned from the experience of survivors on campus.

We have listened as a government to both the barriers that remain for vulnerable people

on campus in seeking justice and achieving safety, and we’ve also listened to and

learned from the gaps.

I’m speaking in support of Bill 18, which is a proposed Sexual Violence Policy Act

that will replace the existing Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act, closing

gaps in the current framework and strengthening institutions’ responses to sexual

violence.

This comes within a framework of other responses. Since 2017, our government has funded

to address sexual violence, and the post-secondary community has funded work to raise

awareness on consent and sexual violence. It’s an enhanced institutional system for

reporting and disclosing sexual violence.

[3:45 p.m.]

We’ve developed plain-language supports for institutional policies. We’ve developed

open-source training resources for institutions. We’ve provided specialized supports

for rural and remote campuses, including investigation training for staff. And we’ve

continued to carry on outreach to students to better understand their diverse experiences.

All of that work in the moment to enact the 2017 policy and then the extensive consultation

that happened with the sector, the ending-violence-against-women sector, and the student

movement has added on to the existing framework that we had.

Already post-secs were required to establish and update their own sexual violence

policy. They’ve been required by law to provide an annual report to their board on

the implementation of the policy, and they’ve been required to review their policy

at least once every three years to ensure it remains effective and relevant.

Now with the new legislation that is before us, those requirements that I just described

remain in place, and we add on expanding scope beyond students to include faculty,

employees, contractors, volunteers and board members. We are making it clear that

institutions must pursue in their policies…. To promote prevention of sexual violence,

they must include a culture of consent and accountability.

We are strengthening requirements for consultation during policy reviews. The legislation

requires more robust annual reporting requirements. It will provide institutions with

express authority to share information about interim measures and case outcomes with

survivors. The member for Ladysmith-Oceanside described this in more detail, how important

that is.

Finally, in the legislation, we are establishing consistent standards provincewide

and expanding our regulation-making authority to make sure that sexual violence policies

are consistent and they reflect the best practices across all B.C. post-sec institutions.

I’m very encouraged by the culture within our post-secondary partners. They do share

experiences. They invite us in sometimes to witness those conversations. I know that,

with the increased focus and clarity that this legislation brings, this will just

enhance our colleges’ and universities’ abilities to share best practices and encourage

each other to do the very best.

None of this, of course, is in isolation. This legislation is focused on the post-secondary

world because of the unique vulnerability of students, young women especially. But

I do want members of the public to know that additional supports to both prevent and

end violence and to protect women and families at the most terrifying and scary time

continue and are available to all members.

We have a gender-based violence action plan called Safe and Supported that was adopted,

I think, about a year and a half ago. We’ve invested in legal aid expansion for people

experiencing family violence, including legal representation through a new family

law clinic model and a significant expansion of legal aid eligibility criteria.

I’m particularly grateful for the Centre for Family Equity and Legal Aid B.C. for

supporting that work and offering a multitude of ways for people to be able to access

help and safety at the most profoundly challenging time.

We’re providing trauma-informed, culturally safe sexual assault services throughout

the province, including 70 new sexual assault programs, 18 of which are Indigenous-focused.

You’ll remember that when the opposition was in government, those sexual assault centres

had been closed for budgetary reasons, I presume.

We’ve also improved access to financial and other benefits available through the crime

victim assistance program.

[3:50 p.m.]

We’ve been helping women and children escaping violence, preventing homelessness,

through the women’s transition house funding program, which operates over 1,500 units

of safe housing with more underway, say in my own community in Nanaimo. I’m very grateful

to B.C. Housing and Snuneymuxw First Nation for building that work together.

There is more that we have implemented in partnership into an astonishingly effective,

resilient and powerful sector. I raise my hands in particular to the Ending Violence

Association of B.C. I thank them in particular for their work shaping this legislation,

shaping the action plan that’s attached to it and for their very strong encouragement

that this House pass the legislation.

I’ll note also that in the process in this House, already this chamber had passed

the Intimate Images Protection Act that the Attorney General had introduced into this

House. And then this week we are simultaneously debating an update to that legislation

— again, British Columbia leading the country on this particular form of gender-based

violence. Collectively, both these investments, these programs delivered in cooperation

with the not-for-profit sector and the two pieces of legislation here before us today….

I’ll conclude by saying these are all reflective of our government’s continued focus

to support people at their most vulnerable time, to prevent harm, to do that in a

trauma-informed way, to do that in partnership with the First Nations Justice Council

and other Indigenous leaders.

We acknowledge every day that there is more for us to do, and we remain committed

to build on that existing work with our partners, to strengthen sexual violence prevention

and response within our post-secondary communities anywhere that vulnerable people

live.

With hope that we have another unanimous vote, as we’ve had two already today, on

advancing bills forward, I’m grateful to my colleagues in both the Conservative and

the Green Party for their fairly positive speeches today.

With thanks for your attention, Mr. Speaker, I’ll end my comments again asserting

my support for Bill 18.

Korky Neufeld : I rise to speak to Bill 18, the Sexual Violence Policy Act, 2025, legislation that

repeals and replaces the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act passed in 2016.

I just want to thank my fellow colleagues who have addressed this issue already, and

they brought up some very, very good points. As the former Post-Secondary critic,

I remember — and the member is in the House right now — I brought this topic up in

committee stage to the former Minister of Post-Secondary, because student unions,

as I criss-crossed the province and talked to institutions and to student unions,

have been lobbying this for a very, very long time.

I just want the public to know that this government has been in power for ten years,

and those student have been lobbying for something like this for at least that long.

I just want to make sure, nine years plus, but ask that the new Minister of Post-Secondary

pay close attention to what has happened in her role previously, because there have

been repeated…. As I read through the Hansard reports, through the committee stages from years past, there are repeated themes,

repeated themes, repeated themes, and this was one of them.

I would like to say I’m glad it’s here, but it should have been here a long time ago.

This is a societal issue. This is not just a campus issue. This is something that’s

really broad, and it’s impacting vulnerable kids. Like someone has said recently,

they are the first time away from home, and their safety nets aren’t there. This is

across Canada and British Columbia, and I would say even further than that.

[3:55 p.m.]

At UFV in our beautiful city in the country, Abbotsford, we also have had some of

these. I just want to read some of the headlines from newspapers that impacted our

community.

“Abbotsford Police Seek Person of Interest in Sexual Touching Incident.” “Man sought

in connection with sexual touching of two male students on the Abbotsford campus.”

March 28, 2018. “On March 20, police say the suspect allegedly brushed the genitals

of a male student in a washroom at the Abbotsford campus. Police say the victim followed

the suspect and took a picture of him.”

Our university, because they are so closely tied to our community, has taken action,

and I want to quote: “UFV sexualized violence support. UFV has committed to providing

support and options to members of our community who have experienced sexualized violence.

We encourage you to access the many support programs available both on and off campus.

You are not alone. We are here to help.”

It is making a difference because they are so closely tied to our small community.

This institution has taken this matter seriously, and I want to thank UFV for their

intentional and ongoing action in addressing this pervasive issue across B.C. campuses

and especially in our community. It is making a difference on and off our campus.

Speaking to the bill, at its core, this bill seeks to strengthen how our post-secondary

institutions — universities, colleges, technical schools — prevent and respond to

sexual violence. The stated goal is to foster safe and respectful inclusive learning

in working environments. It is a goal that every member in this House can and should

support.

We know that campuses should be places of opportunity — places where students, where

faculty, where staff can pursue learning, can pursue research and pursue community

without fear or intimidation. Yet far too many of these spaces have not always been

safe.

This isn’t new. Like I said, this has been known for years. Student unions have brought

this forward year after year after year — acts of sexual violence, whether physical,

psychological or digital.

I want to make that comment because I’m the new critic for AI. I want to say that

just because it’s not a physical violence…. It is just as deeply impactful. I believe

there should be something in here to protect sexual violence regarding digital images.

They last a lifetime. They damage not only individuals but the trust and safety of

the entire campus and the community surrounding.

This bill represents an attempt to modernize, to clarify and to expand the framework

for how post-secondary institutions respond to that reality. There is good reason

to be cautiously optimistic about how it sets out to do this. Several things I want

to bring up.

One, expanded scope and clear

definitions. The first notable change is scope. The

previous act, passed in 2016, focused almost exclusively on students. Bill 18 expands

that coverage to include faculty and staff, acknowledging that sexual violence is

not confined to one group or one type of relationship.

This is an important step. It reinforces that every member of the campus community,

whether a student, a professor, a researcher or a staff member, deserves the same

protection, the same process and the same respect.

The bill also replaces outdated terminology, such as “sexual misconduct” with “sexual

violence,” a broader, more precise term that actually captures both the physical and

psychological harm. And it recognizes that such harm can occur not only in person

but also through technology. In an era of online harassment and image-based abuse,

this modernizes the definition and is far too long overdue.

[4:00 p.m.]

These changes send an important signal. Our laws must evolve to reflect the lived

realities of its survivors. Structure and accountability — Bill 18 introduces several

structural requirements that, if implemented with care, could lead to greater accountability

and cultural change on campuses, which is sorely needed. Each post-secondary institution

will now be required to establish a sexual violence policy that includes clear procedures

for responding to disclosures and former allegations.

Two, create an advisory committee that reflects the diversity of the campus community,

including at least one student.

Three, conduct consultations with students, faculty and staff when developing or reviewing

their policies. Provide annual reports summarizing their response to incidents and

prevention efforts. And lastly, make those reports publicly available.

These are important mechanisms. They not only promote transparency but also help ensure

that sexual violence policies are not static documents sitting on a shelf. They become

living frameworks, reviewed, refined and informed by the community they serve.

The inclusion of mandatory training for all members of the institutional community

is another positive step. Education is essential in preventing harm, fostering consent

and building a culture of respect. Cautious optimism; implementation matters. I want

to read a few things here, some statistics that I’ve read.

Sexual violence is a persistent and serious issue on British Columbia campuses, affecting

students, staff and faculty. It’s a widespread issue. In 2019, Statistics Canada surveyed

that 71 percent of post-secondary students in Canada had witnessed or experienced

unwanted sexual behaviour. That’s 71 percent under-reported. This is staggering.

Sexual violence on Canadian campuses is known to be under-reported. In 2019, fewer

than one in ten women reported incidents in their school. And here’s why. Survivors

often cite a lack of faith in the school’s reporting process or feeling the incident

was not serious enough.

This shocked me. I never understood this. There are high-risk periods on campus. The

first eight weeks of the academic year, often called “red zone,” see a high percentage

of on-campus assaults. That is so sad, and the perpetrators are known. The majority

of perpetrators are fellow students.

Now, I’m not going to mention the universities or the institutions, because I think

it’s so pervasive. It’s everywhere. But stories of sexual violence on British Columbia

campuses highlight issues of inadequate responses from universities, significant student

experience of misconduct and long-term impact on survivors.

A 2022 survey found that one in five university students experienced sexual assault

or misconduct. And cases involving former student athletes and PhD students underscore

failures in the university’s handling of complaints. Because these are high-profile

people, they’d rather sweep it under the rug than deal with it — shame on them — leading

to legal action like human rights complaints by survivors.

In institutions, stories about sexual violence include news reports of specific incidents,

such as a 2019 case of inappropriate touching by a cyclist on campus and a 2016 incident

of voyeurism involving a student and a mirror.

Additionally, this institution conducted a survey revealing that a significant portion

of students perceived sexual violence as common on campus and a proportionate report

of feeling completely unsafe on campus.

and harassment at a campus student event. These are institutions in our province.

While there is much to support in this bill, my optimism is tempered by caution. The

effectiveness of this legislation will depend entirely on how it’s implemented, not

just what it promises on paper.

The framework is sound, but many of the most consequential details are left to future

regulations or to discretion of post-secondary institutions — for example, the composition

and authority of the advisory committee, the standard for consultation and reporting,