Bill 18 — Sexual Violence Policy Act (continued)

Thank you, Members. I have examined the amendment proposing to add a new clause, 10.1, put forward by the member for Surrey-Panorama. The amendment adding clause 10.1 proposes to declare a provision of any agreement between a post-secondary institution and any person to be void if a provision, be it a collective agreement or a litigation settlement agreement, prohibits the post-secondary institution or any person related to the post-secondary institution from disclosing that a formal allegation of sexual violence has been made. The impact of the proposed amendment, if adopted, would result in the invalidation of provisions of agreements and appears to extend beyond the bill’s stated objective. I therefore conclude the proposed amendment exceeds the scope of Bill 18 and is therefore ruled out of order.

127 words

Bill 18 — Sexual Violence Policy Act (continued)

Good afternoon, Members. I’m calling to order on Bill 18. We’re on the amendment to add clause 10.1.

18 words

Bill 18 — Sexual Violence Policy Act (continued)

Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of the Whole back to order on Bill 18, Sexual Violence Policy Act.

20 words

Raj Chouhan

BC NDP

10/23/2025

Bill 18 — Sexual Violence Policy Act

Bill 18, Sexual Violence Policy Act, has been read a third time and has passed.

15 words

Raj Chouhan

BC NDP

10/23/2025

Bill 18 — Sexual Violence Policy Act

Members, the question is third reading of Bill 18, Sexual Violence Policy Act.

13 words

Lorne Doerkson

Conservative Party of British Columbia

10/23/2025

Bill 18 — Sexual Violence Policy Act

The question is third reading of Bill 18, Sexual Violence Policy Act. Division has been called.

16 words

Bill 18 — Sexual Violence Policy Act

Section A reports Bill 18 complete without amendment.

8 words

Lorne Doerkson

Conservative Party of British Columbia

10/23/2025

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

Prince George–Mackenzie, I’m sorry to interrupt. Would you reserve your right to speak and adjourn debate? We have Bill 18 to report from the little House.

26 words

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson

BC NDP

10/23/2025

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

In Section A, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 18, Sexual Violence Policy Act. In the main chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 31, Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

34 words

Susie Chant

BC NDP

10/22/2025

Bill 18 — Sexual Violence Policy Act

I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 18 back to order. We are on clause 10. The member moved an amendment, which will be discussed after clause 10.

30 words

Susie Chant

BC NDP

10/22/2025

Bill 18 — Sexual Violence Policy Act

Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 18, Sexual Violence Policy Act, to order.

18 words

Section A reports progress on Bill 18 and asks leave to sit again.

13 words

Hon. Josie Osborne

BC NDP

10/22/2025

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 18. In here, I call continued debate on Bill 24.

23 words

Mable Elmore

BC NDP

10/21/2025

Bill 18 — Sexual Violence Policy Act (continued)

Any further speakers? Okay, seeing no further speakers, I’ll call the question. The question is second reading of Bill 18, Sexual Violence Policy Act.

24 words

Elenore Sturko

Independent

10/21/2025

Bill 18 — Sexual Violence Policy Act (continued)

I’m grateful for the opportunity to speak to Bill 18, Sexual Violence Policy Act, which will replace the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act of 2016. In British Columbia, post-secondary institutions such as universities and colleges have been required to implement sexual violence and misconduct policies since legislation was introduced by the previous government nearly a decade ago. The law was enacted following advocacy from student groups like the Alliance of B.C. Students and the B.C. Federation of Students, spurred on by high-profile cases at institutions like the University of British Columbia, where survivors reported inadequate institutional responses to allegations of sexual assault. The original act mandated policies covering prevention, reporting and responses. While B.C. was a pioneer in mandating such policies, recent reviews initiated after stakeholder consultations identified gaps in enforcement and resources, prompting calls to align with evolving best practices and strengthen provincial oversight. Since this government was first elected in 2017, post-secondary institutions, alongside student organizations, survivors and equity advocates, have all continued to call for stronger provincial legislation to address persistent gaps in the existing framework. I’m glad to see that after eight years, this NDP government has now introduced updated legislation that will require post-secondary institutions to apply sexual violence policies to more than just students and to strengthen reporting requirements to more easily allow the province to hold schools accountable. Additionally, this updated legislation adds objectives that must be considered by post-secondary institutions when making their sexual violence policy. It requires post-secondary institutions to establish an advisory committee. It adds consultation requirements, adds requirements in relation to annual reports, authorizes post-secondary institutions to provide more information about the outcome of a formal allegation to the person who made that allegation and requires post-secondary institutions to make training available. While Bill 18 makes significant progress, it doesn’t fully address every concern raised by B.C. post-secondary institutions — primarily, funding. The Sexual Violence Policy Act lacks dedicated funding mandates, leaving programs and services vulnerable to annual budgets. As was made abundantly clear to members of this Legislature during the 2026 budget consultations, which I was privileged to participate in…. We heard about the dire financial situation that post-secondary institutions are in. Major changes to Canada’s international student program in 2025, including stricter study permits requirements, have significant impacts on post-secondary budgets. Simon Fraser University, for example, expects 500 fewer international undergraduates this semester, leading to a $20 million loss in its budget. KPU, which has five campuses, including one in my riding of Surrey-Cloverdale, has experienced a significant decline in undergraduate and graduate international student numbers, which has tuition revenues expected to fall by $49 million. I’m supporting this legislation, and I want to see these legislative changes succeed at creating safer campuses, but more funding will be required. I checked the news release. I checked the B.C. sexual violence action plan, but I wasn’t able to find guaranteed annual funding to accompany this legislation. There may very well be some grant money that was announced, which I might have missed, but the reality is that post-secondary institutions need certainty, which means that they need dedicated resources. Additionally, post-secondary institutions and allies have been advocating for stand-alone provincial bodies to handle institution-level complaints and impose fines. This bill enhances ministry-led accountability but relies on existing structures which, of course, lack true independence. Even with these limitations, I do think that this updated legislation modernizes the approach to sexual violence policies at post-secondary institutions, so I do look forward to supporting this legislation through to the committee stage, and I look forward to the continuing debate.

599 words

Bill 18 — Sexual Violence Policy Act (continued)

I want to begin by acknowledging the powerful and personal stories that have been shared during the previous part of this debate. They remind us that this issue is not political. It’s human. There has been a rare sense of unity in this chamber, and rightly so. When we discuss sexual violence, we speak as legislators, parents and as people who want the next generation to inherit campuses that are safe, fair and compassionate. As a father, I don’t have to worry about my eight-year-old quite yet, but he’ll be trotting off faster than I’d like. When he does, I want to know that our post-secondary institutions are places where every student, faculty member and staff person can learn, teach and work without fear or intimidation. That’s what this bill is about — the simple right to safety and dignity in learning. Bill 18 replaces the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act of 2016, the first framework created after years of student advocacy. This new legislation expands protection beyond students, to include faculty, contractors and volunteers, and updates language to use “sexual violence” rather than “sexual misconduct,” recognizing that these are acts of harm, not mere infractions. The member for Surrey-Panorama captured that well when he said that the new act recognizes that university autonomy must be balanced with public accountability. There is a careful evolution of the framework, progress built on experience rather than reaction to headlines, and I share that sentiment. The bill requires each post-secondary institution to have a clear policy outlining procedures for disclosures, formal allegations and disciplinary action. It mandates advisory committees that include students, regular consultation and annual public reporting. These are meaningful steps towards transparency and accountability, something we certainly can use more of in government. Just as importantly, this bill allows institutions to share outcomes of cases with survivors. That small change from secrecy to open communication restores a sense of trust that has long been missing. As Conservatives, we also must say plainly that fairness and due process matter. The member for Surrey-Panorama noted that transparency cannot exist without fairness. He’s right. Believing survivors and supporting them must go hand in hand with ensuring that investigations are independent, evidenced-based and timely. Compassion and justice are not competing values. They are partners in credibility. Implementation and not just announcement will decide whether this legislation succeeds. Our colleges and universities are under extraordinary financial strain currently. The abrupt end to the international student program has gutted a key revenue stream, leaving institutions large and small scrambling to fill the gap — not just the Simon Frasers but the North Island Colleges. The funding model itself was already broken, and the current transition is forcing institutions to stretch every remaining dollar just to keep basic and critical programs running. Adding new reporting and consultation requirements without corresponding support risks creating a two-tier system, one for large urban universities with compliance offices and another for smaller regional campuses where a handful of staff are asked to do it all. The government must recognize this reality and provide the resources, guidance and shared service tools that smaller institutions need to meet the same high safety standards. Otherwise, the best intentions of this bill will be lost in the paperwork. Safety should not depend on your postal code. Students at North Island College deserve the same protections as those at UBC or SFU. The member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky spoke about the daily precautions that women and girls feel compelled to take, from crossing the street to carrying keys between their fingers. That image has stayed with many of us. He also said: “Any attack on somebody’s mind, body or soul is an act of violence.” I want to acknowledge that remark from the Green Party, because it captured the moral dimension of this debate. Laws can set rules, but only culture can prevent violence. That culture begins long before students reach university. Respect, consent and accountability must be taught in our homes, reinforced in our schools and carried forward into adulthood. Freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. This bill wisely recognizes that sexual violence can also occur through the use of technology. That inclusion is crucial. Digital harassment, image-based abuse and deepfake exploitation are not minor offences. They are devastating violations. As AI tools make these abuses easier to commit, our laws must be equally agile in preventing them. I would urge the ministry, in its forthcoming regulations, to ensure that the training, prevention and investigation frameworks address these emerging forms of digital harm. Transparency builds trust. The requirement for annual reporting is welcome, but it must go beyond counting policies and training sessions. Reports should include measurable outcomes — how many disclosures were made, how many investigations were completed, how long they took and whether survivors felt supported. That kind of honest reporting will show whether institutions are improving or merely complying. We do not want this to be a pencil-whipping exercise. A centralized provincial dashboard could further that goal, not to shame institutions but to let parents, students and legislators see progress over time. This legislation moves the conversation forward. It broadens protections, modernizes language and demands greater accountability from our post-secondary institutions. But its success will depend on what happens after this vote, on follow-through, funding and leadership. I support the principle of this bill because it reflects the kind of province we want British Columbia to be, one where compassion is matched by fairness and where justice is guided by both empathy and common sense. When our kids step onto those campuses, we want them to inherit institutions that stand for more than just degrees and credentials. We want them to reflect the values we raised them with — respect, decency and responsibility. If Bill 18 helps my son’s generation walk into adulthood with those principles intact, in places where they can learn safely and live without fear, then every word spoken in this House will have been worth it.

1003 words

Hon. Josie Osborne

BC NDP

10/21/2025

Bill 18 — Sexual Violence Policy Act (continued)

I call continued second reading on Bill 18.

8 words

Bill 18 — Sexual Violence Policy Act

This is one of those rare debates where every single member of this House is likely united by the same ultimate goal — to make British Columbia’s campuses safer, fairer and more respectful places to learn and to work. There may be differences in approach but not in purpose. Sexual violence leaves wounds that reach far beyond the immediate act. It destroys trust. It undermines confidence. It isolates victims and damages the sense of community that our post-secondary institutions should foster. I want to begin by acknowledging survivors, students, staff, faculty and families who have spoken up and pressed for change. Without their courage, there would be no legislation before us today. This bill repeals and replaces the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act of 2016. It broadens coverage to include faculty and staff, modernizes language, adds training requirements, mandates advisory committees and introduces regular reviews and surveys to measure effectiveness. These are positive steps. Our caucus supports the spirit and intent of Bill 18, but as is so often the case in legislation, the intent is only as strong as the details that follow it. And this is where I hope to focus my remarks today — on questions of implementation, clarity, fairness and accountability. Post-secondary institutions are microcosms of our society. They bring together young people far from home, employees in positions of trust and cultures of intense social interaction. That combination can foster creativity and growth, but it can also create risks. Statistics Canada reports that more than 70 percent of incidents of sexual assault on campuses go unreported. That means most victims suffer in silence. Some fear retaliation. Others distrust the process, and many simply don’t believe that anything will change. Our job as lawmakers is to ensure that they have reason to believe otherwise, that coming forward will be met with dignity, competence and action. Bill 18 tries to modernize the framework so that policies are not just written once and forgotten but reviewed regularly and kept alive as living documents. Still, we have to make sure these changes are practical, workable and backed by resources. At its core, this bill does several good things. It updates outdated terminology, replacing “sexual misconduct” with “sexual violence,” a phrase that better reflects the severity of these acts. It requires every institution to maintain a public policy on sexual violence and review it at least once every three years. It compels consultation with students, faculty and staff when policies are developed or amended. It creates advisory committees to advise institutions on prevention and awareness. It authorizes the minister to request surveys and reports to measure effectiveness. These are constructive steps, and I commend the government for bringing them forward. However, support in principle does not mean silence on details. In fact, good laws depend on vigorous debate at committee stage. I’d like to highlight several clauses that deserve a closer look. Clause 7, consultation with prescribed persons or classes of persons. Clause 7 states that before a post-secondary institution establishes or reviews its sexual violence policy, it must consult students, the advisory committee and “prescribed persons or prescribed classes of persons.” That phrase caught my attention. I’m not sure what that actually means. Who are prescribed persons, and who are the classes of persons? Will they be defined in regulation by cabinet, or are they community advocates, victim services, professionals, legal experts, Indigenous leaders or perhaps none of the above? Leaving this undefined creates ambiguity. If consultation is to be meaningful, we need clarity on who must be consulted and why. Otherwise, it becomes easy for an institution to check a box and say “we consulted” without including the voices that actually matter. I would ask the minister to consider adding examples or criteria for who qualifies as a prescribed person. That transparency would help prevent confusion and build trust in the process. Clause 8 allows the minister to direct institutions to conduct surveys about sexual violence policies and their effectiveness. I understand the intention. You can’t improve what you don’t measure, but I also know that surveys on such a sensitive topic must be handled with extreme care. How does one assess a sexual violence survey? How do you design questions that invite honesty without causing harm? For some victims, even being asked to recall an incident can trigger trauma. Will participation be voluntary and anonymous? Will trauma-informed supports be available for respondents who may be distressed? Will survey results be made public in a transparent way that still protects privacy? If we want to measure progress, we must also measure how our methods affect the very people we are trying to help. Clause 10 permits an institution to share information with a complainant about interim measures taken and the outcome of formal allegation. That is a good addition. Survivors have a right to know what happened as a result of their report. However, we also have to balance that against privacy and due process. Especially when the respondent is a faculty member or employee, employment law and collective agreements come into play. Institutions need clear guidance to avoid legal liability while still supporting victims. I hope the regulations will set that balance out clearly. Clause 11 requires institutions to make training on sexual violence available to “members of the institutional community.” That’s an admirable goal, but who exactly is the institutional community? Does this include students, faculty, staff, contractors, perhaps even visiting scholars and volunteers? The language could use some precision. What will this training look like in practice? Is it a primer on what is and isn’t appropriate behaviour? Is it about how to recognize warning signs and support peers? Is it a one-hour online module or a comprehensive in-person program? If we’re serious about changing culture, this training can’t be token or perfunctory. It should be interactive, evidence-based and accessible to all members of the community. I’d like to see the ministry work with experts to develop a core curriculum that every institution can adapt to its own context. Here’s a practical point: many smaller colleges don’t have in-house training teams. They’ll need resources and guidance to do this well. Otherwise, we’ll see a patchwork of approaches, some robust and others barely functional. That brings me to the larger issue of implementation. The bill requires advisory committees, annual reports, surveys, training programs and policy reviews. All of that takes time, money and expertise. Large universities can absorb that burden; smaller regional colleges, particularly those serving remote or Indigenous communities, cannot. I would ask the minister whether there will be dedicated funding or standardized tools to help those institutions meet those requirements, because if resources are uneven, so will be the protection. An unfunded mandate is not a solution. The bill requires annual reports to be submitted to the institution’s governing body. That is a step in the right direction, but it does not say what happens if an institution fails to submit a report or if the report reveals serious deficiencies. Will there be a follow-up from the minister’s office? Will there be public disclosure of non-compliance? Will there be consequences? Without enforcement, even the best policies risk becoming paper exercises. We must ensure that institutions are held accountable for both their policies and their actions. I want to briefly speak about fairness. Supporting victims and preventing sexual violence must be our priority, but we also must ensure that allegations are handled with due process. False accusations are rare, but they do happen. When they do, the impact can be devastating — careers lost, reputations destroyed, relationships shattered. I would ask the minister how this legislation or its regulations will ensure that malicious or frivolous claims are dissuaded and reasonably punished. We need a system that encourages truth, not fear; that protects victims from being ignored and the innocent from being unjustly condemned. That is the balance we should be aiming for. Transparency of process, trained investigators and clear appeals rights are essential to achieve that balance. Bill 18 contains an updated set of definitions, from “sexual violence” to “formal allegation,” “disclosure” and “member of the institutional community.” Those definitions must align with other provincial and federal laws, the human rights code, the Workers Compensation Act and federal occupational health rules. Otherwise, we risk a maze of conflicting standards. I hope the committee stage will include testimony from legal experts and victim services organizations to ensure that alignment. Laws create framework, but culture creates outcomes. If we want to end sexual violence, we must foster cultures of respect and consent. That means educating students before incidents happen, not just responding afterwards. Peer mentorship programs, bystander training and student-led initiatives can be powerful tools. The bill does not mandate these, but I encourage the ministry to support them. We must recognize that sexual violence disproportionately affects women. Advisory committees of those most at risk should be included. Transparency is key to trust. Every annual report required by this bill should be publicly available in an easy-to-read format. Institutions should not bury them in board minutes or internal intranets. The minister should also consider publishing an annual provincial summary comparing institutions and identifying best practices. Public accountability motivates improvement far better than quiet memos. Returning briefly to surveys, I’d like to know how their results will be used. Will the ministry track year-over-year progress and share those findings with the public, or will they be kept internal? If we are to restore faith in these systems, we need open data and honest reporting. A problem acknowledged is a problem half-solved. A problem hidden is one guaranteed to persist. Clause 6 requires the institutions to establish advisory committees that reflect B.C.’s diversity. That’s important, but we should also ensure these committees have a real influence, not just ceremonial status. They should be empowered to make recommendations, review incidents anonymously and suggest improvements. Their membership should include students, survivors and front-line counsellors, not just administrators. Without the genuine inclusion of these groups, committees risk becoming another layer of bureaucracy. Bill 18 grants the minister authority to order surveys, reviews and additional regulations. That oversight is necessary, but it must also be transparent. I would ask the minister to commit to publishing all regulations issued under this act, along with timelines and results. The public deserves to see not only what institutions are doing but also what the government is requiring of them. This legislation overlaps with responsibilities in other areas, particularly the Ministries of Education, Post-Secondary Education, and Children and Family Development. Coordination between ministries will be vital to avoid duplication and ensure consistent messaging. For example, if the government is already funding trauma-informed training through another department, institutions should be able to access that instead of reinventing the wheel. Post-secondary institutions have a degree of autonomy and rightly so. They govern themselves through senates and boards, but autonomy cannot mean immunity from oversight. This bill tries to strike that balance by setting provincial standards while letting institutions adapt them to their own contexts. That’s the right approach. The key will be ensuring that flexibility does not turn into inconsistency. At its heart, this bill is about respect, respect for personal boundaries. These values are not partisan. They are universal. Creating safe learning environments requires all of us — legislators, educators, students and parents — to take responsibility. Government can set the framework, but culture is built one person, one classroom, one conversation at a time. Language matters. The term “sexual violence” is strong, as it should be. It reminds us that these are not minor transgressions or misunderstandings. These are acts of harm. But while our words must be strong, our tone must remain constructive. We must build systems that encourage reporting, not silence; that offer healing, not hostility. We can clarify the meaning of “prescribed persons.” We can ensure surveys are ethical and trauma-informed. We can define “institutional community” more precisely. We can safeguard fairness, including deterrence for false claims. And we can ensure every campus, big or small, has the tools and support it needs to comply. This is not about politics. It’s about people.

2020 words

Bill 18 — Sexual Violence Policy Act

I rise today in full support of Bill 18, the Sexual Violence Policy Act, as it proceeds to third reading. This is not just a legislative moment; it’s a moral one. It’s a moment that calls on each of us as elected representatives, as community leaders and as human beings to affirm our commitment to safety, dignity and justice in British Columbia’s post-secondary institutions. We are here today because we have listened. We have heard the voices of survivors, students, staff members and faculty who have shared their stories with courage and vulnerability. We have heard from Indigenous partners, community organizations and advocacy groups who have long called for stronger protections, clearer policies and more compassionate responses, and we have heard from institutions themselves, those who are doing the hard work of creating safer campuses but who need better tools, clearer standards and stronger support to do so. This legislation is our answer, it’s our promise, and it’s our responsibility. Sexual violence is a pervasive issue. It does not discriminate. It affects people of all genders, all backgrounds and all walks of life, and our post-secondary institutions, despite their role as places of learning and growth, are not immune. Since the introduction of the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act in 2016, we have made progress. Every public post-secondary institution in B.C. now has a sexual violence policy. Awareness has increased. Supportive services have expanded. Conversations that were once whispered are now being spoken aloud, but we know that gaps remain. We know that survivors still face barriers when trying to report incidents. We know that policies vary widely across institutions, creating inconsistency and confusion. And we know that survivors often feel left out of the process, uninformed, unsupported and unheard. This is not acceptable. The Sexual Violence Policy Act is designed to address these gaps. It’s designed to ensure that every member of a post-secondary community, whether student, professor, administrator or volunteer, is protected. It is designed to ensure that institutions are held accountable, that survivors are supported and that our collective response is rooted in trauma-informed, survivor-centred principles. Allow me to outline the key provisions of this act and why they matter so deeply. This bill expands the scope of protection. Under the previous legislation, sexual violence policies were primarily focused on students. This act expands that scope to include all members of the institutional community, faculty, staff, contractors, volunteers and board members. This is a critical change. Sexual violence does not only affect students. It can occur between any individuals within a campus community. By broadening the scope, we are acknowledging the lived realities of all those who work, study and serve in our institutions. This bill strengthens consultation requirements. Institutions will now be required to consult meaningfully within their communities when reviewing and updating sexual violence policies. This ensures that policies are not developed in isolation. They must reflect the voices of those most affected. They must be responsive to diverse experiences, including those of Indigenous students, international students and graduate students. This bill enhances transparency and accountability. Annual reports on sexual violence policy implementation must now be made publicly available. These reports must include information on prevention, awareness and response initiatives. Transparency builds trust. It allows students and staff to see what their institutions are doing to keep them safe, it allows government and the public to hold institutions accountable, and it ensures that progress is measured, not just promised. This bill reduces barriers for survivors. The act provides institutions with express authority to share information about interim measures and case outcomes with survivors. This addresses long-standing concerns about privacy and the desire of many survivors to know the progress and outcome of their case. Survivors deserve to know what is happening in their cases. They deserve clarity. They deserve closure. They deserve to be informed in a way that is respectful, compassionate and legally sound. This bill establishes consistent standards provincewide. The act expands the government’s regulation-making authority, allowing for the development of consistent standards across all public post-secondary institutions. This ensures that no matter where students study, whether in a large urban university or a small rural college, they are protected by policies that meet the same high standards. This legislation is only one part of the solution. That’s why the government is also launching the post-secondary sexual violence action plan, a comprehensive roadmap with 12 actions under five strategic priorities. These priorities are: One, lifting up Indigenous approaches and working with Indigenous partners to develop training resources and policy standards that reflect Indigenous knowledge systems and support reconciliation. Two, increasing prevention through awareness and training by providing intersectional training resources tailored to diverse student populations and addressing technology-facilitated sexual violence. Third, improving institutional responses by developing trauma-informed investigation guidelines, creating a roster of trained investigators and setting standards for accountability measures. Four, improving data collection and reporting by releasing a toolkit for annual reports, creating a schedule for future surveys and committing to publishing results. Five, strengthening privacy and confidentiality by developing standards for confidentiality and guidance on the use of non-disclosure agreements. Three of these actions have already been completed. The legislation supports the implementation of several others, and the remaining actions will be pursued with urgency and resolve. This action plan is not just a policy document. It’s a commitment to change, it’s a promise to survivors, and it’s a blueprint for safer campuses. The impact of this legislation and action plan will be felt in real lives. It will be felt by the student who finally feels safe enough to report an incident, knowing they will be supported. It will be felt by the faculty member who sees their institution take a stand against harassment and abuse. It will be felt by the survivor who receives clear information about the outcome of their case and who begins to heal. It will be felt by the entire community, who will continue to know that this government will not tolerate acts of sexual violence, and it will be felt by every member of our post-secondary communities who wants to learn, teach and grow in an environment that is safe, respectful and inclusive. British Columbia has long been a leader in addressing sexual violence in post-secondary institutions. We were one of the first provinces to pass legislation requiring sexual violence policies. We have invested over $2 million in prevention and response efforts since 2017. We have developed open-source training resources, we have supported rural and remote campuses, we have enhanced reporting systems, and we have reached out to students to understand their diverse experiences better. The results are encouraging. In our most recent survey, 88 percent of students said they feel safe from sexualized violence in their post-secondary communities, up from 78 percent in 2022, but we know there is more to be done. This legislation and action plan built on that foundation. They take us from good intentions to concrete actions. They ensure that our institutions are not just places of learning but places of safety. The support of this legislation is broad and deep. Ninu Kang, executive director of the Ending Violence Association of B.C., said: “We are thrilled to see that the feedback from our community-based anti-violence sector is reflected in the proposed Sexual Violence Policy Act. We are encouraged to see that the post-secondary sexual violence action plan will assist institutions with the tools and resources they need to better support survivors.” Ophelia Kehila, manager of the AMS Sexual Assault Support Centre at UBC, said: “We recognize the ministry’s efforts to strengthen policies, enhance consultation and increase accountability as critical steps towards meeting survivors’ needs.” CJ Rowe, director of the sexual violence support and prevention office at Simon Fraser University, said: “Ending sexual violence on campus takes concrete, sustainable action from all levels of government, institutions and community partners. The proposed new act and actions outlined in the province’s action plan will go a long way to support students, staff and faculty.” Leah Shumka, director of institutional capacity-building at the University of Victoria, said: “The proposed action plan demonstrates that the ministry is committed to addressing sexualized violence in post-secondary institutions in a more robust manner and is responsive to the voices of students and institutional partners.” These voices matter. They reflect the lived experiences of those on the front lines, and they affirm the importance of this legislation. Passing this legislation is not the end; it’s just the beginning. We must ensure that institutions have the support they need to implement these changes. We must monitor compliance. We must continue to consult, to listen and to adapt. We must ensure that survivors are not just protected by policy but supported in practice. We must ensure that our post-secondary institutions are not just places of academic excellence but places of human dignity. And we must ensure that this legislation is not just words on a page but a living, breathing commitment to safety and justice. Today we have an opportunity to do something meaningful. We have an opportunity to stand together and say that we believe survivors, we support safe campuses and we are committed to change. The Sexual Violence Policy Act is a strong, thoughtful and necessary piece of legislation. It reflects years of consultation, collaboration and courage. It reflects the best of what government can be — responsive, compassionate and committed to justice. I urge all members of this House to support this act as it moves to third reading. Let us send a clear message to every student, every staff member, every faculty member and every survivor: “You are seen, you are heard, and you are protected.” Together we are building a safer future.

1619 words

Bill 18 — Sexual Violence Policy Act

I rise to speak to Bill 18, the Sexual Violence Policy Act, 2025, legislation that repeals and replaces the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act passed in 2016. I just want to thank my fellow colleagues who have addressed this issue already, and they brought up some very, very good points. As the former Post-Secondary critic, I remember — and the member is in the House right now — I brought this topic up in committee stage to the former Minister of Post-Secondary, because student unions, as I criss-crossed the province and talked to institutions and to student unions, have been lobbying this for a very, very long time. I just want the public to know that this government has been in power for ten years, and those student have been lobbying for something like this for at least that long. I just want to make sure, nine years plus, but ask that the new Minister of Post-Secondary pay close attention to what has happened in her role previously, because there have been repeated…. As I read through the Hansard reports, through the committee stages from years past, there are repeated themes, repeated themes, repeated themes, and this was one of them. I would like to say I’m glad it’s here, but it should have been here a long time ago. This is a societal issue. This is not just a campus issue. This is something that’s really broad, and it’s impacting vulnerable kids. Like someone has said recently, they are the first time away from home, and their safety nets aren’t there. This is across Canada and British Columbia, and I would say even further than that. At UFV in our beautiful city in the country, Abbotsford, we also have had some of these. I just want to read some of the headlines from newspapers that impacted our community. “Abbotsford Police Seek Person of Interest in Sexual Touching Incident.” “Man sought in connection with sexual touching of two male students on the Abbotsford campus.” March 28, 2018. “On March 20, police say the suspect allegedly brushed the genitals of a male student in a washroom at the Abbotsford campus. Police say the victim followed the suspect and took a picture of him.” Our university, because they are so closely tied to our community, has taken action, and I want to quote: “UFV sexualized violence support. UFV has committed to providing support and options to members of our community who have experienced sexualized violence. We encourage you to access the many support programs available both on and off campus. You are not alone. We are here to help.” It is making a difference because they are so closely tied to our small community. This institution has taken this matter seriously, and I want to thank UFV for their intentional and ongoing action in addressing this pervasive issue across B.C. campuses and especially in our community. It is making a difference on and off our campus. Speaking to the bill, at its core, this bill seeks to strengthen how our post-secondary institutions — universities, colleges, technical schools — prevent and respond to sexual violence. The stated goal is to foster safe and respectful inclusive learning in working environments. It is a goal that every member in this House can and should support. We know that campuses should be places of opportunity — places where students, where faculty, where staff can pursue learning, can pursue research and pursue community without fear or intimidation. Yet far too many of these spaces have not always been safe. This isn’t new. Like I said, this has been known for years. Student unions have brought this forward year after year after year — acts of sexual violence, whether physical, psychological or digital. I want to make that comment because I’m the new critic for AI. I want to say that just because it’s not a physical violence…. It is just as deeply impactful. I believe there should be something in here to protect sexual violence regarding digital images. They last a lifetime. They damage not only individuals but the trust and safety of the entire campus and the community surrounding. This bill represents an attempt to modernize, to clarify and to expand the framework for how post-secondary institutions respond to that reality. There is good reason to be cautiously optimistic about how it sets out to do this. Several things I want to bring up. One, expanded scope and clear definitions. The first notable change is scope. The previous act, passed in 2016, focused almost exclusively on students. Bill 18 expands that coverage to include faculty and staff, acknowledging that sexual violence is not confined to one group or one type of relationship. This is an important step. It reinforces that every member of the campus community, whether a student, a professor, a researcher or a staff member, deserves the same protection, the same process and the same respect. The bill also replaces outdated terminology, such as “sexual misconduct” with “sexual violence,” a broader, more precise term that actually captures both the physical and psychological harm. And it recognizes that such harm can occur not only in person but also through technology. In an era of online harassment and image-based abuse, this modernizes the definition and is far too long overdue. These changes send an important signal. Our laws must evolve to reflect the lived realities of its survivors. Structure and accountability — Bill 18 introduces several structural requirements that, if implemented with care, could lead to greater accountability and cultural change on campuses, which is sorely needed. Each post-secondary institution will now be required to establish a sexual violence policy that includes clear procedures for responding to disclosures and former allegations. Two, create an advisory committee that reflects the diversity of the campus community, including at least one student. Three, conduct consultations with students, faculty and staff when developing or reviewing their policies. Provide annual reports summarizing their response to incidents and prevention efforts. And lastly, make those reports publicly available. These are important mechanisms. They not only promote transparency but also help ensure that sexual violence policies are not static documents sitting on a shelf. They become living frameworks, reviewed, refined and informed by the community they serve. The inclusion of mandatory training for all members of the institutional community is another positive step. Education is essential in preventing harm, fostering consent and building a culture of respect. Cautious optimism; implementation matters. I want to read a few things here, some statistics that I’ve read. Sexual violence is a persistent and serious issue on British Columbia campuses, affecting students, staff and faculty. It’s a widespread issue. In 2019, Statistics Canada surveyed that 71 percent of post-secondary students in Canada had witnessed or experienced unwanted sexual behaviour. That’s 71 percent under-reported. This is staggering. Sexual violence on Canadian campuses is known to be under-reported. In 2019, fewer than one in ten women reported incidents in their school. And here’s why. Survivors often cite a lack of faith in the school’s reporting process or feeling the incident was not serious enough. This shocked me. I never understood this. There are high-risk periods on campus. The first eight weeks of the academic year, often called “red zone,” see a high percentage of on-campus assaults. That is so sad, and the perpetrators are known. The majority of perpetrators are fellow students. Now, I’m not going to mention the universities or the institutions, because I think it’s so pervasive. It’s everywhere. But stories of sexual violence on British Columbia campuses highlight issues of inadequate responses from universities, significant student experience of misconduct and long-term impact on survivors. A 2022 survey found that one in five university students experienced sexual assault or misconduct. And cases involving former student athletes and PhD students underscore failures in the university’s handling of complaints. Because these are high-profile people, they’d rather sweep it under the rug than deal with it — shame on them — leading to legal action like human rights complaints by survivors. In institutions, stories about sexual violence include news reports of specific incidents, such as a 2019 case of inappropriate touching by a cyclist on campus and a 2016 incident of voyeurism involving a student and a mirror. Additionally, this institution conducted a survey revealing that a significant portion of students perceived sexual violence as common on campus and a proportionate report of feeling completely unsafe on campus. A social media post from 2021 also referenced multiple incidents of sexual assault and harassment at a campus student event. These are institutions in our province. While there is much to support in this bill, my optimism is tempered by caution. The effectiveness of this legislation will depend entirely on how it’s implemented, not just what it promises on paper. The framework is sound, but many of the most consequential details are left to future regulations or to discretion of post-secondary institutions — for example, the composition and authority of the advisory committee, the standard for consultation and reporting, the consistency of training across institutions, the type of data that must be collected and shared. These are not small matters. They are the practical elements that determine whether this legislation becomes a meaningful tool for change or a well-intentioned exercise in administration. We must ensure that the voices of students, the voices of survivors, the voices of experts are central in developing these regulations, not as an afterthought but as active partners. The consultation process must be inclusive. It must be transparent. It must be trauma-informed. Four, a broader view of safety and well-being. While Bill 18 focuses on sexual violence, and rightly so, we must also recognize that safety on campus is multidimensional. Financial insecurity, housing shortages and mental health challenges also leave students and staff very vulnerable. That is why I believe the conversation around campus safety should not stop with this bill. Transparency in tuition costs, textbook expenses and housing fees is also part of building an environment where students can thrive. Exploitation takes many forms, and economic vulnerability can heighten risk. I want to stop here for a moment. I have to state this publicly. I did it in committee, and I feel I have to do it here as well. Kwantlen Student Association financial scandals in the amount of millions of dollars — student fee dollars, mostly student loan financial mismanagement. Langara College, November 18, 2015, the current Premier said: “I’m very concerned about the information you’ve presented about what is happening at Langara as an advocate for open government and transparency at all levels.” As an MLA opposition at that time, is he still very concerned for the students today as he was when he first made that comment? The Times Colonist of August 22, 2024, in an article entitled “B.C. Student Societies in Urgent Need of Law Reform,” said: “Fiscal electoral scandals have plagued B.C. student societies for decades. It’s past time for an overhaul.” It’s broader than just sexual. People can be taken advantage of in many, many forms. While this bill addresses one critical piece of the safety puzzle, it is not the whole picture. We can and should widen the scope to ensure our post-secondary institutions are accountable for the full experience of those who learn and work there. Five, transparency, data and trust. The bill requires institutions to publish annual reports on their efforts to prevent and respond to sexual violence. That’s an important step toward transparency, but again, the value lies in the details. Reports must go beyond statistics. They must show whether policies are working, whether survivors feel supported and whether real change is taking place on the ground. The minister also has the power to direct institutions to conduct surveys on the effectiveness of this policy. That’s encouraging, but we should ensure that the results of those surveys are publicly released. Transparency is not only about compliance. It’s about accountability and trust. Six, supporting institutions to succeed. Implementing this act will not be simple. It will require resources. It’ll require expertise and cultural change. Post-secondary institutions will need to invest in staff training, trauma-informed supports and safe reporting systems. Advisory committees will need time and capacity to do their work effectively, and the ministry will need to provide oversight, coordination and clear guidance. If we truly expect meaningful progress, then institutions cannot be left to absorb these new responsibilities without adequate support. Legislative intent must be matched with operational capacity. In conclusion, hope and vigilance. Yes, I’m cautiously optimistic about Bill 18. It takes meaningful steps towards making our post-secondary institutions safer and more inclusive. It reflects years of advocacy by students, faculty and survivors who have called for clearer processes and stronger protections. Optimism must come with vigilance. Passing this bill cannot be the end of the conversation. It must be the beginning of a new commitment to prevention, a new commitment to transparency, a new commitment for survivor-centred reform. If the government follows through and it consults broadly, regulates wisely, funds adequately and supports honestly, then Bill 18 can make a difference. It can move us closer to the culture of consent and accountability that every campus deserves. That is something we can all hope for and something we must all work to ensure. We look forward to the committee stage where we will refine this bill to ensure a positive outcome.

2236 words