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

As I was stating in the introduction of this amendment, I know that in earlier discussions of this bill, the Attorney General has stated that the definition would include AI. When I did a reading of the original act, I couldn’t find anything on AI in the definition, unless I’ve missed something. I think it’s really crucial, because AI did not exist five years ago. We’d never heard of it. We started hearing about it back in 2022, and that wasn’t too long ago. Like I said, the online forums are rapidly increasing, and AI is even increasing at a rapid pace. Businesses are trying to keep up with it. People are using it in every facet of what they do today. It’s affecting every single industry, and it’s affecting all the entertainment industry as well. It’s affecting social media platforms. We’ve just got to get in front of it. We’ve got to be able to deal with it, because people are altering images with AI. Sometimes they’re totally fake images; sometimes they’re partially fake images. You don’t want a perpetrator getting away with it because the arbitrator feels they don’t have authority to look at it. They go back to the act, and they say: “Well, this is AI.” If somebody has legal counsel, I’d assume legal counsel will try to make that argument, on the other side. “Well this doesn’t address AI. This is not a real image.” So they’re not caught by the damages claim in this. That could have real consequences for potential victims. When you build this into the definition of “intimate image,” you deal with the situation full on. It has been 2½ years since this original legislation was introduced, and we’re now doing an amendment bill 2½ years later. If we catch an issue now, we’re going to be here 2½ years later. At the rate that AI is growing — it just started two years ago — who knows where we’re going to be at? Who knows how many claims we’re going to have to be dealing with? We just can’t afford having all those potential victims not having any sort of recourse. I think it’s an important amendment. This is the time to do it, because we’re sitting here, and we’re dealing with this legislation. Both sides of the House feel that this type of legislation needs to exist because it’s a real, real concern. We heard in second reading debate that there were emotional stories from MLAs from this House that had experience with this area of law. With AI coming into it, we just don’t want people not having recourse if they’re victims. The definition needs to be amended to explicitly state that it does cover those types of images that have to deal with deepfake or digitally created representations through the use of artificial intelligence. I feel that the purpose is good, and now is the time to do it. Otherwise, we might be coming back in another 2½ years. That’s just way too long. That’s my submission on that.

512 words

Raj Chouhan

BC NDP

2/26/2025

Bill 2 — Acting Conflict of Interest Commissioner Continuation Act

Bill 2, Acting Conflict of Interest Commissioner Continuation Act, has been read a third time and passed.

17 words

Raj Chouhan

BC NDP

2/26/2025

Bill 2 — Acting Conflict of Interest Commissioner Continuation Act

Members, the question is third reading of the bill, Bill 2, Acting Conflict of Interest Commissioner Continuation Act.

18 words

Lorne Doerkson

Conservative Party of British Columbia

2/26/2025

Bill 2 — Acting Conflict of Interest Commissioner Continuation Act

The committee on Bill 2 reports the bill complete without amendment.

11 words

Lorne Doerkson

Conservative Party of British Columbia

2/26/2025

Bill 2 — Acting Conflict of Interest Commissioner Continuation Act

Good afternoon, Members. We are going to call this House back to order, and this afternoon we will be considering Bill 2, Acting Conflict of Interest Commissioner Continuation Act.

29 words

Hon. Mike Farnworth

BC NDP

2/26/2025

Bill 2 — Acting Conflict of Interest Commissioner Continuation Act

I call committee stage, Bill 2.

6 words

Peter Milobar

BC Liberals

2/24/2025

Bill 3 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2025

Okay, thank you. You know, it’s interesting how testy the government is instantly. Here we are on our, essentially, third day of sitting in the Legislature, and we’re watching the government filibuster, for the viewers at home, Bill 3, which is a standard housekeeping bill that comes forward every year as the Minister of Environment and their staff do some updated mapping on B.C. Parks systems. So 134 hectares is absolutely an expansion of B.C. Parks. It’s certainly not the government trying to get to the 30 by 30 things that we talk about with parks across the country. This is housekeeping, cleaning up of mapping. When you think of the size of Wells Gray Park, which used to be in my former riding, 134 hectares spread out around the perimeter of a park means that they’ve changed the map adjustment by about six inches on the perimeter, if that, of Wells Gray Park. When you add in how many parks this bill deals with, that’s the scale and scope and magnitude, for the viewers at home, that this government is dealing with here today. I say that because this is a returning government that, despite the fact of that, should have, you would have thought, had legislation that was already being worked upon heading into this session and heading into the election. Even if they didn’t, it’s been over three months since cabinet was sworn in, yet the best this government has for us to work on — in the middle of the threat of a tariff war, despite all of the rhetoric about how hard they’re working and fast action they’re taking and how they need this legislative session to take that action — is to filibuster Bill 3, which in a normal session, if this was mixed in with other more consequential legislation, would have had the minister and the critics speak, and we would have moved on. Then it would have gone to committee stage. It would have had about an hour’s worth of questions, if that, and it would be passed. We’re now pushing two hours just on the filibuster, and my understanding is the government intends to drag this out through the end of the day because they have nothing else to work on, quite literally. We don’t have the legislation that has been promised 2½ months ago by the Minister of Energy around the Energy Regulator to speed up the environmental assessment process around wind farms, which is now tied in somehow to the tariff war and how we’re going to accelerate projects. In fact, those nine projects are half of the projects this government is talking about speeding up and accelerating. It’s not even on the schedule for this week, so unless the minister will have it appear by Thursday, we won’t be working on that this week, yet the government repeatedly tells us how fast they are moving on things. I just want to make sure that the public at home understands that when you don’t hear the opposition speaking to Bill 3, and why we didn’t speak with any number of members on Bill 2, it’s because these are housekeeping bills. I’m frankly surprised the miscellaneous stats bill hasn’t come forward, where it’s literally a series of punctuation and grammar and cleaning up of language on a wide variety of pieces of legislation, which also happens on a regular basis, regardless of who is in government. So is it important, this stuff in Bill 3 around parks? Absolutely. Is it important around recognizing Indigenous names around B.C. parks? Absolutely. It has nothing to do with wildfires that the Minister of Forests just talked about for 20 of his 30 minutes. If Bill 3 was that consequential, surely the minister would have talked for the full 30 minutes about every clause in Bill 3. But it’s only a few clauses long. It’s only a couple of pages long, and it’s GIS mapping modernization. It happens every single year. The members in this place that have been here for a while know that, so let’s not make this out to be any more than it is. I look forward to the government actually finally bringing forward something substantive. I hope the Minister of Energy brings forward something as substantive as the Energy Regulator with enough time so that we can properly debate it and not have the government actually force closure on it until we know the full ramifications of it. I say that because when he was the Minister of Health, Bill 36 got rammed through that way, a very substantive piece of legislation. In that session…. You know how that session started? Not with Bill 36. You can probably tell by the numbering when it came up in the session. You could probably tell where that came up. We started with some filibustering. We started with long debates about not very consequential legislation. And then we ran out of time on the stuff that actually has long-lasting, serious implications for a wide swath of the public. That’s the track record of this government in a legislative session. That is what we’re seeing unfold again. The Premier likes to bill himself as a man of action. We’re three months post cabinet being sworn in, 2½ months post the promise around legislation coming forward for the Energy Regulator. The Premier has talked repeatedly about how this session is going to focus on tariffs and the legislation needed to counter those tariffs, and we see nothing and nothing on the horizon. So we’ll sit here and do our part as opposition until the bells ring at six o’clock, when we’re going to have a standing vote that was already unanimous today about tariffs and taking action. But we won’t actually debate any legislation that has any actual effect about tariffs in this place because the government doesn’t have any of it ready, and they’re not bringing it forward. The good news for the government, though, is that the six o’clock bells ringing is a convenient way to burn an extra half an hour off the clock so it’s one less person they have to put up to speak to Bill 3. That’s what happens when the government has to filibuster its own housekeeping bills. Thank you for this time on Bill 3.

1059 words

Bill 2 — Acting Conflict of Interest Commissioner Continuation Act

Absolutely. So we ended up receiving it, but then after we had received it, there was a long discussion between me and my partner in the car on what we should do with that lovely box of chocolates. We went on into discussion about the fact…. Did she give it to us because we are police officers? Did she give it to us because of the office we hold? Would she have given us this box of chocolates if we were just random strangers walking down the street? After a lot of discussions, we couldn’t throw the box of chocolates away, but we ended up declaring it and then giving it to our police department for them to deal with. I thought back to that time when I was looking at this member’s conflict of interest and when I got the application initially, once I was elected, to submit to the commissioner…. I wished that there was some sort of avenue like we have as MLAs where we could consult in those sorts of situations. There are so many situations that we come across as we’re working as MLAs that might raise an actual or perceived conflict. This is why, for me personally, I was really wanting to speak to the bill and, of course, support the bill that is being presented here. We know that in addition to providing confidential advice, our commissioner oversees the disclosure process. For a lot of us here who are new MLAs, it was a new experience, having been contacted by the commissioner’s office and required to submit an application process. For me personally, those applications sometimes required some clarification, and even reaching out to them, seeking clarification and guidance, I thought was very valuable. Once I submitted the application, there was feedback that was given for me to give clarification back. It’s really critically important for that reason that we have a commissioner in place. It’s also important, as our Attorney General has clarified, that we need to be able to have a mechanism where we can respond to allegations that a member has potentially contravened an act. This is to ensure that the public has confidence that we are being held accountable and will act impartially and will always put the interest of the public at the forefront. If there is an inquiry that’s needed, of course, the commissioner will oversee that to ensure that there is a safeguard for the ethical standards that are required for us. Now, normally a new commissioner would be appointed. However, last year was an unusual year, as we know. It was the 2024 provincial general election that was held, so there was no fall legislative session. This now requires a legislative committee to select a new commissioner, but it could not be appointed until recently, causing delays. We know that the current acting commissioner, Hon. Victoria Gray, remains in a critical position to fill the gap until the formal appointment of a new commissioner will take place. My colleague the Attorney General has spoken about the background of the commissioner, but I personally know her to be a very well-known, respected lawyer and a judge with significant experience. She, of course, has a background in a bachelor of music and a bachelor of laws from the University of Toronto. She was appointed to the B.C. Supreme Court in 2001 and served as a justice for 16 years until retirement in August 2017, making us confident that she has the right experience and knowledge to continue to act as our acting commissioner. She practised law for 19 years as a commercial litigator in Vancouver before that, and of course, she was an adjunct professor from 1993 to 1998 at Peter A. Allard School of Law, teaching civil litigation. Again, I have also obtained my master of laws from UBC, and I have heard how she was an amazing professor in school. She is also a musician, and in my opinion, that is what keeps her grounded and makes her very in touch with different aspects of our lives and society, as well, not just focused solely on law. She serves on the board of the Law Foundation of B.C.; YWCA Metro Vancouver, as a chair; West Coast LEAF society, as a chair. She played oboe for the Victoria Symphony and Palm Court Light Orchestra. In recognition of her notable, significant contribution to the legal system in B.C., she was appointed King’s Counsel in 1997. Our commissioner has been acting and working as a commissioner for the last five years, and with that combination of experience, we’re confident that she is the right person to continue to be the acting commissioner until a new person can be appointed. The purpose of Bill 2 is to ensure, as we discussed, we have acting Commissioner Victoria Gray continue in the office until a new commissioner can be appointed. Without this legislation, we know there will be a vacancy as of April 7. It’s a straightforward but crucial measure. It extends the current acting conflict-of-interest term until a permanent replacement can be appointed. Without it, we’ll face a vacancy that will leave all of us here, MLAs, without clear ethical guidance and the public without assurance that their elected officials are held accountable. A special legislative committee will need approximately six to eight months to conduct thorough research and find a new commissioner. We know that as crucial as this role is, that’s not a process we want to rush. Normally the act allows for an acting appointment to continue for 20 sitting days, and that’s where on April 7, it will come to an end. This new legislation will extend that acting appointment beyond the 20-day limit. The act will automatically be repealed in 2026, by which time a new commissioner will be in place. I’d also like to add that this isn’t the first time that something like this has happened. There is a precedent where similar stand-alone legislation has been used in previous cases — for an acting Police Complaint Commissioner, an acting Information and Privacy Commissioner — to keep key oversight roles filled as well. In summary, this is small, but it’s a vital piece of legislation. We have to ensure that we have this bill in place so that we do not have any vacancies or gaps in our conflict commissioner office. We are confident that our commissioner, Victoria Gray, has the right expertise and knowledge to continue to act as the commissioner. We have to ensure that the public confidence is maintained throughout the process. I want to thank everyone for your attention. I want to say that it is vitally important that the role of Conflict of Interest Commissioner is about more than just rules; it’s about maintaining the rules and the public’s trust in the people that they have elected, which is all of us here. By supporting this legislation, we are affirming our commitment to transparency, accountability and the ethical standard the people of British Columbia deserve.

1176 words

Bill 2 — Acting Conflict of Interest Commissioner Continuation Act

I’m here to speak on a critical piece of legislation, the Acting Conflict of Interest Commissioner Continuation Act. This role is vital for keeping our democratic process transparent and ethical, and I look forward to explaining why this matters to all of us. The context of Bill 2 here is very small, but it’s a very important piece of legislation. It ensures that the current acting Conflict of Interest Commissioner remains in office until a new commissioner is appointed by the Legislative Assembly. This will ensure that we avoid any vacancy in the commissioner’s position. What is the Conflict of Interest Commissioner? With a lot of members here who are new, I think it’s important that we go over this. It’s an independent officer of the Legislative Assembly, and it provides advice to MLAs concerning obligations under our Members’ Conflict of Interest Act. One of the most important things, of course, is that their mandate is to promote public confidence in elected officials as we conduct public businesses. The public confidence is important in any public servant, as we know, but it’s even more crucially important for all of us here, who are in a privileged position as lawmakers to impact millions of lives, potentially. In other words, with greater power must come greater responsibilities to avoid conflict of interest. Now, the commissioner is an independent office, as we discussed. It’s this independent office that they hold that must be there in place to ensure that we as MLAs remain free of bias and any hidden agendas and by providing confidential advice, which is very critical, so that we can go and get the advice we need beforehand and make sure and have the confidence that it’s confidential. It will help us to ensure that we maintain public trust in the work we do. A member can consult with the commissioner at any time, as we know, to ensure that they are not just free of actual conflict but perceived conflict as well. This is where it can get sometimes confusing. That really is important — that we have access and that we have commissioners who are in place for us to seek advice for every little situation that might come up in our day of us doing our work as well. We know that under the act, sometimes the way it’s worded can raise questions and can become confusing. I myself looked at the act and was looking at, as what we as members have heard, the limit of $250 when we’re doing our work and there is a potential gift that’s received. That’s under section 7 of the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act. It’s under section 7(3), accepting extra gift. Most of us new MLAs know there is a $250 limit, but something most of us may not know is that that $250 is also limited by total value received directly or indirectly from one source in any 12-month period. This is where it can get confusing, and this is where we have to ensure that we have a commissioner, that we can go and seek advice. That 12-month period — we don’t know when it ends and when it begins. We may need clarification in that aspect as well. As we know, sometimes we don’t know certain items and their value. This is where we can get clarification as well. We know that many items can be deemed to be a certain value from one source versus another source. So even seeking clarification on which source we need to rely on for the value that is calculated is critically important. I also remember, when I was working as a police officer, this one time that I was working with my partner. It was near Christmastime, and I was working on the road with my partner. We were sitting in the patrol car, and we were just writing up a report. We know that as police officers, public-facing public servants, similar to the work that we MLAs do here, we’re not allowed to accept any gift. Now, at that time, there was an old lady that came out from her house where we were parked in the street. She knocked on our window, and first instinct was that, of course, she wanted to complain about something. Maybe, perhaps, she wasn’t happy that we were sitting there for too long. A lot of thoughts went through our heads. When we rolled the window down, what she told us was that it’s Christmas, so she wanted to wish us merry Christmas and give us a box of chocolates. Now, typically, when a member of the public offers us any gift, we would refuse it. But she was so sweet, and we could not, for good of our heart, refuse that gift. [Interjection.]

802 words

Lorne Doerkson

Conservative Party of British Columbia

2/24/2025

Bill 2 — Acting Conflict of Interest Commissioner Continuation Act

We’ll call the House back to order, and today we’ll call on the Attorney General to begin second reading and to move the motion on Bill 2.

27 words

Hon. Mike Farnworth

BC NDP

2/24/2025

Bill 2 — Acting Conflict of Interest Commissioner Continuation Act

I call second reading of Bill 2, Acting Conflict of Interest Commissioner Continuation Act.

14 words