Raj Chouhan

BC NDP

10/27/2025

Bill 17 — Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Bill 17, Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, has been read a third time and has passed.

18 words

Hon. Mike Farnworth

BC NDP

10/27/2025

Bill 17 — Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

I call third reading, Bill 17.

6 words

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

Okay, committee, I’ll call us back to order. We have confirmed that the amendment is in order, so now we will proceed to debate on the amendment for Bill 17, with the addition of 9.1.

35 words

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

As I was stating earlier, I know that we just dealt with a definition in clause 9, and now we’re getting to the latter part of the act. Although we’ve just dealt with the definition, I see that this is a new piece of legislation. Even the original piece of legislation is fairly new. It has been about 2½ years, and AI has grown within that period, just in the span of two years. I didn’t know what AI was two years ago. You see this happening, people posting images online, and it’s not the actual person that is in that picture. Those images were created. There are a lot of companies that are saying that you could get…. They’re promoting virtual assistants, people that are nonexistent. It’s just created by AI. So if somebody creates nude images of someone, and somebody is being affected and embarrassed, they should have some recourse. It was explained that this bill should catch AI, but we don’t want to have a system where we just want to wait and see. Then we’re going to have to come back here, and another bill will have to be introduced. It’s going to take time. The whole thing, why we’re doing this now, is for expediency. I’m introducing and moving an amendment. Basically, I, Steve Kooner, move in the Committee of the Whole on Bill 17, intituled Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, to amend as follows: Basically, it reiterates the top portion and adds the AI portion into this bill. I’d like to pass this up so we can get copies.

267 words

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

We’re back working on Bill 17, Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025. We are now at clause 8, and clause 8 deals with…. The following section is added: “Transition – intimate-image claims.” “If, on the coming into force of this section, the tribunal has jurisdiction over a claim described in subsection 136.2 (1) (b) as a tribunal small claim under Division 3, Tribunal Small Claims, of this Part, the claim is to continue as an intimate-image claim.” Now this is a transition addition. Would the Attorney General’s department be able to explain why this was added? What’s the purpose behind this one?

103 words

Bill 17 — Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Section A reports Bill 17 complete with amendment.

8 words

Mable Elmore

BC NDP

10/23/2025

Member, we have the committee on Bill 17 ready to report.

11 words

Hon. Ravi Parmar

BC NDP

10/23/2025

Bill 31 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

In the main chamber, we’ll continue second reading on Bill 31. In the little House, Committee of the Whole on Bill 17.

22 words

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

Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 17, Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, to order. I’ll recognize the member for Langley–Walnut Grove on the amendment.

31 words

Mr. Speaker, Section A reports progress on Bill 17 and asks to leave to sit again.

16 words

Hon. Mike Farnworth

BC NDP

10/23/2025

Bill 31 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 31, Energy Statutes Amendment Act. In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 17, Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act.

36 words

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

Good afternoon, Members. Calling Committee of the Whole on Bill 17, Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, back to order. We are on clause 3.

26 words

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

Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 17, Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, to order. We are on clause 1.

26 words

Susie Chant

BC NDP

10/22/2025

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

Section A reports progress on Bill 17 and asks leave to sit again.

13 words

Hon. Mike Farnworth

BC NDP

10/22/2025

Bill 19 — School Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 19, the School Amendment Act. In Section A, Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage, Bill 17, Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act.

32 words

Bill 17 — Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

I do have a statement to make. I thank the Attorney General’s staff for being here on Bill 17 at committee stage. I know the staff puts a lot of work into preparing for the bills to be presented and also for the bills to be debated. So I thank the staff for being here today. I’m looking forward to working with the Attorney General to address getting more information on this particular bill at committee stage, as well as getting some questions answered and just getting a really thorough understanding. This bill, as we spoke about in second reading, is a very important topic: intimate images with the internet involved. These types of situations have spiralled out of control, and we need to make sure that we are protecting those that are vulnerable. They may find themselves in situations where they have intimate images and they’re being taken advantage of. So we just want to make sure this legislation is strong enough so it will address the root issue that it’s intending to address. That’s my opening statement there. Would you like me to start my questioning, Chair?

189 words

Bill 17 — Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Good evening, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 17, Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, to order.

21 words

Bill 19 — School Amendment Act, 2025

Section A reports progress on Bill 17 and asks leave to sit again.

13 words

Hon. Josie Osborne

BC NDP

10/21/2025

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

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage for Bill 17. Here in the main chamber, I call continued reading on Bill 29.

24 words

Bill 18 — Sexual Violence Policy Act

I rise today to speak in support of the intent of Bill 18, the Sexual Violence Policy Act, 2025. This legislation addresses an issue that touches every community, every campus and every family in British Columbia — the need to ensure that our post-secondary institutions are places of safety, dignity and respect. Sexual violence has no place in our lecture halls, our staff rooms or our student residences. When it occurs, it leaves deep and lasting harm, not only for survivors but for entire campus communities that struggle to rebuild trust. This bill seeks to strengthen the framework that governs how post-secondary institutions prevent and respond to sexual violence. It replaces the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act of 2016, expanding its reach beyond students to include faculty, employers and contractors. It introduces new requirements for training, consultation and reporting, and it gives the ministry authority to order reviews and surveys to assess effectiveness. Those are positive steps, and on behalf of the Conservative caucus, I want to be clear. We support the principle of this legislation. But good policy must translate into practice, and practice must be backed by resources, clarity and accountability. At committee stage, we intend to examine whether Bill 18 delivers on those tests. Our post-secondary campuses are not immune to the same societal challenges that exist elsewhere. Studies consistently show that young women, gender-diverse students and those in their first years of study are at higher risk of experiencing sexual assault. However, I’d like to acknowledge that sexual assault and violence is not gender- or relationship type–specific. When the 2016 act was first passed, it represented a major cultural shift, requiring universities and colleges to acknowledge the problem and to develop policies for responding to it. But nearly a decade later, evaluations by student groups and faculty associations show uneven implementation. Some institutions have robust prevention programs and survivor supports. Others have little more than a document posted on their website. Bill 18 is an attempt to modernize and strengthen that framework. It defines sexual violence more broadly, covering physical and psychological forms and acts committed through technology. It requires institutions to make their policies public, to establish advisory committees and to review those policies at least every three years. These are welcome changes. They recognize that safety is an ongoing responsibility and not a one-time exercise in compliance. We agree with the government that policies must be transparent and accessible. Every student and staff member should know where to turn if something happens, and every institution should have clear procedures for responding. We also support the expansion of coverage to include faculty and staff. In too many past cases, institutional policies focused solely on students, leaving employees in a grey zone. No one student, instructor or janitor should ever feel unsafe at work or at school. We support the new requirement that institutions provide training on sexual violence. Awareness and prevention begin with education. We support the mandate for annual reports to governing bodies. Public reporting builds trust, and it keeps the issue from being buried. In broad terms, we are aligned with the objectives of the bill. However, we also believe that details matter, and that it is where our role as the official opposition becomes important. First, there is the question of implementation. The bill imposes new requirements on every post-secondary institution, from large research universities to small regional colleges and Indigenous learning centres. Many smaller institutions do not have the same administrative or financial capacity as a university with full-time legal departments and campus security divisions. Requiring each of them to maintain advisory committees, conduct surveys, publish reports and provide ongoing training will require resources. Yet nowhere in this bill is there a mention of dedicated funding or provincial support to meet those new obligations. At committee, we will be asking whether the government plans to assist institutions with standardized templates, data tools or grants to ensure consistency and compliance. If these policies are implemented unevenly, we risk repeating the very gaps this bill is meant to close. Bill 18 requires annual reports, but it does not specify what happens if an institution fails to meet its obligations or if its report shows systemic problems. Will there be follow-up? Will there be public release of those reports or only internal submission to a board? Will the minister have the power and the duty to act if a school fails to comply? We cannot rely on moral persuasion alone. Accountability must be built into the system. A survivor who reads that their institution is out of compliance should not have to wait three years for a policy review. There must be timely oversight and consequences for negligence or inaction. Clause 3 of the bill outlines procedures for disclosures and formal allegations. While our focus must rightly be on protecting and supporting survivors, we must also ensure that disciplinary processes are fair and transparent for everyone involved. False or mistaken allegations are rare, but they can happen, and when they do, they can destroy reputations and careers. A sound policy must protect the rights of both the complainants and respondents while remaining survivor-centred. Recently in my riding, there actually was a faculty member who was accused of something that did not turn out to be true. That entire process was extremely frustrating. It drew a lot of stress. It drew a lot of questions that were uncomfortable to answer. Although that faculty member stayed on and continued to teach, it was not a process that they would want to repeat. We will examine whether the bill’s framework sufficiently protects privacy, presumption of innocence and the right to appeal decisions. Justice is not served when one person’s pain is met with another’s silence. It is served when truth and fairness prevail together. Clause 10 permits an institution to share information with a complainant about interim measures and the outcome of a formal allegation. That is a positive step. Survivors deserve to know the results of their case. But there must also be clarity about what information can be shared and how privacy will be safeguarded, particularly when an employee or faculty member is involved and employment law protections apply. Transparency and privacy are not opposites. They must be balanced. Clause 6 requires each institution to establish an advisory committee that reflects the diversity of British Columbia. We support this requirement. However, we will seek assurance that these committees will include representation from survivors and those with lived experience, not just administrators or consultants. Real consultation means listening to the people most affected. Clause 7 further requires consultation with students, faculty, staff and trade unions before a policy is adopted or reviewed. Again, this is a positive step, but the bill should specify that those consultations must be meaningful, not apathetic. Too often consultation becomes a check box exercise. Survivors and students deserve more than token input. Clause 8 gives the ministry authority to direct a post-secondary institution to conduct a survey on the effectiveness of its policy. The minister may decide who is surveyed, what questions are asked and when results are submitted. While these powers may help ensure consistent data collection, they must also be transparent. We will ask that the survey results be made public. Students and parents should be able to compare institutions to see where progress is being made and where it is not. A culture of safety, dignity and respect from openness, not secrecy. Clause 11 requires institutions to make training available to members of the campus community. That’s a start, but simply making training available does not mean it will be effective or completed. We believe the bill should establish minimum standards for training content, frequency and participation. Orientation programs for new students and mandatory sessions for faculty could be one model. Online modules might be another. The key is consistency. If we expect meaningful cultural change, training must be more than a PowerPoint or a poster campaign. It must be a sustained conversation about respect, consent and responsibility. Sexual violence cannot be addressed by legislation alone. Culture matters. Institutions must move beyond compliance to commitment — commitment to believing survivors, to educating bystanders and to creating environments where everyone feels safe, reporting concerns without fear or reprisal. Bill 18 lays the groundwork, but the real work happens on campus, in classrooms, dormitories, labs and staff meetings. While government oversight is important, real progress will depend on the collaboration between institutions, students, unions and community organizations with front-line expertise. We should also learn from the shortcomings of the 2016 act. Reviews at the time revealed confusion over definitions, uneven training standards and a lack of follow-through on policy commitments. Bill 18 addresses some of these gaps, but it still relies heavily on regulation, meaning that much of the practical detail will be written later behind closed doors. At committee, we will ask that the regulations be published in draft form and subject to consultation with institutions, survivor advocates and the public before they take effect. Transparency in the rule-making process builds trust in the system. In order to understand why Bill 18 is not only timely but essential, we must place it in the broader context of gender-based violence, legislative reform and evolving norms about dignity, privacy and power. The urgency of this bill is underlined by the sobering realities in British Columbia. According to the provincial government, each year some 20,000 women in B.C. experience relationship violence. In addition, Statistics Canada indicates that 29.8 percent of women in B.C. report experiencing physical or sexual assault by an intimate partner since the age of 15. Advocacy groups and coalitions note that nearly one in two women in B.C., 48 percent, have experienced some form of intimate-partner violence over their lifetime and that nearly 30 percent have experienced physical or sexual violence specifically. These are not abstract numbers. They reflect a culture of power imbalances, silence, trauma and broken trust. Many cases go unreported. As one independent review recently highlighted, 80 percent of those who have experienced intimate-partner violence do not report it. Women reported 22 percent and men only 14, and 94 percent of sexual assault survivors do not report to the police at all. We must let those figures sink in. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people in this province live daily with the weight of violence unseen by the public eye. By linking Bill 18 to these realities, we affirm that the violence we seek to prevent is not limited to campuses. The environments, relationships and power dynamics that underlie intimate-partner violence are mirrored, sometimes magnified, in universities and college settings. A culture that allows abuse in the home, the dating relationship or an intimate partnership often bleeds into how we treat consent, boundaries and respect in academic institutions. This week this House is also considering Bill 17, the Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025. Bill 17 seeks to strengthen protections for individuals whose private, intimate images have been shared without consent, raising compensation limits, increasing privacy safeguards and expanding the tools available to victims. It may be a coincidence that Bill 17 and Bill 18 are being debated in tandem. However, they both address different manifestations of gender-based harm, one dealing with non-consensual digital exposure, the other with broader misconduct and sexual violence, but they are deeply connected in principle. Both laws affirm a culture of consent, privacy, dignity and accountability. We should ensure the regimes do not operate in silos. For victims whose experience spans both non-consensual image sharing and in-person misconduct, there must be clarity in how institutional policies, privacy law and criminal and civil remedies interact. At committee, we will explore whether Bill 18’s disciplinary and procedural framework properly aligns with the evolving protections of Bill 17. One of the strengths of Bill 18 is that it explicitly extends coverage to faculty, employees and contractors, not just students. That is significant. In the campus environment, faculty often occupy formal and informal positions of power through grading, mentorship, references, research supervision and authority over funding or opportunities. When misconduct occurs in that context, the disproportion of power is sharp. A student may feel unable to refuse, to challenge or to speak up. A faculty member may use institutional leverage, whether consciously or unconsciously, in ways that compromise consent or fairness. Thus, by including faculty and staff, Bill 18 acknowledges that campus culture is not only amongst peers but is defined in hierarchical relationships. In enforcing this law, policy must recognize those power dynamics, and safeguards must ensure that complaints against faculty are handled with transparency, fairness and sensitivity. Survivors must feel safe. Respondents must receive due process. Another area to examine further is follow-up. The bill allows institutions to submit annual reports, but it does not require the minister to publish a provincewide summary or to table results in the Legislature. If we are serious about accountability, there should be an annual public report showing progress, identifying trends and highlighting best practices across campuses. That transparency would also help institutions learn from one another. I want to close this section by acknowledging survivors. For many, the decision to come forward is incredibly difficult. The trauma of sexual violence can be compounded by stigma, disbelief or bureaucratic indifference. Front-line training, compassion intake and access to counselling services are essential to complement this bill. We will be seeking clarification at committee on whether the ministry plans to track support counselling and crisis response capacity at institutions, not just policy paperwork. Legislation alone cannot solve a crisis of culture. Even the most robust policy is only as effective as the environment in which it operates. That is why prevention and cultural change must be central to our approach. We must push universities and colleges beyond mere compliance. A bland checklist is inadequate. What we need is a culture of dignity and respect in every relationship — student to student, faculty to student, staff to staff and administration to front-line employees. A campus where sexual violence is rare is not simply one with enforcement. It is one where every classroom, lab, dormitory, meeting space and hallway reinforces consent, listening and respect. To build that, institutions need sustained training; curriculum integration, not just add-on workshops; bystander education; open dialogue on power and consent; and the mechanisms for students and staff to engage in cultural reflection. Robust prevention means empowering bystanders and building peer-led programs. Students often see early warning signs — isolation, coercion, controlling behaviour and harassment — while trained bystanders can intervene safely and send clear messages to peers. Institutions should partner with community organizations, survivor advocacy groups, Indigenous healing circles and mental health networks. By bringing in outside expertise and lived experiences, campuses avoid intolerance and they gain credibility. Training should not only be for new students but repeated over time, adapted to campus context and tailored to a diversity of communities — Indigenous, gender-diverse, international and differently abled. It should also include faculty and staff, not just students, because everyone helps to shape the culture. Preventing misconduct means teaching about consent in its full complexity, not just yes or no but capacity, coercion, power, influence and relationship dynamics. Many harmful acts occur in grey zones where hierarchical dynamics complicate voluntariness. Because faculty and staff are part of the extended reach of this bill, training must address how power imbalances affect consent. A student may feel unable to refuse or feel pressure even in a non-violent interaction. We must not let prestige, authority or dependency distort boundary lines. Post-secondary institutions value their autonomy and rightly so. Academic freedom and institutional self-governance are vital to higher education. But autonomy cannot be the excuse for inaction. When it comes to safety, government has the responsibility to set clear expectations and monitor the outcomes. Bill 18 attempts to strike that balance. Our task at committee will be to ensure that it succeeds, that oversight strengthens rather than undermines the ability of institutions to respond effectively. Conservatives believe that institutions must bear responsibility, not just regulators. The best campus policies will be those that integrate safety into mission, governance and everyday operations not as a compliance burden but as a core institutional value. At the same time, when systemic failures occur, as they have in the past, the Legislature and the minister must have the real power to intervene. That intervention must not be punitive for its own sake but corrective, transparent and proportionate. We must guard civil liberties, procedural fairness and the rule of law, even as we centre survivor dignity. The bill must strike the right balance. Survivors deserve compassion, speed, confidentiality and rigorous investigations. Respondents deserve presumption of innocence, clear standards of proof, full opportunity to respond and appeal mechanisms. We will press at committee to sharpen those protections, particularly in the cases involving faculty or staff where employment and academic freedoms are implicated. Conservatives respect institutional autonomy. Universities and colleges must retain the flexibility to adapt policies to their context while meeting baseline standards. That said, autonomy is not an excuse for evasion. In matters of safety, minimum expectations must apply: transparency, accountability and enforcement. We will defend against micromanagement, but we will also demand that the line between oversight and coercion be clear, with the appropriate checks and consultation. At the heart of our approach is respect for human dignity. All policy must centre the needs, voices and rights of individuals. As we support Bill 18 at second reading, our aim is to improve, to fortify, its capacity to deliver safety, fairness and legitimacy, not merely to oppose for political effect. This is one of those rare issues that transcends party lines. Preventing sexual violence should never be reduced to partisan point scoring. Students, parents, faculty and staff expect us to get this right. Our caucus approach to the committee stage will be in good faith, offering constructive suggestions and asking tough but necessary questions. We hope the government will show the same openness to improvements that it asks of others. In conclusion, Bill 18 represents progress but not perfection. It updates the language, broadens coverage and establishes stronger reporting and consultation requirements. Those are genuine improvements. Yet the test of any law is not how it reads on paper but how it works in practice. Does it create real safety for students and staff? Does it empower institutions to act swiftly and fairly? Does it provide transparency and accountability to the public? Does it ensure that survivors are treated with dignity and compassion? Those are the questions we will bring to committee stage. For now, we will support this bill’s passage at second reading, recognizing the shared goal that unites us across the aisle to end sexual violence in our campuses and workplaces and to foster a culture everywhere in British Columbia where we can learn, teach and work without fear. Policies matter, but people matter more. Our job as legislators is to ensure the rules we pass actually protect those people. With that, those will be our guiding principles as this bill moves forward.

3181 words