First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Wednesday, October 8, 2025

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 79

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

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 24 — Vaping Product Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act

Hon. Niki Sharma

Protecting Minors from Gender Transition Act

Tara Armstrong

Question of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

Tara Armstrong

Members’ Statements

Life as an Immigrant

Janet Routledge

Prince George Public Library

Rosalyn Bird

German-Canadian Benevolent Society

George Chow

Peachland Museum and Peachland Historical Society

Macklin McCall

Thanksgiving

Paul Choi

Mackenzie Outdoor Route and Trail Association

Kiel Giddens

Oral Questions

Reconciliation and Government Handling of Land Title Agreements

Scott McInnis

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert

Cowichan Tribes Land Title Court Case and Property Rights

John Rustad

Hon. Niki Sharma

Housing as a Human Right

Rob Botterell

Hon. Christine Boyle

Property Tax Deferment Program

Rob Botterell

Hon. Christine Boyle

Government Policies on Gender Transition for Children and Youth

Dallas Brodie

Hon. Niki Sharma

Stakeholder Consultation on Heritage Conservation Act Amendments

Ward Stamer

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Mineral Claims Consultation Framework Review

Pete Davis

Hon. Jagrup Brar

Okanagan Falls Incorporation Process

Donegal Wilson

Hon. Christine Boyle

Public Service Labour Dispute and NDP Caucus Staff

Trevor Halford

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Peter Milobar

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Reports from Committees

Finance and Government Services Committee , Budget 2026 consultation

Paul Choi

Elenore Sturko

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 45 — Change to Legislative

Schedule for Sitting Weeks

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Hon. Niki Sharma

Steve Kooner

Elenore Sturko

Stephanie Higginson

Misty Van Popta

Sunita Dhir

Jeremy Valeriote

Rosalyn Bird

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert

Kiel Giddens

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Kristina Loewen

Korky Neufeld

Macklin McCall

Linda Hepner

Amelia Boultbee

Point of Order (Speaker’s Ruling)

Wednesday, October 8, 2025

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Lawrence Mok.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Tara Armstrong : I would like to recognize a very special person here in the gallery with us today.

Chris Elston, known better online as Billboard Chris, is a world-renowned child protection

advocate from Vancouver.

He travels the world engaging in street-level conversations and advocacy to shield

children from unneeded medical interventions. The message is simple. Girls and boys

are beautiful, just as they are, no drugs or scalpels needed — one man and a billboard

driving institutional reform globally with just signage and a mic.

Help me welcome Chris. His courage and principles are inspiring.

Darlene Rotchford : I have two constituents of mine in the House today, Amy Cameron and Joe Ross. They

were here speaking to private members about the B.C. Alzheimer Society, telling their

story and how it affects them.

I would just like the members of this House to welcome them.

Ian Paton : I’m honoured today to have two guests from my constituency, Nin and Dale Mand. They’re

here somewhere.

They actually purchased this as a silent auction item in Ladner-Tsawwassen, where

you got to spend part of the day with the MLA for Delta South and even attend question

period. Let’s make it worth their while, please, everyone.

Susie Chant : I just want to extend a very warm welcome to the members of the Alzheimer Society

that were here to speak with us today. The Alzheimer Society provides such marvellous

support to a whole group of people in our province that can’t necessarily speak for

themselves or find their own supports.

I’m very grateful for the work that they do, and I’d just like to introduce Jen Lyle,

who’s their CEO; Paula Brill, who’s with engagement and community services; Rebecca

Frederick, who’s with engagement; and Scott Jackson. I’m very glad that they’re here

speaking to us about the Alzheimer Society and the work that it does — also Amy and

Joe, who were here to tell us about their lived experiences.

Thank you. Hopefully, everybody gives them a warm welcome.

John Rustad : There are lots of people here I’d like to introduce from our CAs, but I’m going to

leave that for another.

There is an individual here who is not a CA but who is a former MLA. He’s a recovering

MLA, a recovering politician. He spent a lot of years here — I worked with him closely

— from up in the Peace River area. He’s a great individual. He’s very passionate,

and he still stays connected with politics.

Would the House please welcome Dan Davies.

Larry Neufeld : I have two introductions, if I may.

The first is the Explorers and Producers Association of Canada. We had the fantastic

opportunity of having an outreach event with the individuals this morning. EPAC, as

it’s known, is a lobby group representing Canada’s oil and gas entrepreneurs. They

have over 80 member companies, producing a large proportion of the country’s hydrocarbon

endowment. Their members spend billions of dollars annually across the country and

directly employ more than 50,000 people in every province and territory.

I’d like to have this House join me in welcoming Tristan and Jennifer.

My second introduction, at the nudging of a colleague from across the aisle, is that

I’d like to recognize my beautiful bride of over three decades. She has been instrumental.

We all know the pressures on family life of doing this work. We all know the pressures

on our relationships with spouses, and I wouldn’t be here without her.

Help me welcome her.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : Today in the legislative precinct are my friends from Nanaimo, Sue and John Little.

Members on this side will recognize John Little as a steelworker, as a volunteer at

Legion 256 in Nanaimo and, most importantly to me and my crew and family, captain

of my sign crew.

Will the House please make the Littles very welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

Lorne Doerkson : Two very special people to introduce today, visiting from Quadra Island, from a place

that I affectionately call Doakville, are Glenda Genoway — she is a retired hygienist

there; and Peter Genoway, who is a grade 9 student from Carihi high school. He’s very

interested in politics. He has met with the Speaker this afternoon, and they’re going

to tour the precinct.

Will you please make them very, very welcome.

Thank you for coming.

Hon. Jessie Sunner : Today on the precinct I’m very excited to welcome a school group from Guru Nanak

Sikh school in my riding, a group of grades 4 to 6 students. I think they’re outside,

maybe, right now on a scavenger hunt.

I’m really excited to have them here. It’s so important to be able to have students

come here and see democracy in action. I’m so thankful to their teachers, their parents

and guardians and to the principal, Ms. Jagbir Kaur, and the teachers, Ms. Sachdeva,

Ms. Inmeet Kaur and Ms. Neha.

If everyone would just please help me make them feel welcome, wherever they are in

this precinct.

Jody Toor : On behalf of the official opposition caucus, I would like to extend a warm welcome

to all our CAs from across British Columbia, better known as B.C. Conservative CA

super squad. Gathered here in Victoria today for the 2025 Conservative CA conference,

they are a dedicated and hard-working group, particularly behind the scenes, whose

efforts go unnoticed usually.

Your commitment assures our success and a smooth running of our daily lives.

On behalf of the official opposition caucus, we appreciate you. Thank you for being

here and for all that you do.

Can the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : I’m not sure if they’re in the House yet, but certainly, in the precinct, we have

representatives from the Council of Forest Industries. Here in Victoria today they

had an opportunity to meet with members of the executive council as well as members

of the government caucus.

Without a doubt, we’re going through a very challenging time in forestry. Starting

on Tuesday, 45 percent duties in tariffs. I want to really thank COFI for the leadership

that they provide to the forest industry, working with our government on the challenges

ahead and also the opportunities.

For my colleagues who had an opportunity to participate in lunch today, to be able

to hear from the real young leaders in forestry in every part of our province certainly

makes me feel optimistic about the role that forestry has here in British Columbia.

I want to thank COFI for the work that they do alongside our government to be able

to ensure that we can build that strong, sustainable and robust forest sector that

we can all be proud of for the next 100 years.

Will the House please join me in making COFI feel very welcome.

Steve Kooner : We earlier had some students here from Matthew McNair Secondary School. They were

from the grade 10 level.

I would like the House to give them a warm welcome.

Lorne Doerkson : I just recognized Emily Astren, who is also joining us here today in the Legislature.

She’s visiting from Port Coquitlam, and I think she’s very interested in seeing the

library later on today.

Thanks for coming, Emily.

Please make her feel very welcome.

Darlene Rotchford : I missed one earlier.

As we all can attest, this job is hard. Today is my husband’s 38th birthday, and I’m

spending it here. But I know he enjoys question period, and he’s watching.

So happy birthday.

Ward Stamer : Again, as the Forests Minister has alluded to, I’d like to welcome COFI here as well.

You know what? We do have challenging times in this forest industry in British Columbia.

We had a very good meeting with them earlier in the day, and we’re going to be meeting

with them again later this afternoon.

Can the House please give them a very warm welcome again.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 24 — Vaping Product Damages

and Health Care Costs Recovery Act

Hon. Niki Sharma presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill

intituled Vaping Product Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I’m pleased to introduce the Vaping Product Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery

Act. This bill allows the province to sue manufacturers, wholesalers and related consultants

for damages and health care costs associated with vaping products. It allows for claims

to be made on a population-aggregate basis rather than on an individual-by-individual

basis, ensuring that claims reflect the broad extent of the harms caused by these

products.

In doing so, this legislation shifts the burden for health care costs away from taxpayers

and back to the wrongdoers who cause harm, in this case the vaping product manufacturers

and wholesalers.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. Niki Sharma : 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.

Protecting Minors from

Gender Transition Act

Tara Armstrong presented a bill intituled Protecting Minors from Gender Transition

Act.

Tara Armstrong : I move that a bill intituled Protecting Minors from Gender Transition Act, of which

notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first

time now.

The Speaker : Please proceed.

Tara Armstrong : Members, I stand before you today not only as a member at this Legislature but as

a mother. British Columbia is sleepwalking through the greatest medical scandal in

modern history, and it’s our kids who are at risk.

In B.C. today, doctors are causing irreversible harm to children with puberty blockers,

cross-sex hormones and surgeries. These interventions rob children of the human right

to grow up with their bodies intact and to one day have children of their own. B.C.

schools add to this harm by socially transitioning children with new names and pronouns,

often kept secret from parents.

Gender clinics in B.C. are even performing double mastectomies on healthy young girls

by the age of 14, all because we fell for the lie — a lot of us did — that children

can be born in the wrong body. It’s not true, though. Every child is beautiful just

as they are. No drugs or scalpels are needed.

Every jurisdiction in the world that has conducted a systematic review of the scientific

literature has found no credible evidence to support this practice. So let’s all make

it stop.

This should not be a partisan issue. This bill will bring B.C. in line with the U.K.

and other progressive European countries that have banned harmful and unscientific

social and medical gender-transition procedures for minors.

In our schools, it will stop them using the wrong pronouns, keep boys out of girls’

bathrooms and remove gender ideology from school libraries and curricula. It will

stop doctors from attempting to change the sex of minors. In short, it will end this

unbelievable era of indoctrination and medical malpractice.

Please join me as we restore sanity to this province and provide the loving care that

every child deserves.

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

[1:50 p.m. - 1:55 p.m.]

Members, we are taking a vote on the bill introduced by the member for Kelowna–Lake

Country–Coldstream intituled Protecting Minors from Gender Transition Act.

[2:00 p.m.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 40

Rattée

Kindy

Milobar

Rustad

Banman

Wat

Kooner

Halford

Hartwell

L. Neufeld

Van Popta

Dew

Clare

K. Neufeld

Brodie

Armstrong

Luck

Bhangu

Paton

Chan

Toor

Hepner

Giddens

Wilson

Davis

McInnis

Bird

McCall

Stamer

Day

Tepper

Mok

Gasper

Maahs

Block

Williams

Loewen

Dhaliwal

Doerkson

Kealy

NAYS — 48

Lore

G. Anderson

Blatherwick

Routledge

Chant

Toporowski

B. Anderson

Neill

Osborne

Brar

Krieger

Davidson

Parmar

Sunner

Beare

Chandra Herbert

Wickens

Kang

Sandhu

Begg

Higginson

Lajeunesse

Choi

Rotchford

Elmore

Popham

Dix

Sharma

Farnworth

Eby

Bailey

Kahlon

Greene

Whiteside

Boyle

Yung

Malcolmson

Gibson

Glumac

Arora

Shah

Chow

Dhir

Morissette

Valeriote

Botterell

Sturko

Question of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

Tara Armstrong : I reserve the right to raise a question of privilege.

Interjections.

Tara Armstrong : I’ll keep standing.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. Members, please. The member had the right to speak, so thank you very

much.

Okay, please take your seat. Thank you.

The minister has an introduction to make. Is leave granted?

Leave granted.

The Speaker : Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Jessie Sunner : The students from the Guru Nanak Sikh School have entered the chamber, so thank you

so much.

It’s wonderful to have you here.

Again, these are grades 4 to 6 students.

We’re so excited that you’re here from the riding of Surrey-Newton. Thank you for

being here. I hope you had a great scavenger hunt and that you get to see democracy

in action today.

Point of Order

Rohini Arora : I just want to raise a point of order. I heard the member from Kelowna–Lake Country

just threaten me, and I’m just wondering: what is the process here for that?

[2:05 p.m.]

Interjection.

The Speaker : Just a second, Member.

Member for Burnaby East, the Chair did not hear that alleged comment made by another

member. If you have more information to provide to the Chair, we’ll deal with that

later, okay?

Member, take your seat. We will deal with this later. Thank you.

We’ll continue with the statements by members.

Members’ Statements

Life as an Immigrant

Janet Routledge : Today I rise to give voice to someone who does not enjoy the privilege of speaking

in this House. These are the words of a British Columbian, Aya Mehasseb.

“Being an immigrant is not just about living in a new place. It’s about carrying two

worlds in one’s heart. As a family with two kids far away from home, every day is

a mix of gratitude and struggle. We try to give our children a life that feels no

different from the kids around them, a life where they feel whole and included, but

behind that effort is a mother who sometimes feels drained, stretched between cultures

and quietly battling the weight of not fully belonging.

“The hardest

part isn’t the language or the traditions or even the distance. It’s

the unspoken assumptions, the quiet judgments, the looks that say more than words.

Diversity and inclusion are beautiful ideas, but they lose their meaning when curiosity

is replaced by silence and assumption. Too often people choose to assume instead of

ask, to judge instead of understand. That builds walls where bridges could be.

“My dream is simple: a community where questions come from kindness; where conversations

open hearts; and where every child, immigrant or not, can grow, feeling safe, accepted

and seen. I don’t hope for a perfect world, only a gentler one, because sometimes

all it takes is one small act of openness, an invitation, a smile, a genuine question

to turn someone’s loneliness into belonging.

“I believe we can do this if each of us looks a little deeper, welcomes those who

seem new or uncertain and chooses compassion over judgment. We can create spaces where

differences aren’t heavy but beautiful.

“That’s all I want for my children: a chance to grow up in a world that truly values

the richness of every story.”

Prince George Public Library

Rosalyn Bird : Today I’d like to highlight the Prince George Public Library. The population of Prince

George in 2025 sits at just under 79,000 people. That number doesn’t include the surrounding

communities of the regional district of Fraser–Fort George.

Now, here’s a number I would like you to reflect on: 29,848. That is how many active

library card memberships are held at Prince George Library. In other words, more than

one-third of the city’s residents regularly use their library card, with dozens more

making use of facilities and services available without a library card.

This library, founded in 1955, continues to grow to meet the needs of its community.

With over 563,000 books and other items borrowed in 2024, it remains a place of information

and learning. It is also a gathering place, providing space for community members

to engage with their neighbours; to access the internet; to find support for career

development and help applying for government programs; and to seek shelter from wildfires,

heat domes and other extreme weather events.

In 2024 alone, there were 191,000 in-person visits to the two library branches, an

average of 625 per day. Nearly 4,000 new patrons registered their library cards, a

19 percent increase from the previous year. Library events and programs are up 15

percent, while program attendance is up 25 percent. Another 365,000 people visited

the library website, with 144,000 digital items borrowed, up 20 percent from 2023.

These numbers show a system in demand by families and students alike. Yet despite

this, the province has left core funding frozen since 2009. Prince George is showing

what’s possible when a library is supported by its community. When will the government

start supporting libraries and stable, sustainable provincial funding?

[2:10 p.m.]

German-Canadian Benevolent Society

George Chow : Two weeks ago I had the honour of attending the 60th anniversary celebration of the

German-Canadian Benevolent Society, a non-profit organization that operates the German-Canadian

Care Home in my riding of Vancouver-Fraserview. I would like to take this opportunity

to recognize the valuable work the society has been doing in the past 60 years.

The society was founded in 1965 by Elisabeth Ochs, with the assistance of a small

group of German immigrants. She established the German-Canadian Care Home in 1969,

driven by the need for German seniors in Vancouver to receive care while maintaining

their cultural traditions and companionship.

In 1978, the home joined B.C.’s long-term residential care program and has since housed

many residents of all cultural backgrounds. With the help of Vancouver Coastal Health,

the society is currently undergoing a redevelopment, and current residents are being

transferred to the nearby Dogwood care homes in Vancouver-Langara.

The new development will add 46 additional beds, to a total of 178 beds. The new home

will feature individual rooms, with 15 building clusters housing 12 residents each.

Each cluster has kitchen, dining and lounge spaces, and personal laundry, allowing

for maximum flexibility for daily life to unfold.

In addition to these living spaces, the new design features a village space consisting

of a large community hall, library, spa, treatment and rehab rooms, art room and conservatory.

I am proud to share this new project that reflects the German-Canadian Benevolent

Society’s unwavering commitment to innovative seniors care.

I am proud of the work our government is doing in taking care of our seniors, who

have contributed so much to make British Columbia what it is today.

Peachland Museum and

Peachland Historical Society

Macklin McCall : I rise today to recognize a pillar of Okanagan heritage, the Peachland Museum and

the volunteers of the Peachland Historical Society who keep our stories alive.

The museum is one of the most distinctive buildings in B.C., an eight-sided Baptist

church that has stood in downtown Peachland for over a century. Since the 1960s, this

unique building has worn many hats — a municipal office, a parks and recreation hub,

even a fire hall — before becoming what it is today, a restored heritage site that

celebrates the foundational pioneer spirit of Peachland.

The Peachland Historical Society was formed in 1980 and was restored and reopened

in 1981 as both the Okanagan Regional Library on the main floor and the Peachland

Museum above. The society’s members, all volunteers, have kept that legacy alive for

over 40 years, preserving artifacts and stories that tell the tale of our frontier

beginnings.

Visitors from across the province are often drawn to the charming model railway display

on the upper floor, a hand-built recreation of the Kettle Valley Railway from 1955

to 1965. Every detail is a labour of love built by Central Okanagan Railway Co. members

who devoted thousands of hours to capturing Peachland’s past in miniature.

Today the museum welcomes roughly 9,000 visitors a year, and this February it reopened

after major renovations, now housing the Peachland Visitor Centre and offering new

The Peachland Museum reminds us that British Columbia’s frontier story is one of resilience,

exploration and transformation. I extend my heartfelt thanks to the Peachland Historical

Society, the municipality of Peachland and all those who have worked tirelessly to

preserve our proud heritage.

Thanksgiving

Paul Choi : Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. We can all use more gratitude and love these days.

On October 13, Canadians will gather with family, friends and neighbours to celebrate

Thanksgiving. It is a moment to pause, to reflect and to give thanks for the blessings

in our lives, including the First Nations land that we get to work and live on and

the opportunities in our communities.

[2:15 p.m.]

Thanksgiving reminds us to be grateful not only for the harvest of the season but

for the richness of our shared lives in Canada, our diversity, our freedoms and the

deep connections that bind us together.

As Parliamentary Secretary for Trade, I’m reminded every day that our prosperity is

built on people working together — farmers and fishers, small businesses and entrepreneurs,

workers and innovators who help feed families here at home and share the bounty of

British Columbia with the world. Thanksgiving is a chance to recognize their contributions

and the global partnerships that sustain our economy.

It is also a time to remember those facing hardship and loneliness and to extend generosity

and compassion. The spirit of Thanksgiving is strongest when we open up our tables,

our hearts and our hands to lift one another. This holiday may we celebrate not only

what we have but also what we can give, building a future rooted in gratitude, kindness

and shared purpose.

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

Mackenzie Outdoor Route

and Trail Association

Kiel Giddens : For anyone who has travelled through B.C.’s North, you’ll know that there’s something

special about those vast spaces and the incredible natural beauty, but what really

stands out are the people. Northerners give back to their communities, and they help

their neighbours. It’s just part of the deal when you live in a small town in northern

B.C.

One organization has truly captured that northern spirit, combining a love of the

outdoors, a dedication to volunteering and a whole lot of community pride. The Mackenzie

Outdoor Route and Trail Association, better known as MORATA, has been getting big

things done for the community since its founding in 2016. MORATA’s mission is to work

with local groups, government and the broader community to unlock the untapped recreational

potential of Mackenzie.

Through partnerships and volunteer energy, they’ve built multi-use trails, hosted

outdoor events and promoted biking, hiking, back-country skiing, sport climbing and

other non-motorized recreation that showcases the incredible landscapes around Mackenzie.

What started as a small project for hikers and mountain bikers has grown into a thriving

network and signature events that are drawing visitors from across the province.

Mackenzie has always been known as the gateway to the spectacular Williston Lake,

but today it also boasts one of the most exciting outdoor recreation scenes. This

summer I joined the Morfee Lake Scramble for the first time, a 16-kilometre adventure

race where participants bike, run and hike, all capped off with a great barbecue and

live music. I’ll admit it was a little bit ambitious on a year of the MLA diet, but

it was an incredible day, cheered on by a community full of spirit.

I want to sincerely thank the board of directors of MORATA and every volunteer who

has picked up a hammer, cut a trail, donated equipment or written a grant proposal.

You are the heart of Mackenzie, and your pride in your community is what makes it

such a special place.

Oral Questions

Reconciliation and Government

Handling of Land Title Agreements

Scott McInnis : This government’s so-called reconciliation agenda has been an abysmal failure wrapped

in a cloak of secrecy.

The B.C. Supreme Court’s rubber stamping of the Haida title agreement was so secretive

that the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation didn’t even know it was

happening.

Will the Premier stand up today and finally tell all British Columbians what his cabal’s

plan is for reconciliation moving forward?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : Let’s get something straight here. The Haida title agreement was made here in this

House. We debated it. We went clause by clause. I don’t know. Maybe the member forgot

that he was here, but we actually talked about the issues right here in the House.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh. Shhh.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : We debated it….

Interjection.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : Well, the Leader of the Opposition was here. In fact, I seem to remember him saying

something very particular about the Haida title agreement. He supported it at first,

and then he ran in the other direction once he heard what OneBC had to say about it.

Interjections.

[2:20 p.m.]

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. Members, shhh.

The minister has the floor.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : Thank you, hon. Speaker.

On April 22, 2024, the leader of the member’s party looked the leaders and Elders

from Haida in the eye and said: “I want to start by saying congratulations. For me,

the path to reconciliation is of utmost importance.”

Later on in his speech, this is what he claimed he told his Attorney General in 2017:

“We actually need to put together an offer to recognize title, because how on earth

do you expect that we would actually win this in court?”

We brought it to the floor of this chamber. We debated it. We went through committee

stage. The members can look it up in Hansard if they haven’t spent the time, or they could talk to Haida. They could talk to the

Council of the Haida Nation. They could talk to councillors and mayors in Haida Gwaii

who are actually working shoulder to shoulder to get that certainty so they can build

that economy that they want and they deserve.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Scott McInnis : I’m surprised the minister knows that much because apparently when this went to court

just a few short weeks ago, he didn’t realize it was happening until after the fact.

The Premier called this a template for the rest of British Columbia. British Columbians

deserve to know what’s going on with these extremely important and consequential decisions,

which are being made behind closed doors.

To the Premier, whether it’s the Island, the Sunshine Coast, the northwest or anywhere

else in this province, what secretive deal will be announced next that the public

won’t be made aware of until it’s done?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : We debated that agreement here on this floor. It’s in the Hansard . The member can read about it. There was consultation. We went through the work.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh. Members, let him complete the answer, please.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : And the Leader of the Opposition, of the Conservative Party, actually understands

this work a little bit because he actually signed over 400 similar agreements when

he was the minister — land use agreements, shared use agreements, land transfers.

He did all those things.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : Oh, he’s saying that he didn’t do that now? Is he changing his point of view, changing

his history because of OneBC?

The fact is….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members will come to order.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : The member may want to create division between First Nations people and British Columbians…

Interjections.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : …but what we are wanting to do is actually sit down, shoulder to shoulder, with….

Deputy Speaker : Minister. Minister.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : Thank you, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker : Members, when the question has been asked, you just give the courtesy to the minister

to answer that. There is no need to interrupt in between. You can ask a follow-up

question if it’s not clear, please. Okay?

Leader of the Official Opposition.

John Rustad : Thank you, hon. Chair. I appreciate your direction in our ability to be able to heckle

as part of the tradition in this House.

The Speaker : Member, before you start, the Chair is not stopping you heckling. All I’m saying

is, do it in a respectful way. When one person is speaking, the other one should stay

quiet.

John Rustad : I agree entirely, Mr. Speaker, but heckling, of course, is a tradition, been here

for a long time.

The Speaker : You’ve got the floor.

John Rustad : Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Cowichan Tribes Land Title

Court Case and Property Rights

John Rustad : The Cowichan Tribes v. Canada judgment could have serious ramifications for private property owners across B.C.

Legal experts from across the field have been clear that the province must argue extinguishment

where fee title has already been granted.

Can the Premier confirm or deny that he, his Attorney or his government gave direction

to Crown counsel not to argue the extinguishment of Indigenous rights where they overlap

with private property?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I want to start by saying that we were the first out of the gate to say that we were

appealing this decision and that we disagreed with the determinations that were made

in that, particularly with respect to private property rights. We are, since then,

getting a coalition of people together to address the issues that were in that case.

I can’t stand before this House and talk about confidential issues that were addressed,

but I just want to assure people that we’re taking this matter seriously and that

our instructions were to uphold and defend property rights.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

John Rustad : Well, clearly, if you listen and if you read the court case, the government did not

argue the protection of private property rights or the extinguishment of Indigenous

rights. So I find it interesting, the argument being made.

[2:25 p.m.]

Here’s another thought that I find quite interesting. When we as the opposition sent

a letter to the federal government asking this to be put to the Supreme Court as a

reference question, the response by the Premier, as well as federal ministers, was

that we were fearmongering.

The interesting thing is, and I quote, from the letter we sent: “Significant uncertainty

that this judgment has for private land ownership in Canada.” That’s the argument

we put forward.

And a quote from the Attorney General: “This ruling could have significant unintended

consequence for fee simple property rights in British Columbia.” We’re called fearmongering.

It’s the exact same words as the Attorney General.

Perhaps the Premier could clear…. By calling us fearmongering for raising this issue,

is he also calling the Attorney General fearmongering for raising the same issue?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Over here on our side of the House, we take issues seriously, and we have a considered

approach to responding to the needs of British Columbia. The decision was 800 pages

long. We have a team of lawyers that are poring over it and considering all of the

legal aspects of it and making it clear what our views are on that decision. I’ve

done that, and so has the Premier.

What the opposition leader is proposing in that letter that he sent to me, to go to

the Supreme Court of Canada, is legally, in effect, nonsensical and would actually

do harm to the case. What we’re looking at is putting the full grounds of appeal before

the Court of Appeal. Asking the Supreme Court to consider something before it’s even

gone through the lower courts, before all of the issues have been looked at by our

Court of Appeal, is just the wrong way around it.

We are searching for those ways to find that certainty in land owners. I’m having

meetings every day to do that. The minister is meeting with all parties, and we’ll

continue to do that work.

The Speaker : The member has a second supplemental.

John Rustad : Well, that’s interesting. They don’t argue extinguishment and protection of private

property rights in court. They think that asking for clarity from the Supreme Court

of Canada, which is where this is going, about private property rights and Indigenous

rights in terms of protection….

Private property is the foundation, quite frankly, of our economy and, in many ways,

of our society. It should be a simple question that the Supreme Court can answer.

Which one is it? That is where it is going, and it will get there eventually because

this will continue to be appealed.

However, what I find interesting is all the secrecy. We talked about Haida and the

secrecy there. The shíshálh agreement, which wasn’t even released before the last

election…. It was months later before it was released. The public had no idea what

was going on with these, as well as many others.

This House, this leader, this Premier and this government are continuing to keep people

in the dark. Do people even own their land anymore? What are the rights there? Are

they able to sell their land? Do they need some sort of consent or process? Do they

have to pay some sort of fee?

Well, there is somebody who is willing to say something about this, which is the lead

lawyer for the Cowichan Tribes, David Rosenberg. This is what he said about the Cowichan

decision: the sale of private property “would be with the consent of the Cowichan

Nation, and it would be with some accommodation.” That’s the uncertainty that has

been created by this court case.

Perhaps the Premier could stand up and provide people in this province some form of

understanding of the uncertainty that’s being created.

Will the Premier commit today to end the secrecy so that people can understand just

exactly where they are leading this province?

Hon. Niki Sharma : We were the first ones out of the gate when this decision was released to say that

we would be appealing it.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Niki Sharma : We’ve been out there meeting with all parties to get a coalition to understand how

we can approach the Court of Appeal and approach an appeal. We’re working hard every

day because we want British Columbians to know that we will stand up for their private

property rights, we will seek reconciliation with First Nations, and we will find

that pathway forward.

It’s not new that cases in British Columbia have come up to the court and affected

the work of the province. Even when the Leader of the Opposition was in government,

these cases came forward.

[2:30 p.m.]

Our job as government is to bring people together to figure out a resolution and to

move forward in a way that respects parties and brings the certainty that we need.

We’ll continue to do that.

Housing as a Human Right

Rob Botterell : Treating housing as a commodity has turned homes into a retirement investment for

the wealthy, not a right for all British Columbians. This is the legacy of housing

policies in this province.

Last month the Union of B.C. Municipalities passed a resolution calling for a rights-based

approach to housing, something already recognized at the federal level.

New data shows nearly half of people experiencing homelessness in Metro Vancouver

were evicted before losing their homes. You’ve got to say the Bill 44 roosters are

definitely coming home to roost.

The government may say that rents have gone down, but you can’t deny it’s not nearly

enough. And as we speak, eviction support services are unavailable because the residential

tenancy branch is on strike, something the government could deal with and find a fair

settlement so that services to British Columbians could be delivered.

To the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs, what is this minister’s excuse for

not declaring housing a human right?

Hon. Christine Boyle : Thank you for the question.

This is a government that has taken the housing crisis incredibly seriously, using

every tool in the toolbox, and we’re seeing the impacts now.

I want to speak first to speculation, because for decades, speculators drove up housing

demand in this province while red tape blocked construction. We saw it in our neighbourhoods,

in communities all across B.C. — empty condos and empty neighbourhoods. This government

has tackled speculators and made sure that homes are for people in communities all

across B.C.

This is important work, and, like I said, we are seeing it make a difference. The

latest numbers out just this week show that over the last two years, rent is down

8.5 percent on average across the province. In fact, in Vancouver over the last two

years, the average rent is down 16.9 percent.

That makes a tangible difference for folks all across this province, and we will continue

to use every tool in the toolbox to continue to make housing more affordable and to

ensure that homes are for people all across B.C.

The Speaker : House Leader, Third Party, supplemental.

Property Tax Deferment Program

Rob Botterell : For decades, B.C.’s wealthiest people — chief executive officers, presidents and

corporate millionaires — have been deferring their property taxes on the public dime.

They have avoided paying tens of thousands of dollars each year and instead borrowed

from the taxpayers at rock-bottom interest rates, effectively earning more than what

they owe in interest. This program was meant to help house-rich, cash-poor seniors

stay in their homes, not millionaires in their mansions.

This province has a record deficit, and this government wants us to think that cutting

services and expanding fossil fuel extraction are the only methods to solve it. Instead

of fighting for fairness, the government fights its own employees.

To the Minister of Finance, at a time of record deficits when this government is tightening

its purse strings for working British Columbians, why is this government allowing

multi-millionaires a break, and will the minister commit to closing this loophole?

Hon. Christine Boyle : Thanks for the question.

I absolutely agree that we need to make sure housing is not for profit and that we

continue to prioritize homes for people across B.C. I want to speak, in fact, to the

work that we’re doing to support renters in this province.

In September, the annual rent increase was announced. We as a government have capped

rent increases at inflation. While the opposition was in government, those rent increases

were skyrocketing far beyond inflation. We’ve seen the impact, and we’ve all heard

the stories.

As a government, we have also created the rental protection fund to protect existing

affordable rentals. We have expanded eligibility for the rental assistance program,

doubling the number of families.

[2:35 p.m.]

We continue to support those who are struggling with housing affordability while delivering

more homes across this province in partnership with local governments, with the community

housing sector and with homebuilders. We’ll continue to do that work to make sure

that homes are affordable for people in every corner of this province.

Government Policies on Gender

Transition for Children and Youth

Dallas Brodie : World-renowned child advocate Christopher Elston has informed us that a private gender

clinic in Vancouver is performing double mastectomies on healthy girls as young as

14 years old.

My question to the Premier is this. How can he possibly allow this to continue?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I have to say this is another sad day in the B.C. Legislature when conservative politicians

are trying to dictate what parents should be doing and decisions they should be making

with love and support for their children. We’re picking on vulnerable children.

Let me be clear about something. Individual health decisions for kids are a protected

right of parents to make with their doctor in the best interests of their children…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma : …not by governments and not by politicians.

I want to also say something. Gender identity is protected under the B.C. human rights

code, and that was unanimously passed in this Legislature.

I also want to say that it’s not a surprise that this is in the House now — that we

debate these things, picking on vulnerable kids. We have a party in the opposition

that decided their tent was so big that it included intolerance, racism and hate.

MLAs across the aisle are leaders in their communities. When they tolerate it in their

party, they tolerate it in this province, and they bring it to the House.

We are a party that believes in human rights. We believe in defending the rights of

all individuals to live a dignified life in this province and to be protected by our

human rights code.

We believe that we shouldn’t be picking on vulnerable kids and the decisions that

their parents make with their doctors.

The Speaker : The member has a supplemental.

Dallas Brodie : Just this morning I spoke with a father who’s here today and who is fighting to protect

his eight-year-old son.

His boy was encouraged at school to believe he was actually a girl. Teachers used

a new name and pronouns and kept it secret. Now a psychologist is already discussing

puberty blockers despite having never met the child.

My question to the Premier: what do you have to say to parents who are justifiably

enraged by the reality that under your direction, schools are transitioning children

behind their backs?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Spreading disproven conspiracy theories to spread fear and misinformation that targets

vulnerable kids when those decisions should be made by their parents with the love

and support that they provide them and the doctors….

I think I’ve spoken before about how we really disagree with this type of politics,

and we’re really sorry to all those people out there and the families out there that

are going through this and supporting their loved ones and the kids out there that

are hearing this. I’m sorry.

Stakeholder Consultation on

Heritage Conservation Act Amendments

Ward Stamer : It’s clear this government hasn’t meaningfully engaged local governments or stakeholders

on the Heritage Conservation Act amendments.

Last week the former UBCM president even called them out. The minister fired back

that she was wrong. Even the Premier had to step in and extend consultations to try

to fix this mess. If there’s one thing we know about the NDP, they love NDAs.

To the Premier: if there’s nothing to hide, why are you tying the hands of local governments

and forcing them to sign NDAs?

[2:40 p.m.]

The Speaker : The Minister of Forests.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members, he has not even started yet.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member for Abbotsford South, take it easy.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : The manure king from Abbotsford has a lot to say. It would be nice to see him stand

up in this House and represent his interests.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Shhh, Member.

Members on both sides, be careful and be respectful to each other, please.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : The Heritage Conservation Act is a very important piece of legislation that should

be debated with respect, respect for First Nations and their heritage, making sure

we’re strengthening First Nations’ role in decision-making.

I’ve heard loud and clear at UBCM that the Heritage Conservation Act is broken. It’s

broken for local governments like Lytton, who have taken so long and so many efforts

to be able to rebuild that community after a disastrous….

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : Look, the members opposite asked a question — the member across the way, my critic,

who, I might add, actually has some respect for this House.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Please continue.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : Ask the question, then. Stand up.

The Speaker : Member. Member, no.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : This is a serious discussion.

The Speaker : Carry on.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : We have made it a commitment on this House to be able to transform the Heritage Conservation

Act, transform it in a way that is going to speed up permits.

On that side of the House, they are opposed to major projects. On this side of the

House, we’re going to build British Columbia, but we’re going to do it in a way that

meaningfully engages with First Nations, with local governments and with industry.

We welcome them to the table. We’ve extended the engagement.

We’re proud, on this side of the House, to be leading this engagement on this transformation.

Mineral Claims Consultation

Framework Review

Pete Davis : Let’s talk about stalling then. The self-imposed deadline from this government for

the review of the mineral claims consultation framework has now passed. It’s gone.

Will the minister release that review today, yes or no?

Hon. Jagrup Brar : Thanks to the member for the question.

We are committed to supporting a sustainable, responsible and globally competitive

mining sector to grow the economy and create good jobs for the people of British Columbia.

The mineral claims consultation framework was created in response to a B.C. Supreme

Court ruling. The court gave the province 18 months to implement a new claims framework.

It has been working with First Nations and industry at the same time. I was very glad

to see that we were able to incorporate several of the key recommendations made by

the association of mineral explorers.

We will continue to work with industry and First Nations to improve the mineral claims

consultation framework because it’s a new process. We will continue to work to improve

it.

Okanagan Falls Incorporation Process

Donegal Wilson : Okanagan Falls voted to incorporate, and I am the MLA who is elected to represent

that community.

The process is stalled, and I’m being completely shut out while residents are growing

increasingly frustrated over this secretive process. This government says they want

to work across party lines, but clearly, their actions don’t meet that.

If this minister wants to represent my constituents in this process, then will she

commit today to host a public town hall in Okanagan Falls, yes or no?

Hon. Christine Boyle : Thanks for the question.

The community of OK Falls made it clear through a local referendum that they want

to move forward with incorporation. This decision will be led by local decision-making.

I have appointed a facilitator to support a productive path forward toward the incorporation

of B.C.’s newest municipality. A number of important decisions have to be made ahead

of the letters patent and then the first municipal election in OK Falls, and those

decisions, including on boundaries and the name, will be made by local decision-makers.

[2:45 p.m.]

The regional district is actively involved with that facilitator, as is the local

nation and community members’ voices. I’ll continue to support that local process.

I look forward to finding good, locally informed solutions, incorporation and then

a local election during the general municipal elections next fall.

Public Service Labour Dispute

and NDP Caucus Staff

Trevor Halford : Over 25,000 BCGEU members are on the picket lines. Every day escalation grows. From

this building, you can actually hear them on the streets, on the picket lines. You

can see it everywhere, which is their right to do. Let’s be clear. That is their right

to picket.

Now, we know that the NDP caucus staff are represented by BCGEU. We know that their

contract has expired, but what we have not seen is anything from them in terms of

work action.

My question is a simple one to the Premier. Has the Premier cut some kind of secret

deal with the NDP caucus staff that is forbidding them from joining their brothers

and sisters on the picket lines?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : We, of course, respect the right of the BCGEU and all unions to take action. It’s

their hard-earned right. But we do, in fact, want to get back to the bargaining table.

We have an offer that we’ve made to this union that keeps them whole with inflation.

It also includes additional funds for the lowest-paid workers that are part of this

union and protects their benefits going forward.

We look forward to getting back to the table.

Peter Milobar : Well, once again, not even close to an answer around the question, so we’ll assume

that means that the caucus staff are free to join their brothers and sisters on the

picket lines if they choose.

I want to be abundantly clear. This side of the House is not disputing for a second

that the BCGEU or other public service workers have the full right to strike and take

job actions. In fact, we’re seeing escalating strike action daily in this province.

The longest public sector strike in B.C. history is ongoing as we speak.

It’s not unreasonable to think that there is going to be further escalating job action,

given that this minister was unable to find the negotiating table in the first three

hours that they were going to go back to the table. This government keeps saying the

best place for a deal is at the negotiating table, but it has gotten to the point

that the GEU has now sent out a Where’s Waldo? meme because the government is nowhere to be found.

Now, again, caucus staff are not exempt from picketing. Pickets can go up around this

worksite as well, which is the legislative precinct. We have Zoom rules which are

supposed to be for people that are ill and not able to attend in person, and that’s

really the spirit and the intent of Zoom.

The question is for the government. Given that we’re at the start of a six-week legislative

session, with 18 bills to try to deal with on behalf of the public and the possibility

of escalating job action which would see picket lines in front of this building as

well, is the government prepared to have their cabinet ministers and their backbenchers

cross the picket lines in front of this building if they get set up with a job escalation

and still show up to work to actually do the people’s work, or are they going to try

to hide behind a Zoom screen for political expediency?

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I thank the member for the question.

If there’s one thing I’ve noticed in the last few days, it’s that this side of the

House and our government have had no trouble showing up in this chamber to do their

job.

I know one thing. To listen to that side of the House talk about bargaining and workers’

rights, when members on that side engaged in some of the most nefarious de-unionization

job layoffs in the history of this province…. We will take no lessons from them on

the rights of workers or how to negotiate and get an agreement.

[2:50 p.m.]

We have said right from day one that the place…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : …to get an agreement is at the bargaining table.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : That’s what this government is committed to. This government is committed to governing

for British Columbians right across this province, and we will do that every single

day.

[End of question period.]

Rosalyn Bird : I’d like to reserve the right to raise a point of order.

The Speaker : If it’s a point of order, Member, you should speak to it now. unless it was a question

of privilege. Then you can do it later. You can reserve your place.

Rosalyn Bird : No, it’s a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Point of Order

The Speaker : Can you state, please, what the point of order is?

Rosalyn Bird : Yes. I would actually like the Attorney General to make an apology to the B.C. Conservative

caucus. She stood in the House today, and she called us a number of names which are

inaccurate and untrue.

Hon. Niki Sharma : I’ll take a look at the transcripts.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, the Attorney General is basically saying she’ll come back and answer the

question later, so let’s move on.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : When there is a dispute on a point of order, particularly on something like this,

it is perfectly reasonable to ask the individual to review the transcript and then

come back and make an apology. It’s happened many times in this House in the past

before.

The Speaker : Absolutely. That’s fine. Thank you.

Reports from Committees

Finance and Government

Services Committee

Paul Choi : I have the honour to present the second report of the Select Standing Committee on

Finance and Government Services for the first session of the 43rd parliament, titled

Report on the Budget 2026 Consultation .

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Paul Choi : I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

Paul Choi : I move adoption of the report, and in so doing, I would like to make some brief comments.

The annual budget consultation is an important opportunity for British Columbians

to connect directly with MLAs and share their views, ideas and priorities for the

upcoming provincial budget. From May 30 to June 20, British Columbians provided thoughtful,

informative and passionate input on a range of issues. In total, our committee visited

11 communities across B.C., hearing 350 presentations and receiving 406 written submissions.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank all of the individuals and organizations

who put time and effort into sharing their information and priorities with the committee.

Their input directly informed the committee’s 86 recommendations for the 2026 provincial

budget.

British Columbia, like the rest of Canada, faces a difficult fiscal environment. In

making its recommendations, the committee is deeply mindful of the need to prioritize

ideas and initiatives that can stimulate the economy and deliver immediate impact

for the people of this province. This includes recommendations aimed at unlocking

unrealized economic activities and enhancing competitiveness for industries across

the province, while ensuring all British Columbians have access to quality health

care, social services and education in safe communities.

The committee also recommends strategic investments and initiatives supporting the

green economy, disaster resilience and future workforce needs, to ensure British Columbia

remains a province where long-term growth, investment and well-being are secured.

[2:55 p.m.]

Throughout the consultation process, the committee heard the unique needs of and challenges

faced by rural, remote and northern communities, as well as First Nations. These voices

and priorities are reflected in many of the committee’s recommendations.

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank all committee members and, in particular,

the Deputy Chair, member for Surrey-Cloverdale, for their hard work, attention to

detail and their thoughtful contributions and discussions during deliberations.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to also thank and acknowledge and extend

our appreciation to Legislative Assembly staff for their work on this consultation.

From the Parliamentary Committees Office, thank you to Darryl Hol, Natalie Beaton,

Jared Brown, Aza Bryson, Jonathon Hamilton, Hanna Kim, Danielle Migeon, Alexa Neufeld

and Kayla Wilson.

From Hansard Services, thank you to Amanda Heffelfinger, Danielle Suter, David Smith,

Simon DeLaat and the entire Hansard broadcasting, transcribing and publishing teams.

Elenore Sturko : Thank you to the Chair for those comments.

I also want to thank every British Columbian who offered their thoughts and concerns

during our consultation on the next provincial budget. As the Chair mentioned, we

visited a number of communities across the province, and the presentations we heard

highlighted unique issues and opportunities everywhere we went.

The committee heard repeatedly that the people of this province are facing challenges

in many areas, including affordability, health care, public safety and mental health

and addictions treatment. The committee has put forward thoughtful recommendations

to address these issues in Budget 2026, and many of our recommendations can be quickly

implemented, while others would lay the groundwork for longer-term solutions to these

problems.

I would also like to extend my gratitude to my fellow committee members for their

dedication and thoughtfulness throughout the consultation. This report would not have

been possible without the hard work put in by every one of you, along with the support

staff from the Parliamentary Committees Office, Hansard Services and many other areas

of the Legislative Assembly. Thank you very much.

The Speaker : Members, the question is adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I call Motion 45 on the order paper.

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 45 — Change to Legislative

Schedule for Sitting Weeks

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I move Motion 45, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, which

changes the sitting calendar to remove the week of November 3 and add the week of

December 1, for the purposes of the annual First Nations leadership gathering.

[That, notwithstanding Standing Order 2 (2), the House stand adjourned during the week of November 3, 2025, and sit during

the week of December 1, 2025, as prescribed in Standing Order 2 (1).]

Motion approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In this chamber, I call continued second reading on Bill 17, the Intimate Images

Protection Statutes Amendment Act.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker : Members, we are going to take a brief recess for approximately five minutes or so.

I would ask that you stay close by. We are going to get to work very quickly.

The House recessed from 3:00 p.m. to 3:02 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Intimate Images Protection

Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Deputy Speaker : Thank you very much, Members. We will call this House back to order. This afternoon

we will debate Bill 17, Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

We’ll call on our Attorney General to begin our debate this afternoon.

Hon. Niki Sharma : I move that the bill now be read a second time.

The Intimate Images Protection Act was brought into force in January 2024 as part

of British Columbia’s response to the severe harm that is caused by nonconsensual

distribution of intimate images. The act provides fast, accessible civil remedies

for individuals whose intimate images have been shared or threatened to be shared

without their consent.

The amendments proposed by this bill will ensure the act continues to provide effective

options to individuals impacted by this significant harm.

The intimate images protection service was established in conjunction with the act

coming into force to provide emotional support, information and resources to people

who have had their intimate images shared or threatened to be shared without their

consent. In order to do this work effectively, the intimate images protection service

may need to indirectly collect personal information from clients about the individuals

who have distributed or threatened to distribute their intimate images.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner has provided this authorization, and the

proposed amendments will move that authorization into the legislation to ensure continued

authority exists for the intimate images protection service to help their clients.

I just want to note one thing. I’m really pleased, and I want to send my thanks to

that protection service that’s there to respond to victims and to provide the victims

resources, that since the coming into force of this act and the starting up of this

protection service, over 700 individuals have reached out to get the victim support

services. What that means is that hopefully, instead of the longer-term mental health

impacts that have led to really tragic outcomes, they’re getting the support that

they need.

In addition, the proposed amendments will enable an increase to the amount of damages

that the Civil Resolution Tribunal can award for intimate-images protection claims.

[3:05 p.m.]

Currently damage claims made through the CRT process are limited to $5,000. If individuals

wish to claim amounts higher than that, they must proceed either to the Provincial

Court of B.C. or the B.C. Supreme Court.

The bill will allow an increased damages amount to be available through the CRT process,

which will increase access to justice for individuals suffering harm from the nonconsensual

distribution of images. That amount could be up to $75,000.

Another serious point of these amendments is to send a message to those people that

are conducting this type of harm and are perpetuating it that there are serious monetary

consequences for it.

The remaining amendments make minor changes to ensure the continued effectiveness

of the act and include clarifying when an applicant’s name can be included in orders,

removing ambiguity as to when a claim for administrative penalties must be made, allowing

the CRT to vary an intimate-images protection order and removing the requirement for

the CRT to publish damage decisions to further enhance protections.

The amendments in this bill will continue to improve the fast, accessible options

available to individuals who have suffered significant harm or have their intimate

images shared without their consent.

I just want to conclude by thanking all the individuals that are working at that tribunal

and the protection service that put their time and effort into making it a success.

One thing that I’m really proud of is how fast they are turning around decisions for

those individuals that have come to them.

It’s a 24-hour service. An application can be made on your phone. There are elements

of this process that are so accessible to individuals. What we’ve seen as a result

of that is close to 400 claims that have come forward in the time that we’ve had,

and they’re being resolved at record rates for any kind of justice process, with,

at times, an average of a 30-day turnover.

We’ve seen real consequences to those in terms of the victim-driven process, where

they’re getting their power back by getting their images back and also receiving damages.

I want to thank everybody for the work that they’ve done to get us there.

Steve Kooner : I rise today, on behalf of the official opposition and the Conservative caucus of

British Columbia in my capacity as Attorney General critic, to speak to Bill 17, the

Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

On principle, the bill is a very good bill. It’s much-needed legislation. We have

to take the issue of intimate-image claims very seriously. We have to protect victims,

and we also have to protect potential victims. For that reason, we’re going to be

supporting this bill.

But in this bill, there are still some questions left. We would like to see effective

enforcement to help the victims. We see that this bill falls a little short, so we

will, at the committee stage, be asking tough questions, and we will be introducing

certain amendments to help victims even more. But with that said, I’ll continue.

This bill brings forward amendments to both the Civil Resolution Tribunal and the

Intimate Images Protection Act. The government presents it as a step toward providing

faster, more accessible justice for individuals whose intimate images have been shared

or threatened to be shared without their consent.

We all agree there is no room in our province for those who exploit or weaponize someone’s

private images. The nonconsensual sharing of intimate images is a profound violation

of privacy, dignity and safety. The purpose of this debate is not to dispute the principle

of this bill but to examine whether Bill 17 truly delivers the stronger protection

and access to justice that the government claims and whether this new approach will

work in practice.

At its core, Bill 17 expands the jurisdiction of the Civil Resolution Tribunal. The

Civil Resolution Tribunal could hear these types of cases before, but more in a limited

capacity.

[3:10 p.m.]

What Bill 17 does now is expand the capacity so that the Civil Resolution Tribunal

can actually hear these intimate-image cases. The Civil Resolution Tribunal, at times

referred to as the CRT, now has more flexibility to directly handle intimate-image

cases through this particular legislation that’s being brought forward.

Bill 17 redefines intimate-image protection claims as simply image claims, aligning

terminology with the Intimate Images Protection Act. It removes these cases from the

small claims category, symbolically recognizing that this type of harm is not just

another civil dispute about money but a matter of serious personal and emotional consequence.

This bill allows people to bring or continue an intimate-image claim in Provincial

Court, even if it would otherwise fall under the CRT’s jurisdiction. So what we will

see moving forward…. We will see the CRT have jurisdiction as well as the Provincial

Court have jurisdiction. That means victims now have a choice to pursue their case

before the tribunal or before the court.

Bill 17 allows cabinet to set a monetary limit for damages in CRT cases. We just heard

the Attorney General mention the amount of damages that could be claimable could be

up to $75,000, pursuant to the consent of this current government. The Attorney General

has indicated that this new ceiling for damages may be up to $75,000, up from the

CRT’s current general limit of $5,000 for such claims.

The tribunal is also empowered to make, vary or cancel orders concerning intimate-image

claims. I believe that being able to vary orders is a new expansion of its jurisdiction.

The tribunal may be able to withhold the publication of decisions to reduce further

harm to victims. That’s something new. What that goes to do is when there’s a decision

and there are reasons, there could be a withholding of the publication of that decision

and reasons.

Finally, the bill modernizes timelines and privacy provisions and authorizes the minister

to collect certain personal information to protect or assist individuals at risk of

image-based abuse.

I’ve mentioned some of the positive qualities of this bill, and that goes to the intention.

The intention behind this bill is sound. In a digital era where the sharing of image

content can go viral in seconds, victims often find that their image, their privacy,

their sense of security is permanently compromised before the law even catches up.

Rightly so. There needs to be more efficiency in the system. There needs to be faster

I commend the government to the extent that it’s brought forward a bill that is well

intentioned and that is much needed to protect victims of intimate-image abuse. We

abuse. The creation of a more flexible tribunal process, one that doesn’t require

expensive legal counsel or lengthy court delays, could, in theory, give survivors

a faster path to relief.

[3:15 p.m.]

However, good intentions alone don’t make good legislation. The details matter, and

this bill leaves several unanswered questions about capacity, consistency and accountability.

I have a few constructive critiques of this bill, and those, I believe, should be

taken into account at the committee stage.

First, while this bill provides a civil pathway, it does not create new offences.

It doesn’t strengthen coordination with police or Crown prosecutors. I know that maybe

the members on that side would argue that this isn’t a criminal statute. It’s not

a criminal statute, and it doesn’t touch upon the criminal jurisdiction of the federal

government.

But the thing here in this province is that the province also has a jurisdiction for

quasi-criminal offences, such as the ones that we see listed in the Motor Vehicle

Act, where there could be fines, there could be penalties, and there could be prohibitions.

There was an opportunity here to go further to protect victims or potential victims

of intimate-mage abuse. That could have been dealt with in this legislation. There

could have been more punitive measures within this legislation to protect victims

and potential victims, because we’re dealing with conduct that is, in many cases,

criminal — the deliberate nonconsensual sharing of intimate images.

Yet the government has not paired this civil reform that we’re seeing in this legislation

with stronger enforcement of quasi–criminal justice resources. Without better coordination

between the Civil Resolution Tribunal and Crown counsel and quasi–criminal justice

resources, we risk sending a mixed message that those responsible may only face claims

of damages but no real punitive penalties for their behaviour.

For victims, that’s a cold comfort. For offenders, it’s hardly a warning. So that’s

one critique I have of this particular legislation.

Another critique that I have…. The proposed monetary framework raises questions. Cabinet

may now set the CRT’s limit as high as $75,000, as we heard from the Attorney General.

That is a significant increase. I don’t have an issue with the monetary amount per

se. But what I do have an issue with is that when you expand the jurisdiction of a

tribunal to $75,000, that’s not only an increase. That also affects the complexity

of cases that come forward. With higher amounts, you get greater complexity of cases

coming forward.

I think this is a missed opportunity because this legislation, although it’s well

intentioned, provides a framework, but the framework is a little bit of a skeletal

framework. It fails to show how the CRT is going to be provided with adequate resources

to actually handle more significant cases.

We have heard from the Attorney General that the CRT has been handling these cases

and has been efficient in handling these cases. But there is a grave difference between

claims of, say, $5,000 versus $75,000. That’s a difference of 13 to 14 times in terms

of the complexity of the case. With the higher amount of damage claimed, there’s going

to be more significant evidence, as well, to prove that claim.

You can have well-intentioned legislation, but you also need to back it up with the

legislative tools to provide significant resources that can actually fulfil the intention

behind this legislation.

[3:20 p.m.]

The CRT has handled smaller versions of the intimate-image claims. It has also handled

other smaller claims, such as strata fees, small debts and minor motor vehicle disputes.

This system wasn’t originally built to handle the deep emotional trauma, reputational

damage and psychological harm that victims of intimate-image abuse experience.

If these cases truly warrant up to $75,000 in compensation, then surely they deserve

the expertise, the formality and procedural safeguards of the courts and extra resources

to make sure that those victims that are traumatized by these emotional consequences

as a result of this abuse from sharing of intimate images are well comforted and those

victims are taken care of. You need to have those proper resources to take care of

their emotional needs in these claims. All in all, the CRT needs more resources to

handle these claims of greater complexity.

Moreover, by removing these cases from the small claims category, which is limited

to $5,000, it elevates their symbolic importance. It does not automatically improve

the victim’s ability to recover meaningful compensation, because you have to have

a system that is properly resourced and with the proper expertise to actually handle

these new cases coming in with a greater complexity.

In situations such as these, with intimate-image claims and intimate-image abuse,

that are insolvent. You may see offenders that are out of jurisdiction and maybe even

outside the country.

The question arises: does the CRT have those resources to make sure the CRT can actually

properly protect victims and potential victims of abuse from intimate-image-sharing?

Justice can’t just look good on paper. It must still work in practice.

Another constructive critique I have for Bill 17 is this. By allowing both the CRT

and the Provincial Court to hear the same types of claims, the government risks creating

a confusing dual system.

Before we had a system where if your claim was up to, say, $5,000, you’d know you

were going to the CRT. If your claim was up to, say, $35,000, you were going to the

Provincial Court, small claims. If your claim was above the Provincial Court’s threshold,

you were going to the Supreme Court. There was less overlapping, and there was continuity

and consistency in terms of decisions that were brought forward.

But now, in one sense, you have the CRT, which does not have the expertise of the

judiciary. At times, the people that may be sitting in an adjudication position at

the CRT may not be legal professionals, and they may lack certain expertise to hear

these complicated cases. We want to take care of these victims. We want to make sure

that people that are hearing their cases can actually help them and have the most

just solutions for these victims when they reach the CRT. This is a significant issue.

Another issue is when you will see, simultaneously, the CRT and the Provincial Court

small claims court hearing the same cases. In both cases, you have a lot of litigants

that are self-represented and don’t have legal counsel, in small claims as well as

in the CRT.

[3:25 p.m.]

In one area, you have a tribunal that may not have a legal professional that is adjudicating,

and in another one, you actually have a judge who has years of experience as a lawyer

before reaching the bench. There may be some inconsistency between decisions.

We have to be fair, and we have to make sure the law applies consistently to protect

victims. We need to make sure these victims are protected, because this area of abuse

coming from intimate-image claims is rising. It’s rising at a level that we have not

seen before. As the digitized world expands with the online environment, we are seeing

expansion of these cases.

A dual system risks creating some problems. We may see overlapping cases. We may see

procedural uncertainty. Then when there are issues with how justice is applied for

victims, that may lead to problems, whether fair justice can actually be supported

for these innocent victims.

Another critique I have is in regards to the bill. The bill actually allows the CRT

to now withhold publication of its decisions to protect victims. My concern for that

is for the victims. In order to make sure we enforce the victims’ rights and the victims’

claims in a consistent and just manner, we have to be able to see prior decisions.

We have to have some consistency in the decisions so that we can adequately apply

justice and give justice for these victims. When you take away from the publications,

there will be less of a precedent. There will be less of a way to catch errors in

decisions. That may affect victims.

Now the other side of the aisle may say: “Well, this is well-intentioned. That’s why

we’re just saying that maybe the publication doesn’t happen.” But there could be another

way. A middle ground could be that the publication could be anonymized. That way,

victims’ identities can be protected while still preserving public accountability

and legal precedent, which can assist victims and future potential victims that may

fall to abuse.

The legal framework needs to be a bit better. The intention of this bill is good,

but we need to make sure that the legal framework and the resources around this bill,

around the intentions of this bill, are adequate, as well, to make sure that the framework

actually serves to provide justice to these victims and potential victims.

Earlier I touched upon the CRT’s capacity, and there’s another constructive critique

I have there. We need to make sure the CRT has the proper resources. We need to make

sure the people that will hear these cases are skilled in handling the complexity

level of these cases, which may be up to $75,000. We need to make sure those adjudicators

can actually handle those cases in order to make sure justice gets served for these

victims and potential victims.

[3:30 p.m.]

The other thing is that we’ve heard that…. Well, it’s my understanding that there

are currently 381 active cases that involve intimate images before the CRT. But that

surely will rise when you increase the limit from $5,000 to potentially maybe $75,000.

Will the CRT be able to handle that much? If you open the floodgate, will it be able

to handle all those new cases that are going to be coming? We need to make sure the

CRT is able to handle all those cases, and we need to make sure the CRT has the proper

resources. But the way that this bill is written, there’s nothing showing here that

the CRT is going to get any extra resources or extra training, and that is of concern.

Just a couple of examples of some of these clauses. I’ve touched on…. The cabinet

will probably have this discretion to set that monetary cap at a later date, to up

to $75,000, if it wishes, under this legislation. But it’s important that the government

be accountable about that process. That’s also a concern.

Last but not least, in terms of addressing some of these specific clauses, I do have

a little bit of an issue with clause 12. It authorizes the minister to collect personal

information of both aggrieved and affected individuals. We were told that it has a

good purpose and good intention behind it in terms of protecting victims. We also

need to know that the data behind these claims are very sensitive. If you’ve got intimate

images, those are very sensitive.

If the government is going to be trying to collect data, we have to have a framework

that has some sort of security and a privacy framework to it, because this is very

sensitive data that the government is going to be looking into. Although the intention

might be good, make sure that there are proper resources for these people that fall

victim or are a potential victim.

The intention could be good to collect that information to see what type of resources

can be provided to them. We also have to keep in mind that we want to protect the

victims and the potential victims from any sort of breaches that may happen to their

sensitive data, so we need to protect them in that sense. We have not heard anything

in this legislation about how that data would be protected.

From my discussion, it seems that we are having some administrative changes, but even

small administrative changes can have significant consequences. Some amendments to

this legislation will be needed. Although it is of good intention, some amendments

will be needed.

In conclusion, the official opposition supports protecting victims of nonconsensual

image-sharing. We support faster and more accessible remedies. We support the intention

behind this bill. We will be supporting this bill at second reading, but we will be

asking some tough questions at the committee stage of this bill.

We will be bringing forward some amendments to make this legislation better for victims

or potential victims of this abuse from these perpetrators that are using nonconsensual

intimate images of the victims and potential victims.

Although this bill is well-intentioned, there’s a lot of unfinished work left on this

particular bill. So although we will support it at second reading, we will ask some

tough questions at the committee stage and propose amendments to it.

[3:35 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker : Thank you very much, Member.

Welcome to everybody in our gallery. We are debating Bill 17, Intimate Images Protection

Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

Elenore Sturko : I am really grateful for the opportunity to speak to Bill 17, which is the Intimate

Images Protection Amendment Act.

This is actually legislation that means a lot to me as a police officer. Formerly

I dealt with people who were victims of sometimes what people have called revenge

porn, sexual online extortions of children, also of adults. I can tell you that the

impacts of these kinds of crimes are devastating.

I am grateful to see legislation coming forward to strengthen the previously written

legislation that came into force in 2024. Anything that we can do to denounce and

deter further and future crimes of this nature, I think, is a really important message

to send as a province.

I am pleased to see, as I said, the government making these amendments to the legislation,

first introduced in March 2023 and came into force in 2024. These amendments will

allow cabinet to raise the maximum amount of money that victims can seek from abusers

through the Civil Resolution Tribunal. The Attorney General said she would recommend

that increase to be set at $75,000, which is a figure 14 times higher than the current

limit.

The increase sends a strong message that violations of intimate privacy come with

serious consequences. It’s about restitution and deterrence, ensuring perpetrators

think twice before sharing or threatening to share intimate images.

I agree with the government that sharing someone else’s intimate images without consent

is a crime. Whether it’s done with the goal of extorting money, blackmailing someone,

or as a tool for emotional abuse, it’s wrong. Those who are responsible for these

actions must be held accountable. As a member of the Legislature, I denounce the sharing

of intimate images without consent at all times.

I was very saddened to hear the statistics that were cited by the Attorney General

in the media, that the Civil Resolution Tribunal is handling 381 cases related to

intimate images and that nearly 700 people have reached out to the province’s dedicated

support services since this legislation came into force in 2024. They’re staggering

statistics.

Canada needs better Criminal Code laws related to sexual extortion of children, in

particular. Our Attorney General had noted in the media that many perpetrators in

online sextortion cases are often located outside the country, which makes it harder

to charge them with a crime. This is, of course, true.

Bill 17 aims to make protection orders more precise, flexible and enforceable and

includes mechanisms for expedited image removal, getting harmful content off these

platforms faster and restrictions on sharing or even threatening to distribute images.

I think it’s crucial, because too often victims wait while images spread virally online,

and that contributes to a victim’s distress.

The amendments introduce faster resolution timelines to reduce trauma, along with

better supports and resources and case management options. As someone who has worked

with victims of crime as they proceed through the justice system, I know how drawn-out

processes can compound people’s suffering. So by prioritizing anonymity and expedited

hearings through a civil process, there’s potential now to minimize revictimization,

which will, of course, encourage more people to come forward.

I believe that the perpetrators of these crimes should also face criminal justice.

I do agree with the Attorney General and her statements that she made publicly that

Canada needs better laws, particularly for children, to help deal with the fact that,

as this government has said and as police have said, perpetrators of these crimes

many times are outside of the country.

Actually, a very sad example of that is the case of Amanda Todd, where her online

harasser, her abuser, actually lived in another country but is now facing penalties

and serving a sentence for his role in her harassment and death.

[3:40 p.m.]

We need these better Criminal Code laws related to the sexual extortion of children,

especially given that many perpetrators of these online extortions are outside of

Canada. I know that the Attorney General agrees with this. So it’s my hope that the

government will strongly pursue changes to the Criminal Code of Canada for these greatly

needed improvements.

Despite all the positive changes Bill 17 introduces, the biggest barrier to success

is, of course, the jurisdictional challenges, which my colleague from the official

opposition had also noted. Enforcing takedown orders on global platforms or against

borders, and tools like VPNs make tracking offenders very difficult. So without stronger

international cooperation or tech-specific mandates, these orders could become toothless,

allowing content to persist online indefinitely.

Additionally, we need to ensure that law enforcement agencies have the resources they

need to investigate these types of crimes, whether they go through the criminal courts

or through the tribunal. Internet child exploitation units do very specialized work

that requires training and technology, and it takes a tremendous psychological toll

on investigators, who are often dealing with disturbing imagery and very vulnerable

victims and their families.

I’d strongly urge this government to increase funding for internet child exploitation

and vulnerable persons investigative teams across this province, to support the work

that is being done to fight against the distribution of intimate images without consent.

We also can’t ignore the potential strain on the Civil Resolution Tribunal resources.

With higher caseloads and more complex orders, we need to be very cautious that the

tribunal doesn’t become overwhelmed, leading to the types of delays that the act actually

intends to avoid. As caseloads rise, driven by increased awareness and reporting programs,

these programs will need more funding. They need more staff and training to keep things

efficient.

Lastly, I just want to say that we have emerging tech gaps, and this is a glaring

omission. The amendment may not fully address AI-generated deepfakes, which are exploding

in prevalence and sophistication. Victims of fabricated intimate images deserve the

same protections, but without explicit provisions, we may be playing catch-up. Future

updates might be essential for us to stay ahead of these types of threats.

Just to wrap it up, this act is commendable in its efforts to empower victims and

combat digital abuse with key improvements in damages, orders, anonymity and penalties.

resource strain and tech adaptability. It does remind us that intentions aren’t good

enough, and we need to have comprehensive solutions.

As an MLA and a former police officer dedicated to public safety, I would hope that

the government would build on this foundation, integrate criminal elements, enhance

support for underserved communities, prepare for tomorrow’s technologies so that we

can have a system that protects people from the distribution without consent of intimate

images and protect vulnerable populations, particularly children, online.

I will be supporting this bill on second reading and look forward to following it

through continued debate.

Stephanie Higginson : I rise today to speak in support of the amendments to the Intimate Images Protection

Act.

The original act was introduced in 2023 because, in this rapidly changing world, we

know that sharing or threatening to distribute someone else’s intimate images or videos

without their consent does lead to feelings of helplessness, shame and, in some cases,

suicide and self-harm. There are too many stories of predatory behaviour that has

resulted in long-term, lasting physical, psychological and reputational harm.

As a parent, in my house, we’ve set up strong boundaries to try to prevent this from

happening to our children. But as every parent knows, we can’t be everywhere all the

time.

[3:45 p.m.]

In 2023, we introduced the Intimate Images Protection Act to give victims more legal

options and fast, affordable ways to stop or prevent sharing of intimate images.

As an adult…. This isn’t an issue that I had to navigate as a kid, and I’m thankful

for that. I know that this isn’t just happening to young people. This is happening

to people across all age groups.

This government knows that we’re at the front of this wave, and that is why we need

to do everything possible to support victims but also to deter the behaviour. That’s

why we’re introducing amendments to the act that we introduced in 2023 and that came

into effect in 2024, because they will substantially increase the value of damages

that can be awarded and also improve options for victims in case resolution while

protecting their privacy to reduce further risk of traumatization and hardship.

Too often people have been victimized by the process for redress, and that just revictimizes

them, only then for the perpetrators to receive an inconsequential fine. These amendments

improve the legislation that was previously introduced, and it allows us to stand

up for the victims and lay strong groundwork that will help further deter this predatory

behaviour.

While it is important to protect the victims — it is the most important part of this

— it’s also just as important to deter this behaviour that leads to this type of victimization.

Increasing fines and making it easier for victims to seek redress sends a strong message

that sharing images without consent is unacceptable and it’s a serious offence that

this government takes seriously, and we are letting people know that we are not going

to allow it on our watch.

More importantly, if you have been victimized, this government is here to stand behind

you and to support you, to ensure that any action that you take does not re-traumatize

you. That support started with the act in 2023 and is made stronger by these amendments.

We will substantially increase the value of the damages — as we’ve heard already from

many members, up to, I think, 14 times more that can be awarded — from $5,000 up to

the recommended $75,000 and remove requirements that the Civil Resolution Tribunal

publish decisions about damages, to protect the privacy of victims, because this is

their story.

It’s their story to tell, and the conditions that they tell that story in are theirs.

It should not be determined by an arbitrary timeline that exists that they have no

control over. This is a step in helping them reclaim their story that was created

by a terrible invasion of privacy. We are saying, “No more,” and that we will stand

with you.

We are clarifying the information that may be included and allowed in a civil resolution

tribunal to change an intimate protection order, if it’s needed. We’re clarifying

timelines for penalties for people who fail to comply, and we’re establishing authority

of the intimate images protection service to continue to collect specific personal

information to be able to provide better and more protective services to the victims.

All of these amendments are victim-centred and will give victims stronger legal protections.

With these stronger penalties and more streamlined processes, we hope that we will

deter predators. Although, with streamlined processes, we may actually see…. As we’ve

seen, the statistics are quite staggering about how many people are taking action.

Because it becomes easier, we may see more victims come forward, but the hope is that

eventually, with strong deterrence, we see fewer.

Along with an increase in damages available through the civil tribunal, a victim can

also seek up to $35,000 in damages at provincial courts. That adds up to over $100,000

in financial impacts.

I’m proud of the suite of actions that we have introduced this week: the Sexual Violence

Policy Act, the post-secondary sexual violence action plan. They’re three actions

that represent a coordinated response to sexualized and gender-based violence. These

amendments focus on one type of sexualized violence, the nonconsensual sharing of

intimate images. The other two, the Sexual Violence Policy Act and the sexual violence

action plan, target sexualized violence that occurs in specific and unique contexts

in B.C. All of these represent one aspect of our government’s commitment to creating

safer communities and ending ongoing gender-based and sexualized violence.

[3:50 p.m.]

I heard today from both sides of the House that there is strong agreement that we

need better national and international cooperation. But what we’re saying with this

legislation and with the work that we’re doing this week is that we will use every

tool we have in British Columbia to fight these crimes.

To the victims of these crimes: what happened is not your fault. We will use every

tool that we have at our disposal — legislative, regulatory and others — to support

you.

To the perpetrators: we also see you. We will use every tool that we have to stop

you and hold you accountable.

Misty Van Popta : We’ve got some parents in here, and I’m really happy to see the Minister of Education

here.

I’m wondering if the other day, when Bill 17 was tabled, any of the members on the

other side there happened to hear me kind of gasp or make comment to my seatmate beside

me here, because when I heard the title, Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment,

I must admit I almost melted down.

We didn’t have any content at the time, but there was a moment of relived trauma,

a flashback of a very dark time for my family, a time of remembering the hopelessness

in our justice system.

Now, I will preface this debate speech with a disclaimer that I have full support

of my daughter standing here today to share her story. She called me from Mexico yesterday

while on her vacation to not only encourage me to stand up for her but to stand up

for other young women and men.

Man, I’ve been told in the past that I’m a strong woman. You guys have seen nothing

in my 20-year-old. She makes me look like a shrinking violet, and she’s crushing life

right now.

If you happened to be in the chamber in the spring to speak in support of the member

for Surrey-Cloverdale’s private member’s bill, M205, the Mental Health Amendment Act,

I told a story here in the same spot about my courageous daughter, who made an attempt

on her life at 16. I barely kept it together then. I thought I was going to do better

today.

What that speech did not really go into in the spring was the precipitating reasons

for her decision to try and take her life. There were about four mitigating factors,

but the one that I’m going to talk about right now is the subject of this bill.

She was 16. She was interested in a boy. He encouraged her to send him a photo of

her that was intimate in nature. No harm, no foul, right? Most of the kids are doing

it. Unfortunately, with today’s overexploitation and sexualization of society, our

kids have lost that sense of innocence.

A few months later after school reconvened from summer break, the school counsellor

was made aware by another student that my daughter’s photo was not only circulated

among a Snapchat group of boys in her school, but it was distributed to two other

schools as well.

It was me that was contacted by the RCMP while I was at work, on a jobsite. I crumbled

on the spot, in a parking lot surrounded by machinery and men, and I sobbed uncontrollably.

These weren’t tears for me. They weren’t even tears of anger yet. They were tears

knowing that I had to go pick up my daughter from school and break the news to her

that I knew would crush her already fragile and insecure world.

[3:55 p.m.]

The next few weeks were filled with interviews and investigations and holding together

my child who was so exposed, so embarrassed and so vulnerable, who at a young age

made a mistake and paid dearly for it.

It was an unfortunate teaching moment for the whole school. Boys didn’t know that

not only was it not appropriate, but it was illegal. It is deemed the distribution

of child pornography, even if those who shared the images of minors are minors themselves.

In my daughter’s case, the perpetrator wasn’t charged. There was no accountability.

The boy didn’t attend her school. She never heard from him again. But she saw him

again night after night in her head as she lay down and relived that moment. Sixteen

years old, too young for heavy moments, too fragile under isolation of COVID social

restrictions. It was one of many compounding factors adding up to a moment that she

couldn’t bear anymore.

The reasons for no charges are due to issues within the Criminal Code in terms of

the definition of child pornography. The image shared of her flirted on the edge of

the definition, and thus it was my daughter that wore the consequences of that brief

lapse in judgment.

I honestly had no idea about our options for restitution without a conviction. Actually,

it was the presentation of this bill that made me realize that there was a civil way

for my daughter to use. We only had a brief on this bill before lunch yesterday, so

I’m a little light on the clauses here. And although it mainly addresses claims made

by a civil resolution tribunal, I’m in general support of the intent of this bill.

Anything that holds perpetrators of sharing and distribution of intimate images more

accountable for their actions is okay with me.

I just wish this government would go further on this crushing epidemic with our youth.

I wish there was an educational piece introduced to teens in their early years, to

warn kids as they enter a confusing time of life, to know the ramifications of not

only sending intimate images but also the legal implications of sharing them — the

kids just don’t know — and that it can become collateral or blackmail, to further

add to the legal consequences.

I wish it was more widely understood that there was a civil claims option or a tribunal

option for restitution for victims who aren’t covered by the criminal court system.

If this Momma Bear did not know, and I’m generally a fairly informed person, I guarantee

you others don’t know.

I also deeply wish that the limitation period for proceedings — which, I believe,

is clause 20 — would go beyond two years from the contravention. The trauma after

an emotional assault like this…. It can take the victims so, so long to come out of

the fog, if they even emerge from it. In my daughter’s case, it ate her alive for

about eight months and then, after her suicide attempt, another 18 months of recovery.

Even if I knew of our legal options at the time, I would have never proceeded with

anything until I felt she was ready to speak to it, and that was well after the two-year

window.

I’m scared this new bill will add confusion as to where a victim should proceed legally

— the CRT or Provincial Court. I’m scared this bill will increase the caseload of

the CRT, prolonging the trauma of victims. I’m scared that the CRT is not equipped

for handling the sensitive matter and nature of these claims.

My true hope is for the Attorney General to work with her federal government counterparts

to address the

definitions of “intimate images” and “pornography” under the Criminal

Code. This is an epidemic in our schools. I encourage the Minister of Education to

ensure that students are aware of not only the emotional consequences but also the

legal consequences, and that knowledge will not only strengthen against peer pressure

for young girls and boys against succumbing to requests for photos but will help them

stand up against it. Please do more.

[4:00 p.m.]

I’m going to read the text my daughter sent me this morning after she proofed this

debate speech. It reads: “I may not have a platform to talk about my stories, but

you do. Something about it, said publicly, gives me a sense of strength back. I’m

proud of me, and I’m proud of you.”

Deputy Speaker : Thank you very much, Member.

Thanks to your daughter for allowing you to share that story.

Sunita Dhir : I’m pleased to rise today to speak in strong support of Bill 17, the Intimate Images

Protection Amendment Act.

This legislation represents another important step in our government’s ongoing work

to protect people in British Columbia from the nonconsensual sharing or threatened

sharing of intimate images. It builds on the Intimate Images Protection Act, which

came into force earlier this year, a first of its kind in Canada, and it strengthens

the tools available to victims seeking justice, safety and dignity.

This is an issue that strikes at the heart of human dignity. It’s about the right

to control one’s own image and identity and the devastating harm that occurs when

that right is violated.

Every one of us has heard from constituents, parents and young people who have experienced

or know someone who has been a victim of image-based sexual abuse. These are not isolated

incidents. They are deeply personal stories of betrayal and humiliation that can destroy

a person’s confidence, reputation and mental health.

In my constituency, a young woman shared with me how, after ending a relationship,

private images she had shared with her partner were distributed without her consent.

Within hours, those images were online, circulated among strangers. She told me she

couldn’t bring herself to attend class or even leave her home. She said: “It wasn’t

just my pictures they took. They took my peace and my sense of safety.”

Those words have stayed with me. They are a reminder that behind every statistic is

a person, often a young person, whose life has been up-ended by this kind of violation.

When this House passed the Intimate Images Protection Act in 2023, British Columbia

became the first jurisdiction in Canada to create a dedicated, accessible process

for victims to stop or prevent the distribution of their intimate images.

Since the act came into effect in January 2024, we have seen meaningful results. The

Civil Resolution Tribunal, which administers these cases, has already resolved hundreds

of matters. Victims have been able to obtain orders to have images removed, to prevent

further sharing and to receive damages, often within weeks, not years.

The intimate images protection service has provided invaluable guidance and support

to those seeking help, particularly young people who might otherwise have suffered

in silence.

[4:05 p.m.]

These are real, tangible outcomes, and they show that this approach works, but as

technology continues to evolve, so too must the law. The amendments before the House

today strengthen the existing act in several significant ways.

First, they substantially increase the damages available through the Civil Resolution

Tribunal. Under the current framework, the maximum award is $5,000. This amendment

proposes to raise that amount, potentially to as high as $75,000, to more accurately

reflect the gravity of harm caused by these violations.

This is not simply an administrative change. It’s an acknowledgement that the emotional,

social and economic impacts of image-based abuse can be devastating, and the remedies

must reflect that reality.

Second, these amendments improve privacy protections for victims. Decisions of the

tribunal relating to the damages will no longer need to be published online, reducing

the risk of re-traumatization and protecting survivors from further exposure.

Third, the amendments strengthen the authority of protection orders and ensure that

the intimate images protection service can continue to collect and use information

in order to provide timely, trauma-informed assistance.

Taken together, these changes make the act more compassionate, more precise and more

effective in protecting victims and holding perpetrators accountable.

This legislation is part of a larger effort to make British Columbia a safer and more

just place for everyone, particularly for women, girls and gender-diverse people,

who are disproportionately affected by this kind of abuse.

Our government is also advancing work under the gender-based violence action plan

and the post-secondary Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act to ensure that campuses,

workplaces and communities are equipped to prevent and respond to sexualized violence.

This is a comprehensive approach, one that recognizes that safety, dignity and justice

must extend beyond the courtroom and into every part of public life.

The nonconsensual sharing of intimate images does not occur in isolation. It occurs

that too often fail to act responsibly.

We have all seen the tragic consequences of this negligence. The names of Amanda Todd

and Carson Cleland are seared into our collective memory. Their stories and the tireless

advocacy of their families remind us that online exploitation is not a distant or

abstract threat. It’s happening here, in our communities, to our children.

While regulation of online platforms falls primarily under federal jurisdiction, British

Columbia has acted decisively within our own authority. This legislation gives the

Civil Resolution Tribunal the power to issue enforceable orders and administrative

penalties when companies fail to comply.

[4:10 p.m.]

Compliance with B.C. law is not optional. We expect online platforms operating in

this province to respond swiftly and respectfully when ordered to remove harmful content

and to treat victims with the dignity they deserve.

This legislation is also about shifting cultural attitudes. Too often, victims are

blamed for taking or sharing intimate images in the first place. Let me be clear.

The victim is never at fault. Intimacy shared within a relationship is not a crime.

The crime occurs when the trust is broken and those images are used to harm, control

or humiliate a good person.

By strengthening this law, we send a clear message. In British Columbia, consent matters,

privacy matters, and the misuse of intimate images will be met with serious consequences.

The threat of image-based abuse is expanding. Law enforcement agencies, including

the B.C. internet child exploitation unit, have reported significant increases in

online sextortion and deepfake cases.

Nationally most sextortion victims are young men, which challenges many of our assumptions

about who is vulnerable. The perpetrators are often anonymous and organized, operating

across borders. That’s why our response must be both adaptable and coordinated, involving

educators, parents, law enforcement, technology companies and policy-makers.

One of the most powerful features of this act is that it embeds trauma-informed practice

at every level. The Civil Resolution Tribunal has developed a specialized process

to ensure that survivors can pursue justice without being retraumatized. Its staff

receive training in trauma-informed engagement, implicit bias and crisis intervention.

Victims can participate remotely, receive emotional support through the intimate images

protection service and obtain enforceable orders quickly and privately. This is what

modern justice looks like — accessible, compassionate and survivor-centred.

British Columbia continues to lead the country in protecting people from image-based

sexual abuse. Other provinces are watching closely, and some are now exploring similar

legislative frameworks. We should take pride in that leadership, but we should also

remain humble and vigilant. The digital landscape changes rapidly, and we must continue

to listen to survivors, advocates and experts to ensure our laws remain responsive

and relevant.

This legislation is about justice and compassion. It’s about protecting people from

exploitation and ensuring that those who commit these violations are held accountable.

Most importantly, it’s about sending a message to victims, especially young people,

that they are not alone, that they are believed and that their government stands with

them.

The Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act will make our province safer,

fairer and more humane. It reflects the best of what this House can do, responding

to emerging challenges with empathy, evidence and courage.

I am proud to support this bill at second reading, and I urge all members of this

assembly to do the same.

[4:15 p.m.]

Jeremy Valeriote : I will do this in person, but I want to thank the member for Langley–Walnut Grove

for sharing her and her daughter’s story. As a parent of 11-year-old daughters, this

terrifies me. I’m glad that we’re addressing it here, and I hope that we’ll be proactively

addressing future items that our younger people will face.

I’m grateful for the opportunity to speak to Bill 17 — as we know, brought into force

last year, January 2024 — and gaps and barriers that have been identified and the

legislative changes proposed to address these. I’ll briefly speak about some of these

changes. I know they’ve been mentioned.

The maximum amount that can be claimed, currently $5,000, is obviously insufficient

for many people seeking justice. It’s often seen to be not worth the time and stress

that accompanies the long process of seeking damages through this act. I appreciate

that the Attorney General has stated the intention to raise the tribunal limit amount

to $75,000.

We believe this change will increase the number of people who are inclined to seek

and pursue justice. As has been mentioned, the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images

is a crime under the Criminal Code, and this increase to the maximum damages is a

clear signal that this crime has substantial consequences, as has been described in

this House.

We also know that more work is needed to hold perpetrators accountable for the use

of artificial intelligence and the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images. The creation

of deepfakes is a grey area in Canada’s Criminal Code. As AI becomes more complex

and prevalent, it’s crucial for governments to respond accordingly. We hope to see

the B.C. government and federal government working in tandem to address the gaps that

exist in the Criminal Code around the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images and

AI.

The current legislation around intimate-images protection in B.C. requires the Civil

Resolution Tribunal to publish damages decisions made under this act. Although personal

information is kept confidential, it has been found that there are enough details

to identify persons involved in these decisions. By no longer requiring the CRT to

publish damages decisions, we hope that persons who have had their intimate images

shared without consent will be better protected from being identified.

These proposed changes to the act reflect the government’s responsiveness to Dr. Kim

Stanton’s final report, The British Columbia Legal System’s Treatment of Intimate Partner Violence and Sexual

Violence . We applaud the Attorney General and the government for taking steps to respond to

Dr. Stanton’s 21 recommendations.

I’d also like to emphasize the importance of continuing to implement the remaining

recommendations and addressing the gaps and barriers in B.C.’s legal system. Systemic

changes are needed to ensure that survivors of intimate-partner, sexual and gender-based

violence are supported through the province’s legal and health systems. This is a

step in the right direction, but more work needs to be done.

I look forward to seeing this government take action to address Dr. Stanton’s recommendations.

We hope to see this government declare gender-based violence an epidemic, ban the

misuse of non-disclosure agreements, improve support for prevention initiatives, provide

stable core funding to organizations supporting survivors and eliminate the silos

and barriers across governance and justice systems.

People who experience the nonconsensual sharing of their intimate images, and anyone

experiencing other forms of sexual violence, should feel well supported through every

step of the justice system.

The Third Party will continue to monitor the government’s progress on improving justice

and services for survivors of gender-based and sexual violence. I’ve heard the concerns

of the opposition, and I hope they will be seriously considered at the committee stage.

In the meantime, the Third Party caucus will support this bill through second reading.

Rosalyn Bird : Before I begin, I’d like to acknowledge that I’m going to be talking about a young

boy today. I do have his parents’ permission. Some of the things I’m going to speak

of may actually trigger people, so I’d just like to apologize for that in advance.

[4:20 p.m.]

I have risen today with a heavy heart and a deep sense of duty to speak to Bill 17,

the Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act. Although we support the principle

of this legislation, there are concerns and considerations that need to be raised

and explored at committee stage.

On the 12th of October, in a few days, it marks the two-year anniversary when Prince

George residents were shocked and outraged by a tragic story of 12-year-old Carson

Cleland. Carson was a bright young boy. He was loved by his family, engaged in his

community and he had his whole life ahead of him.

But Carson fell victim to online sextortion, a predator posing behind a screen, using

manipulation and deceit to obtain intimate images and then using those images to threaten

and torment him.

Carson was only 12 years old, a child, yet he was faced with pressures and fear that

no child should ever have to bear. Those pressures resulted in Carson taking his own

life. Twelve years old, a child. A child so afraid that he chose suicide.

Bill 17 speaks to one of the most painful, destructive yet increasingly common realities

of our digital age: the nonconsensual sharing and threat of sharing of intimate images

online. This is not just about legislation; it is about lives shattered. It is about

the quiet torment of victims who feel trapped, humiliated and helpless in a world

that never forgets. It is about our children and our grandchildren growing up in an

online landscape far more dangerous than any of us ever imagined.

Carson’s parents, Ryan and Nicola, are constituents of mine. They have bravely spoken

out. They have said what every parent feels deep in their heart: our children are

not built for these kinds of adult problems in a child’s world. They are right.

This is a moral crisis, a technological one that demands more than words. It demands

leadership, responsibility and a full commitment to protect those who are most vulnerable.

Unfortunately, Carson’s story is not an isolated tragedy. According to the RCMP reports,

reports of online sextortion in Prince George alone increase yearly, with more than

62 cases being reported last year.

Across Canada, we’ve seen hundreds of similar cases. Cybertip.ca reports that between

January 1 and December 31, 2024, they received an average of six sextortion reports

per day. Ninety-two percent of sextortion victims are boys or young men, and 63 percent

of sextortion incidents occurred on Instagram or Snapchat.

For many of the victims, they are too afraid or ashamed to tell anyone until it’s

too late. These predators are sophisticated. They target youth on platforms like Snapchat,

Instagram or gaming apps. They manipulate, they threaten, and often, as in Carson’s

case, they extort from across the world with devastating consequences for families

at home. The predator that targeted Carson was tracked to Nigeria, and charges have

never been laid.

This isn’t just a crime about technology. It’s a crime of trust, a violation of innocence

and a symptom of a deeper moral and social decay where anonymity breeds cruelty and

accountability vanishes behind a screen.

Bill 17 amends the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act and the Intimate Images Protection

Act. It provides new procedures to help individuals prevent or stop the nonconsensual

sharing of intimate images. It allows victims to apply directly to the CRT for orders

to stop distribution, to remove content and to seek damages. It removes these cases

from the small claims category, recognizing that this is not a simple civil dispute.

It is a personal violation.

These are positive steps, and we acknowledge the intent behind them. We all want a

faster, more accessible way for victims to get help and to have those images taken

down and to reclaim some measure of dignity. But good intentions are n