Contents

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Lawrence Mok.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Tara Armstrong: I would like to recognize a very special person here in the gallery with us today. Chris Elston, known better online as Billboard Chris, is a world-renowned child protection advocate from Vancouver.

He travels the world engaging in street-level conversations and advocacy to shield children from unneeded medical interventions. The message is simple. Girls and boys are beautiful, just as they are, no drugs or scalpels needed — one man and a billboard driving institutional reform globally with just signage and a mic.

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

Darlene Rotchford: I have two constituents of mine in the House today, Amy Cameron and Joe Ross. They were here speaking to private members about the B.C. Alzheimer Society, telling their story and how it affects them.

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

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

They actually purchased this as a silent auction item in Ladner-Tsawwassen, where you got to spend part of the day with the MLA for Delta South and even attend question period. Let’s make it worth their while, please, everyone.

Susie Chant: I just want to extend a very warm welcome to the members of the Alzheimer Society that were here to speak with us today. The Alzheimer Society provides such marvellous support to a whole group of people in our province that can’t necessarily speak for themselves or find their own supports.

I’m very grateful for the work that they do, and I’d just like to introduce Jen Lyle, who’s their CEO; Paula Brill, who’s with engagement and community services; Rebecca Frederick, who’s with engagement; and Scott Jackson. I’m very glad that they’re here speaking to us about the Alzheimer Society and the work that it does — also Amy and Joe, who were here to tell us about their lived experiences.

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

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

There is an individual here who is not a CA but who is a former MLA. He’s a recovering MLA, a recovering politician. He spent a lot of years here — I worked with him closely — from up in the Peace River area. He’s a great individual. He’s very passionate, and he still stays connected with politics.

Would the House please welcome Dan Davies.

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

The first is the Explorers and Producers Association of Canada. We had the fantastic opportunity of having an outreach event with the individuals this morning. EPAC, as it’s known, is a lobby group representing Canada’s oil and gas entrepreneurs. They have over 80 member companies, producing a large proportion of the country’s hydrocarbon endowment. Their members spend billions of dollars annually across the country and directly employ more than 50,000 people in every province and territory.

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

My second introduction, at the nudging of a colleague from across the aisle, is that I’d like to recognize my beautiful bride of over three decades. She has been instrumental. We all know the pressures on family life of doing this work. We all know the pressures on our relationships with spouses, and I wouldn’t be here without her.

Help me welcome her.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Today in the legislative precinct are my friends from Nanaimo, Sue and John Little. Members on this side will recognize John Little as a steelworker, as a volunteer at Legion 256 in Nanaimo and, most importantly to me and my crew and family, captain of my sign crew.

Will the House please make the Littles very welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

Lorne Doerkson: Two very special people to introduce today, visiting from Quadra Island, from a place that I affectionately call Doakville, are Glenda Genoway — she is a retired hygienist there; and Peter Genoway, who is a grade 9 student from Carihi high school. He’s very interested in politics. He has met with the Speaker this afternoon, and they’re going to tour the precinct.

Will you please make them very, very welcome.

Thank you for coming.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Today on the precinct I’m very excited to welcome a school group from Guru Nanak Sikh school in my riding, a group of grades 4 to 6 students. I think they’re outside, maybe, right now on a scavenger hunt.

I’m really excited to have them here. It’s so important to be able to have students come here and see democracy in action. I’m so thankful to their teachers, their parents and guardians and to the principal, Ms. Jagbir Kaur, and the teachers, Ms. Sachdeva, Ms. Inmeet Kaur and Ms. Neha.

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

Jody Toor: On behalf of the official opposition caucus, I would like to extend a warm welcome to all our CAs from across British Columbia, better known as B.C. Conservative CA super squad. Gathered here in Victoria today for the 2025 Conservative CA conference, they are a dedicated and hard-working group, particularly behind the scenes, whose efforts go unnoticed usually.

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

On behalf of the official opposition caucus, we appreciate you. Thank you for being here and for all that you do.

Can the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I’m not sure if they’re in the House yet, but certainly, in the precinct, we have representatives from the Council of Forest Industries. Here in Victoria today they had an opportunity to meet with members of the executive council as well as members of the government caucus.

Without a doubt, we’re going through a very challenging time in forestry. Starting on Tuesday, 45 percent duties in tariffs. I want to really thank COFI for the leadership that they provide to the forest industry, working with our government on the challenges ahead and also the opportunities.

For my colleagues who had an opportunity to participate in lunch today, to be able to hear from the real young leaders in forestry in every part of our province certainly makes me feel optimistic about the role that forestry has here in British Columbia.

I want to thank COFI for the work that they do alongside our government to be able to ensure that we can build that strong, sustainable and robust forest sector that we can all be proud of for the next 100 years.

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

Steve Kooner: We earlier had some students here from Matthew McNair Secondary School. They were from the grade 10 level.

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

Lorne Doerkson: I just recognized Emily Astren, who is also joining us here today in the Legislature. She’s visiting from Port Coquitlam, and I think she’s very interested in seeing the library later on today.

Thanks for coming, Emily.

Please make her feel very welcome.

Darlene Rotchford: I missed one earlier.

As we all can attest, this job is hard. Today is my husband’s 38th birthday, and I’m spending it here. But I know he enjoys question period, and he’s watching.

So happy birthday.

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

You know what? We do have challenging times in this forest industry in British Columbia. We had a very good meeting with them earlier in the day, and we’re going to be meeting with them again later this afternoon.

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

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

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

Hon. Niki Sharma presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill intituled Vaping Product Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

[1:45 p.m.]

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

I’m pleased to introduce the Vaping Product Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. This bill allows the province to sue manufacturers, wholesalers and related consultants for damages and health care costs associated with vaping products. It allows for claims to be made on a population-aggregate basis rather than on an individual-by-individual basis, ensuring that claims reflect the broad extent of the harms caused by these products.

In doing so, this legislation shifts the burden for health care costs away from taxpayers and back to the wrongdoers who cause harm, in this case the vaping product manufacturers and wholesalers.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Protecting Minors from
Gender Transition Act

Tara Armstrong presented a bill intituled Protecting Minors from Gender Transition Act.

Tara Armstrong: I move that a bill intituled Protecting Minors from Gender Transition Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

The Speaker: Please proceed.

Tara Armstrong: Members, I stand before you today not only as a member at this Legislature but as a mother. British Columbia is sleepwalking through the greatest medical scandal in modern history, and it’s our kids who are at risk.

In B.C. today, doctors are causing irreversible harm to children with puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries. These interventions rob children of the human right to grow up with their bodies intact and to one day have children of their own. B.C. schools add to this harm by socially transitioning children with new names and pronouns, often kept secret from parents.

Gender clinics in B.C. are even performing double mastectomies on healthy young girls by the age of 14, all because we fell for the lie — a lot of us did — that children can be born in the wrong body. It’s not true, though. Every child is beautiful just as they are. No drugs or scalpels are needed.

Every jurisdiction in the world that has conducted a systematic review of the scientific literature has found no credible evidence to support this practice. So let’s all make it stop.

This should not be a partisan issue. This bill will bring B.C. in line with the U.K. and other progressive European countries that have banned harmful and unscientific social and medical gender-transition procedures for minors.

In our schools, it will stop them using the wrong pronouns, keep boys out of girls’ bathrooms and remove gender ideology from school libraries and curricula. It will stop doctors from attempting to change the sex of minors. In short, it will end this unbelievable era of indoctrination and medical malpractice.

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

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

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

Members, we are taking a vote on the bill introduced by the member for Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream intituled Protecting Minors from Gender Transition Act.

[2:00 p.m.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 40
Rattée	Kindy	Milobar
Rustad	Banman	Wat
Kooner	Halford	Hartwell
L. Neufeld	Van Popta	Dew
Clare	K. Neufeld	Brodie
Armstrong	Luck	Bhangu
Paton	Chan	Toor
Hepner	Giddens	Wilson
Davis	McInnis	Bird
McCall	Stamer	Day
Tepper	Mok	Gasper
Maahs	Block	Williams
Loewen	Dhaliwal	Doerkson
	Kealy
NAYS — 48
Lore	G. Anderson	Blatherwick
Routledge	Chant	Toporowski
B. Anderson	Neill	Osborne
Brar	Krieger	Davidson
Parmar	Sunner	Beare
Chandra Herbert	Wickens	Kang
Sandhu	Begg	Higginson
Lajeunesse	Choi	Rotchford
Elmore	Popham	Dix
Sharma	Farnworth	Eby
Bailey	Kahlon	Greene
Whiteside	Boyle	Ma
Yung	Malcolmson	Gibson
Glumac	Arora	Shah
Chow	Dhir	Morissette
Valeriote	Botterell	Sturko

Question of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

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

Interjections.

Tara Armstrong: I’ll keep standing.

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

Okay, please take your seat. Thank you.

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

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

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

It’s wonderful to have you here.

Again, these are grades 4 to 6 students.

We’re so excited that you’re here from the riding of Surrey-Newton. Thank you for being here. I hope you had a great scavenger hunt and that you get to see democracy in action today.

Point of Order

Rohini Arora: I just want to raise a point of order. I heard the member from Kelowna–Lake Country just threaten me, and I’m just wondering: what is the process here for that?

[2:05 p.m.]

Interjection.

The Speaker: Just a second, Member.

Member for Burnaby East, the Chair did not hear that alleged comment made by another member. If you have more information to provide to the Chair, we’ll deal with that later, okay?

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

We’ll continue with the statements by members.

Members’ Statements

Life as an Immigrant

Janet Routledge: Today I rise to give voice to someone who does not enjoy the privilege of speaking in this House. These are the words of a British Columbian, Aya Mehasseb.

“Being an immigrant is not just about living in a new place. It’s about carrying two worlds in one’s heart. As a family with two kids far away from home, every day is a mix of gratitude and struggle. We try to give our children a life that feels no different from the kids around them, a life where they feel whole and included, but behind that effort is a mother who sometimes feels drained, stretched between cultures and quietly battling the weight of not fully belonging.

“The hardest part isn’t the language or the traditions or even the distance. It’s the unspoken assumptions, the quiet judgments, the looks that say more than words. Diversity and inclusion are beautiful ideas, but they lose their meaning when curiosity is replaced by silence and assumption. Too often people choose to assume instead of ask, to judge instead of understand. That builds walls where bridges could be.

“My dream is simple: a community where questions come from kindness; where conversations open hearts; and where every child, immigrant or not, can grow, feeling safe, accepted and seen. I don’t hope for a perfect world, only a gentler one, because sometimes all it takes is one small act of openness, an invitation, a smile, a genuine question to turn someone’s loneliness into belonging.

“I believe we can do this if each of us looks a little deeper, welcomes those who seem new or uncertain and chooses compassion over judgment. We can create spaces where differences aren’t heavy but beautiful.

“That’s all I want for my children: a chance to grow up in a world that truly values the richness of every story.”

Prince George Public Library

Rosalyn Bird: Today I’d like to highlight the Prince George Public Library. The population of Prince George in 2025 sits at just under 79,000 people. That number doesn’t include the surrounding communities of the regional district of Fraser–Fort George.

Now, here’s a number I would like you to reflect on: 29,848. That is how many active library card memberships are held at Prince George Library. In other words, more than one-third of the city’s residents regularly use their library card, with dozens more making use of facilities and services available without a library card.

This library, founded in 1955, continues to grow to meet the needs of its community. With over 563,000 books and other items borrowed in 2024, it remains a place of information and learning. It is also a gathering place, providing space for community members to engage with their neighbours; to access the internet; to find support for career development and help applying for government programs; and to seek shelter from wildfires, heat domes and other extreme weather events.

In 2024 alone, there were 191,000 in-person visits to the two library branches, an average of 625 per day. Nearly 4,000 new patrons registered their library cards, a 19 percent increase from the previous year. Library events and programs are up 15 percent, while program attendance is up 25 percent. Another 365,000 people visited the library website, with 144,000 digital items borrowed, up 20 percent from 2023.

These numbers show a system in demand by families and students alike. Yet despite this, the province has left core funding frozen since 2009. Prince George is showing what’s possible when a library is supported by its community. When will the government start supporting libraries and stable, sustainable provincial funding?

[2:10 p.m.]

German-Canadian Benevolent Society

George Chow: Two weeks ago I had the honour of attending the 60th anniversary celebration of the German-Canadian Benevolent Society, a non-profit organization that operates the German-Canadian Care Home in my riding of Vancouver-Fraserview. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the valuable work the society has been doing in the past 60 years.

The society was founded in 1965 by Elisabeth Ochs, with the assistance of a small group of German immigrants. She established the German-Canadian Care Home in 1969, driven by the need for German seniors in Vancouver to receive care while maintaining their cultural traditions and companionship.

In 1978, the home joined B.C.’s long-term residential care program and has since housed many residents of all cultural backgrounds. With the help of Vancouver Coastal Health, the society is currently undergoing a redevelopment, and current residents are being transferred to the nearby Dogwood care homes in Vancouver-Langara.

The new development will add 46 additional beds, to a total of 178 beds. The new home will feature individual rooms, with 15 building clusters housing 12 residents each. Each cluster has kitchen, dining and lounge spaces, and personal laundry, allowing for maximum flexibility for daily life to unfold.

In addition to these living spaces, the new design features a village space consisting of a large community hall, library, spa, treatment and rehab rooms, art room and conservatory.

I am proud to share this new project that reflects the German-Canadian Benevolent Society’s unwavering commitment to innovative seniors care.

I am proud of the work our government is doing in taking care of our seniors, who have contributed so much to make British Columbia what it is today.

Peachland Museum and
Peachland Historical Society

Macklin McCall: I rise today to recognize a pillar of Okanagan heritage, the Peachland Museum and the volunteers of the Peachland Historical Society who keep our stories alive.

The museum is one of the most distinctive buildings in B.C., an eight-sided Baptist church that has stood in downtown Peachland for over a century. Since the 1960s, this unique building has worn many hats — a municipal office, a parks and recreation hub, even a fire hall — before becoming what it is today, a restored heritage site that celebrates the foundational pioneer spirit of Peachland.

The Peachland Historical Society was formed in 1980 and was restored and reopened in 1981 as both the Okanagan Regional Library on the main floor and the Peachland Museum above. The society’s members, all volunteers, have kept that legacy alive for over 40 years, preserving artifacts and stories that tell the tale of our frontier beginnings.

Visitors from across the province are often drawn to the charming model railway display on the upper floor, a hand-built recreation of the Kettle Valley Railway from 1955 to 1965. Every detail is a labour of love built by Central Okanagan Railway Co. members who devoted thousands of hours to capturing Peachland’s past in miniature.

Today the museum welcomes roughly 9,000 visitors a year, and this February it reopened after major renovations, now housing the Peachland Visitor Centre and offering new accessibility features to ensure everyone can experience our proud history.

The Peachland Museum reminds us that British Columbia’s frontier story is one of resilience, exploration and transformation. I extend my heartfelt thanks to the Peachland Historical Society, the municipality of Peachland and all those who have worked tirelessly to preserve our proud heritage.

Thanksgiving

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

On October 13, Canadians will gather with family, friends and neighbours to celebrate Thanksgiving. It is a moment to pause, to reflect and to give thanks for the blessings in our lives, including the First Nations land that we get to work and live on and the opportunities in our communities.

[2:15 p.m.]

Thanksgiving reminds us to be grateful not only for the harvest of the season but for the richness of our shared lives in Canada, our diversity, our freedoms and the deep connections that bind us together.

As Parliamentary Secretary for Trade, I’m reminded every day that our prosperity is built on people working together — farmers and fishers, small businesses and entrepreneurs, workers and innovators who help feed families here at home and share the bounty of British Columbia with the world. Thanksgiving is a chance to recognize their contributions and the global partnerships that sustain our economy.

It is also a time to remember those facing hardship and loneliness and to extend generosity and compassion. The spirit of Thanksgiving is strongest when we open up our tables, our hearts and our hands to lift one another. This holiday may we celebrate not only what we have but also what we can give, building a future rooted in gratitude, kindness and shared purpose.

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

Mackenzie Outdoor Route
and Trail Association

Kiel Giddens: For anyone who has travelled through B.C.’s North, you’ll know that there’s something special about those vast spaces and the incredible natural beauty, but what really stands out are the people. Northerners give back to their communities, and they help their neighbours. It’s just part of the deal when you live in a small town in northern B.C.

One organization has truly captured that northern spirit, combining a love of the outdoors, a dedication to volunteering and a whole lot of community pride. The Mackenzie Outdoor Route and Trail Association, better known as MORATA, has been getting big things done for the community since its founding in 2016. MORATA’s mission is to work with local groups, government and the broader community to unlock the untapped recreational potential of Mackenzie.

Through partnerships and volunteer energy, they’ve built multi-use trails, hosted outdoor events and promoted biking, hiking, back-country skiing, sport climbing and other non-motorized recreation that showcases the incredible landscapes around Mackenzie. What started as a small project for hikers and mountain bikers has grown into a thriving network and signature events that are drawing visitors from across the province.

Mackenzie has always been known as the gateway to the spectacular Williston Lake, but today it also boasts one of the most exciting outdoor recreation scenes. This summer I joined the Morfee Lake Scramble for the first time, a 16-kilometre adventure race where participants bike, run and hike, all capped off with a great barbecue and live music. I’ll admit it was a little bit ambitious on a year of the MLA diet, but it was an incredible day, cheered on by a community full of spirit.

I want to sincerely thank the board of directors of MORATA and every volunteer who has picked up a hammer, cut a trail, donated equipment or written a grant proposal.

You are the heart of Mackenzie, and your pride in your community is what makes it such a special place.

Oral Questions

Reconciliation and Government
Handling of Land Title Agreements

Scott McInnis: This government’s so-called reconciliation agenda has been an abysmal failure wrapped in a cloak of secrecy.

The B.C. Supreme Court’s rubber stamping of the Haida title agreement was so secretive that the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation didn’t even know it was happening.

Will the Premier stand up today and finally tell all British Columbians what his cabal’s plan is for reconciliation moving forward?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Let’s get something straight here. The Haida title agreement was made here in this House. We debated it. We went clause by clause. I don’t know. Maybe the member forgot that he was here, but we actually talked about the issues right here in the House.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: We debated it….

Interjection.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Well, the Leader of the Opposition was here. In fact, I seem to remember him saying something very particular about the Haida title agreement. He supported it at first, and then he ran in the other direction once he heard what OneBC had to say about it.

Interjections.

[2:20 p.m.]

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members, shhh.

The minister has the floor.

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

On April 22, 2024, the leader of the member’s party looked the leaders and Elders from Haida in the eye and said: “I want to start by saying congratulations. For me, the path to reconciliation is of utmost importance.”

Later on in his speech, this is what he claimed he told his Attorney General in 2017: “We actually need to put together an offer to recognize title, because how on earth do you expect that we would actually win this in court?”

We brought it to the floor of this chamber. We debated it. We went through committee stage. The members can look it up in Hansard if they haven’t spent the time, or they could talk to Haida. They could talk to the Council of the Haida Nation. They could talk to councillors and mayors in Haida Gwaii who are actually working shoulder to shoulder to get that certainty so they can build that economy that they want and they deserve.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Scott McInnis: I’m surprised the minister knows that much because apparently when this went to court just a few short weeks ago, he didn’t realize it was happening until after the fact.

The Premier called this a template for the rest of British Columbia. British Columbians deserve to know what’s going on with these extremely important and consequential decisions, which are being made behind closed doors.

To the Premier, whether it’s the Island, the Sunshine Coast, the northwest or anywhere else in this province, what secretive deal will be announced next that the public won’t be made aware of until it’s done?

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

Interjections.

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

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: And the Leader of the Opposition, of the Conservative Party, actually understands this work a little bit because he actually signed over 400 similar agreements when he was the minister — land use agreements, shared use agreements, land transfers. He did all those things.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

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

The fact is….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order.

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

Interjections.

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

Deputy Speaker: Minister. Minister.

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

The Speaker: Members, when the question has been asked, you just give the courtesy to the minister to answer that. There is no need to interrupt in between. You can ask a follow-up question if it’s not clear, please. Okay?

Leader of the Official Opposition.

John Rustad: Thank you, hon. Chair. I appreciate your direction in our ability to be able to heckle as part of the tradition in this House.

The Speaker: Member, before you start, the Chair is not stopping you heckling. All I’m saying is, do it in a respectful way. When one person is speaking, the other one should stay quiet.

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

The Speaker: You’ve got the floor.

John Rustad: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Cowichan Tribes Land Title
Court Case and Property Rights

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

Legal experts from across the field have been clear that the province must argue extinguishment where fee title has already been granted.

Can the Premier confirm or deny that he, his Attorney or his government gave direction to Crown counsel not to argue the extinguishment of Indigenous rights where they overlap with private property?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I want to start by saying that we were the first out of the gate to say that we were appealing this decision and that we disagreed with the determinations that were made in that, particularly with respect to private property rights. We are, since then, getting a coalition of people together to address the issues that were in that case.

I can’t stand before this House and talk about confidential issues that were addressed, but I just want to assure people that we’re taking this matter seriously and that our instructions were to uphold and defend property rights.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

John Rustad: Well, clearly, if you listen and if you read the court case, the government did not argue the protection of private property rights or the extinguishment of Indigenous rights. So I find it interesting, the argument being made.

[2:25 p.m.]

Here’s another thought that I find quite interesting. When we as the opposition sent a letter to the federal government asking this to be put to the Supreme Court as a reference question, the response by the Premier, as well as federal ministers, was that we were fearmongering.

The interesting thing is, and I quote, from the letter we sent: “Significant uncertainty that this judgment has for private land ownership in Canada.” That’s the argument we put forward.

And a quote from the Attorney General: “This ruling could have significant unintended consequence for fee simple property rights in British Columbia.” We’re called fearmongering. It’s the exact same words as the Attorney General.

Perhaps the Premier could clear…. By calling us fearmongering for raising this issue, is he also calling the Attorney General fearmongering for raising the same issue?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Over here on our side of the House, we take issues seriously, and we have a considered approach to responding to the needs of British Columbia. The decision was 800 pages long. We have a team of lawyers that are poring over it and considering all of the legal aspects of it and making it clear what our views are on that decision. I’ve done that, and so has the Premier.

What the opposition leader is proposing in that letter that he sent to me, to go to the Supreme Court of Canada, is legally, in effect, nonsensical and would actually do harm to the case. What we’re looking at is putting the full grounds of appeal before the Court of Appeal. Asking the Supreme Court to consider something before it’s even gone through the lower courts, before all of the issues have been looked at by our Court of Appeal, is just the wrong way around it.

We are searching for those ways to find that certainty in land owners. I’m having meetings every day to do that. The minister is meeting with all parties, and we’ll continue to do that work.

The Speaker: The member has a second supplemental.

John Rustad: Well, that’s interesting. They don’t argue extinguishment and protection of private property rights in court. They think that asking for clarity from the Supreme Court of Canada, which is where this is going, about private property rights and Indigenous rights in terms of protection….

Private property is the foundation, quite frankly, of our economy and, in many ways, of our society. It should be a simple question that the Supreme Court can answer. Which one is it? That is where it is going, and it will get there eventually because this will continue to be appealed.

However, what I find interesting is all the secrecy. We talked about Haida and the secrecy there. The shíshálh agreement, which wasn’t even released before the last election…. It was months later before it was released. The public had no idea what was going on with these, as well as many others.

This House, this leader, this Premier and this government are continuing to keep people in the dark. Do people even own their land anymore? What are the rights there? Are they able to sell their land? Do they need some sort of consent or process? Do they have to pay some sort of fee?

Well, there is somebody who is willing to say something about this, which is the lead lawyer for the Cowichan Tribes, David Rosenberg. This is what he said about the Cowichan decision: the sale of private property “would be with the consent of the Cowichan Nation, and it would be with some accommodation.” That’s the uncertainty that has been created by this court case.

Perhaps the Premier could stand up and provide people in this province some form of understanding of the uncertainty that’s being created.

Will the Premier commit today to end the secrecy so that people can understand just exactly where they are leading this province?

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We’ve been out there meeting with all parties to get a coalition to understand how we can approach the Court of Appeal and approach an appeal. We’re working hard every day because we want British Columbians to know that we will stand up for their private property rights, we will seek reconciliation with First Nations, and we will find that pathway forward.

It’s not new that cases in British Columbia have come up to the court and affected the work of the province. Even when the Leader of the Opposition was in government, these cases came forward.

[2:30 p.m.]

Our job as government is to bring people together to figure out a resolution and to move forward in a way that respects parties and brings the certainty that we need. We’ll continue to do that.

Housing as a Human Right

Rob Botterell: Treating housing as a commodity has turned homes into a retirement investment for the wealthy, not a right for all British Columbians. This is the legacy of housing policies in this province.

Last month the Union of B.C. Municipalities passed a resolution calling for a rights-based approach to housing, something already recognized at the federal level.

New data shows nearly half of people experiencing homelessness in Metro Vancouver were evicted before losing their homes. You’ve got to say the Bill 44 roosters are definitely coming home to roost.

The government may say that rents have gone down, but you can’t deny it’s not nearly enough. And as we speak, eviction support services are unavailable because the residential tenancy branch is on strike, something the government could deal with and find a fair settlement so that services to British Columbians could be delivered.

To the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs, what is this minister’s excuse for not declaring housing a human right?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thank you for the question.

This is a government that has taken the housing crisis incredibly seriously, using every tool in the toolbox, and we’re seeing the impacts now.

I want to speak first to speculation, because for decades, speculators drove up housing demand in this province while red tape blocked construction. We saw it in our neighbourhoods, in communities all across B.C. — empty condos and empty neighbourhoods. This government has tackled speculators and made sure that homes are for people in communities all across B.C.

This is important work, and, like I said, we are seeing it make a difference. The latest numbers out just this week show that over the last two years, rent is down 8.5 percent on average across the province. In fact, in Vancouver over the last two years, the average rent is down 16.9 percent.

That makes a tangible difference for folks all across this province, and we will continue to use every tool in the toolbox to continue to make housing more affordable and to ensure that homes are for people all across B.C.

The Speaker: House Leader, Third Party, supplemental.

Property Tax Deferment Program

Rob Botterell: For decades, B.C.’s wealthiest people — chief executive officers, presidents and corporate millionaires — have been deferring their property taxes on the public dime. They have avoided paying tens of thousands of dollars each year and instead borrowed from the taxpayers at rock-bottom interest rates, effectively earning more than what they owe in interest. This program was meant to help house-rich, cash-poor seniors stay in their homes, not millionaires in their mansions.

This province has a record deficit, and this government wants us to think that cutting services and expanding fossil fuel extraction are the only methods to solve it. Instead of fighting for fairness, the government fights its own employees.

To the Minister of Finance, at a time of record deficits when this government is tightening its purse strings for working British Columbians, why is this government allowing multi-millionaires a break, and will the minister commit to closing this loophole?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for the question.

I absolutely agree that we need to make sure housing is not for profit and that we continue to prioritize homes for people across B.C. I want to speak, in fact, to the work that we’re doing to support renters in this province.

In September, the annual rent increase was announced. We as a government have capped rent increases at inflation. While the opposition was in government, those rent increases were skyrocketing far beyond inflation. We’ve seen the impact, and we’ve all heard the stories.

As a government, we have also created the rental protection fund to protect existing affordable rentals. We have expanded eligibility for the rental assistance program, doubling the number of families.

[2:35 p.m.]

We continue to support those who are struggling with housing affordability while delivering more homes across this province in partnership with local governments, with the community housing sector and with homebuilders. We’ll continue to do that work to make sure that homes are affordable for people in every corner of this province.

Government Policies on Gender
Transition for Children and Youth

Dallas Brodie: World-renowned child advocate Christopher Elston has informed us that a private gender clinic in Vancouver is performing double mastectomies on healthy girls as young as 14 years old.

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

Hon. Niki Sharma: I have to say this is another sad day in the B.C. Legislature when conservative politicians are trying to dictate what parents should be doing and decisions they should be making with love and support for their children. We’re picking on vulnerable children.

Let me be clear about something. Individual health decisions for kids are a protected right of parents to make with their doctor in the best interests of their children…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

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

I want to also say something. Gender identity is protected under the B.C. human rights code, and that was unanimously passed in this Legislature.

I also want to say that it’s not a surprise that this is in the House now — that we debate these things, picking on vulnerable kids. We have a party in the opposition that decided their tent was so big that it included intolerance, racism and hate.

MLAs across the aisle are leaders in their communities. When they tolerate it in their party, they tolerate it in this province, and they bring it to the House.

We are a party that believes in human rights. We believe in defending the rights of all individuals to live a dignified life in this province and to be protected by our human rights code.

We believe that we shouldn’t be picking on vulnerable kids and the decisions that their parents make with their doctors.

The Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Dallas Brodie: Just this morning I spoke with a father who’s here today and who is fighting to protect his eight-year-old son.

His boy was encouraged at school to believe he was actually a girl. Teachers used a new name and pronouns and kept it secret. Now a psychologist is already discussing puberty blockers despite having never met the child.

My question to the Premier: what do you have to say to parents who are justifiably enraged by the reality that under your direction, schools are transitioning children behind their backs?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Spreading disproven conspiracy theories to spread fear and misinformation that targets vulnerable kids when those decisions should be made by their parents with the love and support that they provide them and the doctors….

I think I’ve spoken before about how we really disagree with this type of politics, and we’re really sorry to all those people out there and the families out there that are going through this and supporting their loved ones and the kids out there that are hearing this. I’m sorry.

Stakeholder Consultation on
Heritage Conservation Act Amendments

Ward Stamer: It’s clear this government hasn’t meaningfully engaged local governments or stakeholders on the Heritage Conservation Act amendments.

Last week the former UBCM president even called them out. The minister fired back that she was wrong. Even the Premier had to step in and extend consultations to try to fix this mess. If there’s one thing we know about the NDP, they love NDAs.

To the Premier: if there’s nothing to hide, why are you tying the hands of local governments and forcing them to sign NDAs?

[2:40 p.m.]

The Speaker: The Minister of Forests.

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

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

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The manure king from Abbotsford has a lot to say. It would be nice to see him stand up in this House and represent his interests.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Shhh, Member.

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

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The Heritage Conservation Act is a very important piece of legislation that should be debated with respect, respect for First Nations and their heritage, making sure we’re strengthening First Nations’ role in decision-making.

I’ve heard loud and clear at UBCM that the Heritage Conservation Act is broken. It’s broken for local governments like Lytton, who have taken so long and so many efforts to be able to rebuild that community after a disastrous….

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Look, the members opposite asked a question — the member across the way, my critic, who, I might add, actually has some respect for this House.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Please continue.

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

The Speaker: Member. Member, no.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: This is a serious discussion.

The Speaker: Carry on.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We have made it a commitment on this House to be able to transform the Heritage Conservation Act, transform it in a way that is going to speed up permits.

On that side of the House, they are opposed to major projects. On this side of the House, we’re going to build British Columbia, but we’re going to do it in a way that meaningfully engages with First Nations, with local governments and with industry. We welcome them to the table. We’ve extended the engagement.

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

Mineral Claims Consultation
Framework Review

Pete Davis: Let’s talk about stalling then. The self-imposed deadline from this government for the review of the mineral claims consultation framework has now passed. It’s gone.

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

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

We are committed to supporting a sustainable, responsible and globally competitive mining sector to grow the economy and create good jobs for the people of British Columbia. The mineral claims consultation framework was created in response to a B.C. Supreme Court ruling. The court gave the province 18 months to implement a new claims framework.

It has been working with First Nations and industry at the same time. I was very glad to see that we were able to incorporate several of the key recommendations made by the association of mineral explorers.

We will continue to work with industry and First Nations to improve the mineral claims consultation framework because it’s a new process. We will continue to work to improve it.

Okanagan Falls Incorporation Process

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

The process is stalled, and I’m being completely shut out while residents are growing increasingly frustrated over this secretive process. This government says they want to work across party lines, but clearly, their actions don’t meet that.

If this minister wants to represent my constituents in this process, then will she commit today to host a public town hall in Okanagan Falls, yes or no?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for the question.

The community of OK Falls made it clear through a local referendum that they want to move forward with incorporation. This decision will be led by local decision-making.

I have appointed a facilitator to support a productive path forward toward the incorporation of B.C.’s newest municipality. A number of important decisions have to be made ahead of the letters patent and then the first municipal election in OK Falls, and those decisions, including on boundaries and the name, will be made by local decision-makers.

[2:45 p.m.]

The regional district is actively involved with that facilitator, as is the local nation and community members’ voices. I’ll continue to support that local process. I look forward to finding good, locally informed solutions, incorporation and then a local election during the general municipal elections next fall.

Public Service Labour Dispute
and NDP Caucus Staff

Trevor Halford: Over 25,000 BCGEU members are on the picket lines. Every day escalation grows. From this building, you can actually hear them on the streets, on the picket lines. You can see it everywhere, which is their right to do. Let’s be clear. That is their right to picket.

Now, we know that the NDP caucus staff are represented by BCGEU. We know that their contract has expired, but what we have not seen is anything from them in terms of work action.

My question is a simple one to the Premier. Has the Premier cut some kind of secret deal with the NDP caucus staff that is forbidding them from joining their brothers and sisters on the picket lines?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We, of course, respect the right of the BCGEU and all unions to take action. It’s their hard-earned right. But we do, in fact, want to get back to the bargaining table.

We have an offer that we’ve made to this union that keeps them whole with inflation. It also includes additional funds for the lowest-paid workers that are part of this union and protects their benefits going forward.

We look forward to getting back to the table.

Peter Milobar: Well, once again, not even close to an answer around the question, so we’ll assume that means that the caucus staff are free to join their brothers and sisters on the picket lines if they choose.

I want to be abundantly clear. This side of the House is not disputing for a second that the BCGEU or other public service workers have the full right to strike and take job actions. In fact, we’re seeing escalating strike action daily in this province. The longest public sector strike in B.C. history is ongoing as we speak.

It’s not unreasonable to think that there is going to be further escalating job action, given that this minister was unable to find the negotiating table in the first three hours that they were going to go back to the table. This government keeps saying the best place for a deal is at the negotiating table, but it has gotten to the point that the GEU has now sent out a Where’s Waldo? meme because the government is nowhere to be found.

Now, again, caucus staff are not exempt from picketing. Pickets can go up around this worksite as well, which is the legislative precinct. We have Zoom rules which are supposed to be for people that are ill and not able to attend in person, and that’s really the spirit and the intent of Zoom.

The question is for the government. Given that we’re at the start of a six-week legislative session, with 18 bills to try to deal with on behalf of the public and the possibility of escalating job action which would see picket lines in front of this building as well, is the government prepared to have their cabinet ministers and their backbenchers cross the picket lines in front of this building if they get set up with a job escalation and still show up to work to actually do the people’s work, or are they going to try to hide behind a Zoom screen for political expediency?

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

If there’s one thing I’ve noticed in the last few days, it’s that this side of the House and our government have had no trouble showing up in this chamber to do their job.

I know one thing. To listen to that side of the House talk about bargaining and workers’ rights, when members on that side engaged in some of the most nefarious de-unionization job layoffs in the history of this province…. We will take no lessons from them on the rights of workers or how to negotiate and get an agreement.

[2:50 p.m.]

We have said right from day one that the place…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: That’s what this government is committed to. This government is committed to governing for British Columbians right across this province, and we will do that every single day.

[End of question period.]

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

The Speaker: If it’s a point of order, Member, you should speak to it now. unless it was a question of privilege. Then you can do it later. You can reserve your place.

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

Point of Order

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

Rosalyn Bird: Yes. I would actually like the Attorney General to make an apology to the B.C. Conservative caucus. She stood in the House today, and she called us a number of names which are inaccurate and untrue.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the Attorney General is basically saying she’ll come back and answer the question later, so let’s move on.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: When there is a dispute on a point of order, particularly on something like this, it is perfectly reasonable to ask the individual to review the transcript and then come back and make an apology. It’s happened many times in this House in the past before.

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

Reports from Committees

Finance and Government
Services Committee

Paul Choi: I have the honour to present the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the first session of the 43rd parliament, titled Report on the Budget 2026 Consultation.

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

Motion approved.

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

Leave granted.

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

The annual budget consultation is an important opportunity for British Columbians to connect directly with MLAs and share their views, ideas and priorities for the upcoming provincial budget. From May 30 to June 20, British Columbians provided thoughtful, informative and passionate input on a range of issues. In total, our committee visited 11 communities across B.C., hearing 350 presentations and receiving 406 written submissions.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank all of the individuals and organizations who put time and effort into sharing their information and priorities with the committee. Their input directly informed the committee’s 86 recommendations for the 2026 provincial budget.

British Columbia, like the rest of Canada, faces a difficult fiscal environment. In making its recommendations, the committee is deeply mindful of the need to prioritize ideas and initiatives that can stimulate the economy and deliver immediate impact for the people of this province. This includes recommendations aimed at unlocking unrealized economic activities and enhancing competitiveness for industries across the province, while ensuring all British Columbians have access to quality health care, social services and education in safe communities.

The committee also recommends strategic investments and initiatives supporting the green economy, disaster resilience and future workforce needs, to ensure British Columbia remains a province where long-term growth, investment and well-being are secured.

[2:55 p.m.]

Throughout the consultation process, the committee heard the unique needs of and challenges faced by rural, remote and northern communities, as well as First Nations. These voices and priorities are reflected in many of the committee’s recommendations.

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank all committee members and, in particular, the Deputy Chair, member for Surrey-Cloverdale, for their hard work, attention to detail and their thoughtful contributions and discussions during deliberations.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to also thank and acknowledge and extend our appreciation to Legislative Assembly staff for their work on this consultation.

From the Parliamentary Committees Office, thank you to Darryl Hol, Natalie Beaton, Jared Brown, Aza Bryson, Jonathon Hamilton, Hanna Kim, Danielle Migeon, Alexa Neufeld and Kayla Wilson.

From Hansard Services, thank you to Amanda Heffelfinger, Danielle Suter, David Smith, Simon DeLaat and the entire Hansard broadcasting, transcribing and publishing teams.

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

I also want to thank every British Columbian who offered their thoughts and concerns during our consultation on the next provincial budget. As the Chair mentioned, we visited a number of communities across the province, and the presentations we heard highlighted unique issues and opportunities everywhere we went.

The committee heard repeatedly that the people of this province are facing challenges in many areas, including affordability, health care, public safety and mental health and addictions treatment. The committee has put forward thoughtful recommendations to address these issues in Budget 2026, and many of our recommendations can be quickly implemented, while others would lay the groundwork for longer-term solutions to these problems.

I would also like to extend my gratitude to my fellow committee members for their dedication and thoughtfulness throughout the consultation. This report would not have been possible without the hard work put in by every one of you, along with the support staff from the Parliamentary Committees Office, Hansard Services and many other areas of the Legislative Assembly. Thank you very much.

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

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

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

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 45 — Change to Legislative
Schedule for Sitting Weeks

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I move Motion 45, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, which changes the sitting calendar to remove the week of November 3 and add the week of December 1, for the purposes of the annual First Nations leadership gathering.

[That, notwithstanding Standing Order 2 (2), the House stand adjourned during the week of November 3, 2025, and sit during the week of December 1, 2025, as prescribed in Standing Order 2 (1).]

Motion approved.

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

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Members, we are going to take a brief recess for approximately five minutes or so. I would ask that you stay close by. We are going to get to work very quickly.

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

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Intimate Images Protection
Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Members. We will call this House back to order. This afternoon we will debate Bill 17, Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

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

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

The Intimate Images Protection Act was brought into force in January 2024 as part of British Columbia’s response to the severe harm that is caused by nonconsensual distribution of intimate images. The act provides fast, accessible civil remedies for individuals whose intimate images have been shared or threatened to be shared without their consent.

The amendments proposed by this bill will ensure the act continues to provide effective options to individuals impacted by this significant harm.

The intimate images protection service was established in conjunction with the act coming into force to provide emotional support, information and resources to people who have had their intimate images shared or threatened to be shared without their consent. In order to do this work effectively, the intimate images protection service may need to indirectly collect personal information from clients about the individuals who have distributed or threatened to distribute their intimate images.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner has provided this authorization, and the proposed amendments will move that authorization into the legislation to ensure continued authority exists for the intimate images protection service to help their clients.

I just want to note one thing. I’m really pleased, and I want to send my thanks to that protection service that’s there to respond to victims and to provide the victims resources, that since the coming into force of this act and the starting up of this protection service, over 700 individuals have reached out to get the victim support services. What that means is that hopefully, instead of the longer-term mental health impacts that have led to really tragic outcomes, they’re getting the support that they need.

In addition, the proposed amendments will enable an increase to the amount of damages that the Civil Resolution Tribunal can award for intimate-images protection claims.

[3:05 p.m.]

Currently damage claims made through the CRT process are limited to $5,000. If individuals wish to claim amounts higher than that, they must proceed either to the Provincial Court of B.C. or the B.C. Supreme Court.

The bill will allow an increased damages amount to be available through the CRT process, which will increase access to justice for individuals suffering harm from the nonconsensual distribution of images. That amount could be up to $75,000.

Another serious point of these amendments is to send a message to those people that are conducting this type of harm and are perpetuating it that there are serious monetary consequences for it.

The remaining amendments make minor changes to ensure the continued effectiveness of the act and include clarifying when an applicant’s name can be included in orders, removing ambiguity as to when a claim for administrative penalties must be made, allowing the CRT to vary an intimate-images protection order and removing the requirement for the CRT to publish damage decisions to further enhance protections.

The amendments in this bill will continue to improve the fast, accessible options available to individuals who have suffered significant harm or have their intimate images shared without their consent.

I just want to conclude by thanking all the individuals that are working at that tribunal and the protection service that put their time and effort into making it a success. One thing that I’m really proud of is how fast they are turning around decisions for those individuals that have come to them.

It’s a 24-hour service. An application can be made on your phone. There are elements of this process that are so accessible to individuals. What we’ve seen as a result of that is close to 400 claims that have come forward in the time that we’ve had, and they’re being resolved at record rates for any kind of justice process, with, at times, an average of a 30-day turnover.

We’ve seen real consequences to those in terms of the victim-driven process, where they’re getting their power back by getting their images back and also receiving damages. I want to thank everybody for the work that they’ve done to get us there.

Steve Kooner: I rise today, on behalf of the official opposition and the Conservative caucus of British Columbia in my capacity as Attorney General critic, to speak to Bill 17, the Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

On principle, the bill is a very good bill. It’s much-needed legislation. We have to take the issue of intimate-image claims very seriously. We have to protect victims, and we also have to protect potential victims. For that reason, we’re going to be supporting this bill.

But in this bill, there are still some questions left. We would like to see effective enforcement to help the victims. We see that this bill falls a little short, so we will, at the committee stage, be asking tough questions, and we will be introducing certain amendments to help victims even more. But with that said, I’ll continue.

This bill brings forward amendments to both the Civil Resolution Tribunal and the Intimate Images Protection Act. The government presents it as a step toward providing faster, more accessible justice for individuals whose intimate images have been shared or threatened to be shared without their consent.

We all agree there is no room in our province for those who exploit or weaponize someone’s private images. The nonconsensual sharing of intimate images is a profound violation of privacy, dignity and safety. The purpose of this debate is not to dispute the principle of this bill but to examine whether Bill 17 truly delivers the stronger protection and access to justice that the government claims and whether this new approach will work in practice.

At its core, Bill 17 expands the jurisdiction of the Civil Resolution Tribunal. The Civil Resolution Tribunal could hear these types of cases before, but more in a limited capacity.

[3:10 p.m.]

What Bill 17 does now is expand the capacity so that the Civil Resolution Tribunal can actually hear these intimate-image cases. The Civil Resolution Tribunal, at times referred to as the CRT, now has more flexibility to directly handle intimate-image cases through this particular legislation that’s being brought forward.

Bill 17 redefines intimate-image protection claims as simply image claims, aligning terminology with the Intimate Images Protection Act. It removes these cases from the small claims category, symbolically recognizing that this type of harm is not just another civil dispute about money but a matter of serious personal and emotional consequence.

This bill allows people to bring or continue an intimate-image claim in Provincial Court, even if it would otherwise fall under the CRT’s jurisdiction. So what we will see moving forward…. We will see the CRT have jurisdiction as well as the Provincial Court have jurisdiction. That means victims now have a choice to pursue their case before the tribunal or before the court.

Bill 17 allows cabinet to set a monetary limit for damages in CRT cases. We just heard the Attorney General mention the amount of damages that could be claimable could be up to $75,000, pursuant to the consent of this current government. The Attorney General has indicated that this new ceiling for damages may be up to $75,000, up from the CRT’s current general limit of $5,000 for such claims.

The tribunal is also empowered to make, vary or cancel orders concerning intimate-image claims. I believe that being able to vary orders is a new expansion of its jurisdiction.

The tribunal may be able to withhold the publication of decisions to reduce further harm to victims. That’s something new. What that goes to do is when there’s a decision and there are reasons, there could be a withholding of the publication of that decision and reasons.

Finally, the bill modernizes timelines and privacy provisions and authorizes the minister to collect certain personal information to protect or assist individuals at risk of image-based abuse.

I’ve mentioned some of the positive qualities of this bill, and that goes to the intention. The intention behind this bill is sound. In a digital era where the sharing of image content can go viral in seconds, victims often find that their image, their privacy, their sense of security is permanently compromised before the law even catches up.

Rightly so. There needs to be more efficiency in the system. There needs to be faster accessibility to making a claim to deal with a victim’s intimate-image claim.

I commend the government to the extent that it’s brought forward a bill that is well intentioned and that is much needed to protect victims of intimate-image abuse. We need speed, we need accessibility, and we need support for these victims of intimate-image abuse. The creation of a more flexible tribunal process, one that doesn’t require expensive legal counsel or lengthy court delays, could, in theory, give survivors a faster path to relief.

[3:15 p.m.]

However, good intentions alone don’t make good legislation. The details matter, and this bill leaves several unanswered questions about capacity, consistency and accountability. I have a few constructive critiques of this bill, and those, I believe, should be taken into account at the committee stage.

First, while this bill provides a civil pathway, it does not create new offences. It doesn’t strengthen coordination with police or Crown prosecutors. I know that maybe the members on that side would argue that this isn’t a criminal statute. It’s not a criminal statute, and it doesn’t touch upon the criminal jurisdiction of the federal government.

But the thing here in this province is that the province also has a jurisdiction for quasi-criminal offences, such as the ones that we see listed in the Motor Vehicle Act, where there could be fines, there could be penalties, and there could be prohibitions.

There was an opportunity here to go further to protect victims or potential victims of intimate-mage abuse. That could have been dealt with in this legislation. There could have been more punitive measures within this legislation to protect victims and potential victims, because we’re dealing with conduct that is, in many cases, criminal — the deliberate nonconsensual sharing of intimate images.

Yet the government has not paired this civil reform that we’re seeing in this legislation with stronger enforcement of quasi–criminal justice resources. Without better coordination between the Civil Resolution Tribunal and Crown counsel and quasi–criminal justice resources, we risk sending a mixed message that those responsible may only face claims of damages but no real punitive penalties for their behaviour.

For victims, that’s a cold comfort. For offenders, it’s hardly a warning. So that’s one critique I have of this particular legislation.

Another critique that I have…. The proposed monetary framework raises questions. Cabinet may now set the CRT’s limit as high as $75,000, as we heard from the Attorney General. That is a significant increase. I don’t have an issue with the monetary amount per se. But what I do have an issue with is that when you expand the jurisdiction of a tribunal to $75,000, that’s not only an increase. That also affects the complexity of cases that come forward. With higher amounts, you get greater complexity of cases coming forward.

I think this is a missed opportunity because this legislation, although it’s well intentioned, provides a framework, but the framework is a little bit of a skeletal framework. It fails to show how the CRT is going to be provided with adequate resources to actually handle more significant cases.

We have heard from the Attorney General that the CRT has been handling these cases and has been efficient in handling these cases. But there is a grave difference between claims of, say, $5,000 versus $75,000. That’s a difference of 13 to 14 times in terms of the complexity of the case. With the higher amount of damage claimed, there’s going to be more significant evidence, as well, to prove that claim.

You can have well-intentioned legislation, but you also need to back it up with the legislative tools to provide significant resources that can actually fulfil the intention behind this legislation.

[3:20 p.m.]

The CRT has handled smaller versions of the intimate-image claims. It has also handled other smaller claims, such as strata fees, small debts and minor motor vehicle disputes. This system wasn’t originally built to handle the deep emotional trauma, reputational damage and psychological harm that victims of intimate-image abuse experience.

If these cases truly warrant up to $75,000 in compensation, then surely they deserve the expertise, the formality and procedural safeguards of the courts and extra resources to make sure that those victims that are traumatized by these emotional consequences as a result of this abuse from sharing of intimate images are well comforted and those victims are taken care of. You need to have those proper resources to take care of their emotional needs in these claims. All in all, the CRT needs more resources to handle these claims of greater complexity.

Moreover, by removing these cases from the small claims category, which is limited to $5,000, it elevates their symbolic importance. It does not automatically improve the victim’s ability to recover meaningful compensation, because you have to have a system that is properly resourced and with the proper expertise to actually handle these new cases coming in with a greater complexity.

In situations such as these, with intimate-image claims and intimate-image abuse, you at times see offenders who are anonymous over social media. You may see offenders that are insolvent. You may see offenders that are out of jurisdiction and maybe even outside the country.

The question arises: does the CRT have those resources to make sure the CRT can actually properly protect victims and potential victims of abuse from intimate-image-sharing? Justice can’t just look good on paper. It must still work in practice.

Another constructive critique I have for Bill 17 is this. By allowing both the CRT and the Provincial Court to hear the same types of claims, the government risks creating a confusing dual system.

Before we had a system where if your claim was up to, say, $5,000, you’d know you were going to the CRT. If your claim was up to, say, $35,000, you were going to the Provincial Court, small claims. If your claim was above the Provincial Court’s threshold, you were going to the Supreme Court. There was less overlapping, and there was continuity and consistency in terms of decisions that were brought forward.

But now, in one sense, you have the CRT, which does not have the expertise of the judiciary. At times, the people that may be sitting in an adjudication position at the CRT may not be legal professionals, and they may lack certain expertise to hear these complicated cases. We want to take care of these victims. We want to make sure that people that are hearing their cases can actually help them and have the most just solutions for these victims when they reach the CRT. This is a significant issue.

Another issue is when you will see, simultaneously, the CRT and the Provincial Court small claims court hearing the same cases. In both cases, you have a lot of litigants that are self-represented and don’t have legal counsel, in small claims as well as in the CRT.

[3:25 p.m.]

In one area, you have a tribunal that may not have a legal professional that is adjudicating, and in another one, you actually have a judge who has years of experience as a lawyer before reaching the bench. There may be some inconsistency between decisions.

We have to be fair, and we have to make sure the law applies consistently to protect victims. We need to make sure these victims are protected, because this area of abuse coming from intimate-image claims is rising. It’s rising at a level that we have not seen before. As the digitized world expands with the online environment, we are seeing expansion of these cases.

A dual system risks creating some problems. We may see overlapping cases. We may see procedural uncertainty. Then when there are issues with how justice is applied for victims, that may lead to problems, whether fair justice can actually be supported for these innocent victims.

Another critique I have is in regards to the bill. The bill actually allows the CRT to now withhold publication of its decisions to protect victims. My concern for that is for the victims. In order to make sure we enforce the victims’ rights and the victims’ claims in a consistent and just manner, we have to be able to see prior decisions.

We have to have some consistency in the decisions so that we can adequately apply justice and give justice for these victims. When you take away from the publications, there will be less of a precedent. There will be less of a way to catch errors in decisions. That may affect victims.

Now the other side of the aisle may say: “Well, this is well-intentioned. That’s why we’re just saying that maybe the publication doesn’t happen.” But there could be another way. A middle ground could be that the publication could be anonymized. That way, victims’ identities can be protected while still preserving public accountability and legal precedent, which can assist victims and future potential victims that may fall to abuse.

The legal framework needs to be a bit better. The intention of this bill is good, but we need to make sure that the legal framework and the resources around this bill, around the intentions of this bill, are adequate, as well, to make sure that the framework actually serves to provide justice to these victims and potential victims.

Earlier I touched upon the CRT’s capacity, and there’s another constructive critique I have there. We need to make sure the CRT has the proper resources. We need to make sure the people that will hear these cases are skilled in handling the complexity level of these cases, which may be up to $75,000. We need to make sure those adjudicators can actually handle those cases in order to make sure justice gets served for these victims and potential victims.

[3:30 p.m.]

The other thing is that we’ve heard that…. Well, it’s my understanding that there are currently 381 active cases that involve intimate images before the CRT. But that surely will rise when you increase the limit from $5,000 to potentially maybe $75,000.

Will the CRT be able to handle that much? If you open the floodgate, will it be able to handle all those new cases that are going to be coming? We need to make sure the CRT is able to handle all those cases, and we need to make sure the CRT has the proper resources. But the way that this bill is written, there’s nothing showing here that the CRT is going to get any extra resources or extra training, and that is of concern.

Just a couple of examples of some of these clauses. I’ve touched on…. The cabinet will probably have this discretion to set that monetary cap at a later date, to up to $75,000, if it wishes, under this legislation. But it’s important that the government be accountable about that process. That’s also a concern.

Last but not least, in terms of addressing some of these specific clauses, I do have a little bit of an issue with clause 12. It authorizes the minister to collect personal information of both aggrieved and affected individuals. We were told that it has a good purpose and good intention behind it in terms of protecting victims. We also need to know that the data behind these claims are very sensitive. If you’ve got intimate images, those are very sensitive.

If the government is going to be trying to collect data, we have to have a framework that has some sort of security and a privacy framework to it, because this is very sensitive data that the government is going to be looking into. Although the intention might be good, make sure that there are proper resources for these people that fall victim or are a potential victim.

The intention could be good to collect that information to see what type of resources can be provided to them. We also have to keep in mind that we want to protect the victims and the potential victims from any sort of breaches that may happen to their sensitive data, so we need to protect them in that sense. We have not heard anything in this legislation about how that data would be protected.

From my discussion, it seems that we are having some administrative changes, but even small administrative changes can have significant consequences. Some amendments to this legislation will be needed. Although it is of good intention, some amendments will be needed.

In conclusion, the official opposition supports protecting victims of nonconsensual image-sharing. We support faster and more accessible remedies. We support the intention behind this bill. We will be supporting this bill at second reading, but we will be asking some tough questions at the committee stage of this bill.

We will be bringing forward some amendments to make this legislation better for victims or potential victims of this abuse from these perpetrators that are using nonconsensual intimate images of the victims and potential victims.

Although this bill is well-intentioned, there’s a lot of unfinished work left on this particular bill. So although we will support it at second reading, we will ask some tough questions at the committee stage and propose amendments to it.

[3:35 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Member.

Welcome to everybody in our gallery. We are debating Bill 17, Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

Elenore Sturko: I am really grateful for the opportunity to speak to Bill 17, which is the Intimate Images Protection Amendment Act.

This is actually legislation that means a lot to me as a police officer. Formerly I dealt with people who were victims of sometimes what people have called revenge porn, sexual online extortions of children, also of adults. I can tell you that the impacts of these kinds of crimes are devastating.

I am grateful to see legislation coming forward to strengthen the previously written legislation that came into force in 2024. Anything that we can do to denounce and deter further and future crimes of this nature, I think, is a really important message to send as a province.

I am pleased to see, as I said, the government making these amendments to the legislation, first introduced in March 2023 and came into force in 2024. These amendments will allow cabinet to raise the maximum amount of money that victims can seek from abusers through the Civil Resolution Tribunal. The Attorney General said she would recommend that increase to be set at $75,000, which is a figure 14 times higher than the current limit.

The increase sends a strong message that violations of intimate privacy come with serious consequences. It’s about restitution and deterrence, ensuring perpetrators think twice before sharing or threatening to share intimate images.

I agree with the government that sharing someone else’s intimate images without consent is a crime. Whether it’s done with the goal of extorting money, blackmailing someone, or as a tool for emotional abuse, it’s wrong. Those who are responsible for these actions must be held accountable. As a member of the Legislature, I denounce the sharing of intimate images without consent at all times.

I was very saddened to hear the statistics that were cited by the Attorney General in the media, that the Civil Resolution Tribunal is handling 381 cases related to intimate images and that nearly 700 people have reached out to the province’s dedicated support services since this legislation came into force in 2024. They’re staggering statistics.

Canada needs better Criminal Code laws related to sexual extortion of children, in particular. Our Attorney General had noted in the media that many perpetrators in online sextortion cases are often located outside the country, which makes it harder to charge them with a crime. This is, of course, true.

Bill 17 aims to make protection orders more precise, flexible and enforceable and includes mechanisms for expedited image removal, getting harmful content off these platforms faster and restrictions on sharing or even threatening to distribute images. I think it’s crucial, because too often victims wait while images spread virally online, and that contributes to a victim’s distress.

The amendments introduce faster resolution timelines to reduce trauma, along with better supports and resources and case management options. As someone who has worked with victims of crime as they proceed through the justice system, I know how drawn-out processes can compound people’s suffering. So by prioritizing anonymity and expedited hearings through a civil process, there’s potential now to minimize revictimization, which will, of course, encourage more people to come forward.

I believe that the perpetrators of these crimes should also face criminal justice. I do agree with the Attorney General and her statements that she made publicly that Canada needs better laws, particularly for children, to help deal with the fact that, as this government has said and as police have said, perpetrators of these crimes many times are outside of the country.

Actually, a very sad example of that is the case of Amanda Todd, where her online harasser, her abuser, actually lived in another country but is now facing penalties and serving a sentence for his role in her harassment and death.

[3:40 p.m.]

We need these better Criminal Code laws related to the sexual extortion of children, especially given that many perpetrators of these online extortions are outside of Canada. I know that the Attorney General agrees with this. So it’s my hope that the government will strongly pursue changes to the Criminal Code of Canada for these greatly needed improvements.

Despite all the positive changes Bill 17 introduces, the biggest barrier to success is, of course, the jurisdictional challenges, which my colleague from the official opposition had also noted. Enforcing takedown orders on global platforms or against anonymous perpetrators is notoriously difficult. Social media giants operate across borders, and tools like VPNs make tracking offenders very difficult. So without stronger international cooperation or tech-specific mandates, these orders could become toothless, allowing content to persist online indefinitely.

Additionally, we need to ensure that law enforcement agencies have the resources they need to investigate these types of crimes, whether they go through the criminal courts or through the tribunal. Internet child exploitation units do very specialized work that requires training and technology, and it takes a tremendous psychological toll on investigators, who are often dealing with disturbing imagery and very vulnerable victims and their families.

I’d strongly urge this government to increase funding for internet child exploitation and vulnerable persons investigative teams across this province, to support the work that is being done to fight against the distribution of intimate images without consent.

We also can’t ignore the potential strain on the Civil Resolution Tribunal resources. With higher caseloads and more complex orders, we need to be very cautious that the tribunal doesn’t become overwhelmed, leading to the types of delays that the act actually intends to avoid. As caseloads rise, driven by increased awareness and reporting programs, these programs will need more funding. They need more staff and training to keep things efficient.

Lastly, I just want to say that we have emerging tech gaps, and this is a glaring omission. The amendment may not fully address AI-generated deepfakes, which are exploding in prevalence and sophistication. Victims of fabricated intimate images deserve the same protections, but without explicit provisions, we may be playing catch-up. Future updates might be essential for us to stay ahead of these types of threats.

Just to wrap it up, this act is commendable in its efforts to empower victims and combat digital abuse with key improvements in damages, orders, anonymity and penalties. Yet it does have limitations in its enforcement, accessibility, privacy jurisdiction, resource strain and tech adaptability. It does remind us that intentions aren’t good enough, and we need to have comprehensive solutions.

As an MLA and a former police officer dedicated to public safety, I would hope that the government would build on this foundation, integrate criminal elements, enhance support for underserved communities, prepare for tomorrow’s technologies so that we can have a system that protects people from the distribution without consent of intimate images and protect vulnerable populations, particularly children, online.

I will be supporting this bill on second reading and look forward to following it through continued debate.

Stephanie Higginson: I rise today to speak in support of the amendments to the Intimate Images Protection Act.

The original act was introduced in 2023 because, in this rapidly changing world, we know that sharing or threatening to distribute someone else’s intimate images or videos without their consent does lead to feelings of helplessness, shame and, in some cases, suicide and self-harm. There are too many stories of predatory behaviour that has resulted in long-term, lasting physical, psychological and reputational harm.

As a parent, in my house, we’ve set up strong boundaries to try to prevent this from happening to our children. But as every parent knows, we can’t be everywhere all the time.

[3:45 p.m.]

In 2023, we introduced the Intimate Images Protection Act to give victims more legal options and fast, affordable ways to stop or prevent sharing of intimate images.

As an adult…. This isn’t an issue that I had to navigate as a kid, and I’m thankful for that. I know that this isn’t just happening to young people. This is happening to people across all age groups.

This government knows that we’re at the front of this wave, and that is why we need to do everything possible to support victims but also to deter the behaviour. That’s why we’re introducing amendments to the act that we introduced in 2023 and that came into effect in 2024, because they will substantially increase the value of damages that can be awarded and also improve options for victims in case resolution while protecting their privacy to reduce further risk of traumatization and hardship.

Too often people have been victimized by the process for redress, and that just revictimizes them, only then for the perpetrators to receive an inconsequential fine. These amendments improve the legislation that was previously introduced, and it allows us to stand up for the victims and lay strong groundwork that will help further deter this predatory behaviour.

While it is important to protect the victims — it is the most important part of this — it’s also just as important to deter this behaviour that leads to this type of victimization. Increasing fines and making it easier for victims to seek redress sends a strong message that sharing images without consent is unacceptable and it’s a serious offence that this government takes seriously, and we are letting people know that we are not going to allow it on our watch.

More importantly, if you have been victimized, this government is here to stand behind you and to support you, to ensure that any action that you take does not re-traumatize you. That support started with the act in 2023 and is made stronger by these amendments.

We will substantially increase the value of the damages — as we’ve heard already from many members, up to, I think, 14 times more that can be awarded — from $5,000 up to the recommended $75,000 and remove requirements that the Civil Resolution Tribunal publish decisions about damages, to protect the privacy of victims, because this is their story.

It’s their story to tell, and the conditions that they tell that story in are theirs. It should not be determined by an arbitrary timeline that exists that they have no control over. This is a step in helping them reclaim their story that was created by a terrible invasion of privacy. We are saying, “No more,” and that we will stand with you.

We are clarifying the information that may be included and allowed in a civil resolution tribunal to change an intimate protection order, if it’s needed. We’re clarifying timelines for penalties for people who fail to comply, and we’re establishing authority of the intimate images protection service to continue to collect specific personal information to be able to provide better and more protective services to the victims. All of these amendments are victim-centred and will give victims stronger legal protections.

With these stronger penalties and more streamlined processes, we hope that we will deter predators. Although, with streamlined processes, we may actually see…. As we’ve seen, the statistics are quite staggering about how many people are taking action. Because it becomes easier, we may see more victims come forward, but the hope is that eventually, with strong deterrence, we see fewer.

Along with an increase in damages available through the civil tribunal, a victim can also seek up to $35,000 in damages at provincial courts. That adds up to over $100,000 in financial impacts.

I’m proud of the suite of actions that we have introduced this week: the Sexual Violence Policy Act, the post-secondary sexual violence action plan. They’re three actions that represent a coordinated response to sexualized and gender-based violence. These amendments focus on one type of sexualized violence, the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images. The other two, the Sexual Violence Policy Act and the sexual violence action plan, target sexualized violence that occurs in specific and unique contexts in B.C. All of these represent one aspect of our government’s commitment to creating safer communities and ending ongoing gender-based and sexualized violence.

[3:50 p.m.]

I heard today from both sides of the House that there is strong agreement that we need better national and international cooperation. But what we’re saying with this legislation and with the work that we’re doing this week is that we will use every tool we have in British Columbia to fight these crimes.

To the victims of these crimes: what happened is not your fault. We will use every tool that we have at our disposal — legislative, regulatory and others — to support you.

To the perpetrators: we also see you. We will use every tool that we have to stop you and hold you accountable.

Misty Van Popta: We’ve got some parents in here, and I’m really happy to see the Minister of Education here.

I’m wondering if the other day, when Bill 17 was tabled, any of the members on the other side there happened to hear me kind of gasp or make comment to my seatmate beside me here, because when I heard the title, Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment, I must admit I almost melted down.

We didn’t have any content at the time, but there was a moment of relived trauma, a flashback of a very dark time for my family, a time of remembering the hopelessness in our justice system.

Now, I will preface this debate speech with a disclaimer that I have full support of my daughter standing here today to share her story. She called me from Mexico yesterday while on her vacation to not only encourage me to stand up for her but to stand up for other young women and men.

Man, I’ve been told in the past that I’m a strong woman. You guys have seen nothing in my 20-year-old. She makes me look like a shrinking violet, and she’s crushing life right now.

If you happened to be in the chamber in the spring to speak in support of the member for Surrey-Cloverdale’s private member’s bill, M205, the Mental Health Amendment Act, I told a story here in the same spot about my courageous daughter, who made an attempt on her life at 16. I barely kept it together then. I thought I was going to do better today.

What that speech did not really go into in the spring was the precipitating reasons for her decision to try and take her life. There were about four mitigating factors, but the one that I’m going to talk about right now is the subject of this bill.

She was 16. She was interested in a boy. He encouraged her to send him a photo of her that was intimate in nature. No harm, no foul, right? Most of the kids are doing it. Unfortunately, with today’s overexploitation and sexualization of society, our kids have lost that sense of innocence.

A few months later after school reconvened from summer break, the school counsellor was made aware by another student that my daughter’s photo was not only circulated among a Snapchat group of boys in her school, but it was distributed to two other schools as well.

It was me that was contacted by the RCMP while I was at work, on a jobsite. I crumbled on the spot, in a parking lot surrounded by machinery and men, and I sobbed uncontrollably. These weren’t tears for me. They weren’t even tears of anger yet. They were tears knowing that I had to go pick up my daughter from school and break the news to her that I knew would crush her already fragile and insecure world.

[3:55 p.m.]

The next few weeks were filled with interviews and investigations and holding together my child who was so exposed, so embarrassed and so vulnerable, who at a young age made a mistake and paid dearly for it.

It was an unfortunate teaching moment for the whole school. Boys didn’t know that not only was it not appropriate, but it was illegal. It is deemed the distribution of child pornography, even if those who shared the images of minors are minors themselves.

In my daughter’s case, the perpetrator wasn’t charged. There was no accountability. The boy didn’t attend her school. She never heard from him again. But she saw him again night after night in her head as she lay down and relived that moment. Sixteen years old, too young for heavy moments, too fragile under isolation of COVID social restrictions. It was one of many compounding factors adding up to a moment that she couldn’t bear anymore.

The reasons for no charges are due to issues within the Criminal Code in terms of the definition of child pornography. The image shared of her flirted on the edge of the definition, and thus it was my daughter that wore the consequences of that brief lapse in judgment.

I honestly had no idea about our options for restitution without a conviction. Actually, it was the presentation of this bill that made me realize that there was a civil way for my daughter to use. We only had a brief on this bill before lunch yesterday, so I’m a little light on the clauses here. And although it mainly addresses claims made by a civil resolution tribunal, I’m in general support of the intent of this bill. Anything that holds perpetrators of sharing and distribution of intimate images more accountable for their actions is okay with me.

I just wish this government would go further on this crushing epidemic with our youth. I wish there was an educational piece introduced to teens in their early years, to warn kids as they enter a confusing time of life, to know the ramifications of not only sending intimate images but also the legal implications of sharing them — the kids just don’t know — and that it can become collateral or blackmail, to further add to the legal consequences.

I wish it was more widely understood that there was a civil claims option or a tribunal option for restitution for victims who aren’t covered by the criminal court system. If this Momma Bear did not know, and I’m generally a fairly informed person, I guarantee you others don’t know.

I also deeply wish that the limitation period for proceedings — which, I believe, is clause 20 — would go beyond two years from the contravention. The trauma after an emotional assault like this…. It can take the victims so, so long to come out of the fog, if they even emerge from it. In my daughter’s case, it ate her alive for about eight months and then, after her suicide attempt, another 18 months of recovery. Even if I knew of our legal options at the time, I would have never proceeded with anything until I felt she was ready to speak to it, and that was well after the two-year window.

I’m scared this new bill will add confusion as to where a victim should proceed legally — the CRT or Provincial Court. I’m scared this bill will increase the caseload of the CRT, prolonging the trauma of victims. I’m scared that the CRT is not equipped for handling the sensitive matter and nature of these claims.

My true hope is for the Attorney General to work with her federal government counterparts to address the definitions of “intimate images” and “pornography” under the Criminal Code. This is an epidemic in our schools. I encourage the Minister of Education to ensure that students are aware of not only the emotional consequences but also the legal consequences, and that knowledge will not only strengthen against peer pressure for young girls and boys against succumbing to requests for photos but will help them stand up against it. Please do more.

[4:00 p.m.]

I’m going to read the text my daughter sent me this morning after she proofed this debate speech. It reads: “I may not have a platform to talk about my stories, but you do. Something about it, said publicly, gives me a sense of strength back. I’m proud of me, and I’m proud of you.”

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Member.

Thanks to your daughter for allowing you to share that story.

Sunita Dhir: I’m pleased to rise today to speak in strong support of Bill 17, the Intimate Images Protection Amendment Act.

This legislation represents another important step in our government’s ongoing work to protect people in British Columbia from the nonconsensual sharing or threatened sharing of intimate images. It builds on the Intimate Images Protection Act, which came into force earlier this year, a first of its kind in Canada, and it strengthens the tools available to victims seeking justice, safety and dignity.

This is an issue that strikes at the heart of human dignity. It’s about the right to control one’s own image and identity and the devastating harm that occurs when that right is violated.

Every one of us has heard from constituents, parents and young people who have experienced or know someone who has been a victim of image-based sexual abuse. These are not isolated incidents. They are deeply personal stories of betrayal and humiliation that can destroy a person’s confidence, reputation and mental health.

In my constituency, a young woman shared with me how, after ending a relationship, private images she had shared with her partner were distributed without her consent. Within hours, those images were online, circulated among strangers. She told me she couldn’t bring herself to attend class or even leave her home. She said: “It wasn’t just my pictures they took. They took my peace and my sense of safety.”

Those words have stayed with me. They are a reminder that behind every statistic is a person, often a young person, whose life has been up-ended by this kind of violation.

When this House passed the Intimate Images Protection Act in 2023, British Columbia became the first jurisdiction in Canada to create a dedicated, accessible process for victims to stop or prevent the distribution of their intimate images.

Since the act came into effect in January 2024, we have seen meaningful results. The Civil Resolution Tribunal, which administers these cases, has already resolved hundreds of matters. Victims have been able to obtain orders to have images removed, to prevent further sharing and to receive damages, often within weeks, not years.

The intimate images protection service has provided invaluable guidance and support to those seeking help, particularly young people who might otherwise have suffered in silence.

[4:05 p.m.]

These are real, tangible outcomes, and they show that this approach works, but as technology continues to evolve, so too must the law. The amendments before the House today strengthen the existing act in several significant ways.

First, they substantially increase the damages available through the Civil Resolution Tribunal. Under the current framework, the maximum award is $5,000. This amendment proposes to raise that amount, potentially to as high as $75,000, to more accurately reflect the gravity of harm caused by these violations.

This is not simply an administrative change. It’s an acknowledgement that the emotional, social and economic impacts of image-based abuse can be devastating, and the remedies must reflect that reality.

Second, these amendments improve privacy protections for victims. Decisions of the tribunal relating to the damages will no longer need to be published online, reducing the risk of re-traumatization and protecting survivors from further exposure.

Third, the amendments strengthen the authority of protection orders and ensure that the intimate images protection service can continue to collect and use information in order to provide timely, trauma-informed assistance.

Taken together, these changes make the act more compassionate, more precise and more effective in protecting victims and holding perpetrators accountable.

This legislation is part of a larger effort to make British Columbia a safer and more just place for everyone, particularly for women, girls and gender-diverse people, who are disproportionately affected by this kind of abuse.

Our government is also advancing work under the gender-based violence action plan and the post-secondary Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act to ensure that campuses, workplaces and communities are equipped to prevent and respond to sexualized violence. This is a comprehensive approach, one that recognizes that safety, dignity and justice must extend beyond the courtroom and into every part of public life.

The nonconsensual sharing of intimate images does not occur in isolation. It occurs in platforms — social media networks, file-sharing sites and messaging services — that too often fail to act responsibly.

We have all seen the tragic consequences of this negligence. The names of Amanda Todd and Carson Cleland are seared into our collective memory. Their stories and the tireless advocacy of their families remind us that online exploitation is not a distant or abstract threat. It’s happening here, in our communities, to our children.

While regulation of online platforms falls primarily under federal jurisdiction, British Columbia has acted decisively within our own authority. This legislation gives the Civil Resolution Tribunal the power to issue enforceable orders and administrative penalties when companies fail to comply.

[4:10 p.m.]

Compliance with B.C. law is not optional. We expect online platforms operating in this province to respond swiftly and respectfully when ordered to remove harmful content and to treat victims with the dignity they deserve.

This legislation is also about shifting cultural attitudes. Too often, victims are blamed for taking or sharing intimate images in the first place. Let me be clear. The victim is never at fault. Intimacy shared within a relationship is not a crime. The crime occurs when the trust is broken and those images are used to harm, control or humiliate a good person.

By strengthening this law, we send a clear message. In British Columbia, consent matters, privacy matters, and the misuse of intimate images will be met with serious consequences.

The threat of image-based abuse is expanding. Law enforcement agencies, including the B.C. internet child exploitation unit, have reported significant increases in online sextortion and deepfake cases.

Nationally most sextortion victims are young men, which challenges many of our assumptions about who is vulnerable. The perpetrators are often anonymous and organized, operating across borders. That’s why our response must be both adaptable and coordinated, involving educators, parents, law enforcement, technology companies and policy-makers.

One of the most powerful features of this act is that it embeds trauma-informed practice at every level. The Civil Resolution Tribunal has developed a specialized process to ensure that survivors can pursue justice without being retraumatized. Its staff receive training in trauma-informed engagement, implicit bias and crisis intervention. Victims can participate remotely, receive emotional support through the intimate images protection service and obtain enforceable orders quickly and privately. This is what modern justice looks like — accessible, compassionate and survivor-centred.

British Columbia continues to lead the country in protecting people from image-based sexual abuse. Other provinces are watching closely, and some are now exploring similar legislative frameworks. We should take pride in that leadership, but we should also remain humble and vigilant. The digital landscape changes rapidly, and we must continue to listen to survivors, advocates and experts to ensure our laws remain responsive and relevant.

This legislation is about justice and compassion. It’s about protecting people from exploitation and ensuring that those who commit these violations are held accountable. Most importantly, it’s about sending a message to victims, especially young people, that they are not alone, that they are believed and that their government stands with them.

The Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act will make our province safer, fairer and more humane. It reflects the best of what this House can do, responding to emerging challenges with empathy, evidence and courage.

I am proud to support this bill at second reading, and I urge all members of this assembly to do the same.

[4:15 p.m.]

Jeremy Valeriote: I will do this in person, but I want to thank the member for Langley–Walnut Grove for sharing her and her daughter’s story. As a parent of 11-year-old daughters, this terrifies me. I’m glad that we’re addressing it here, and I hope that we’ll be proactively addressing future items that our younger people will face.

I’m grateful for the opportunity to speak to Bill 17 — as we know, brought into force last year, January 2024 — and gaps and barriers that have been identified and the legislative changes proposed to address these. I’ll briefly speak about some of these changes. I know they’ve been mentioned.

The maximum amount that can be claimed, currently $5,000, is obviously insufficient for many people seeking justice. It’s often seen to be not worth the time and stress that accompanies the long process of seeking damages through this act. I appreciate that the Attorney General has stated the intention to raise the tribunal limit amount to $75,000.

We believe this change will increase the number of people who are inclined to seek and pursue justice. As has been mentioned, the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images is a crime under the Criminal Code, and this increase to the maximum damages is a clear signal that this crime has substantial consequences, as has been described in this House.

We also know that more work is needed to hold perpetrators accountable for the use of artificial intelligence and the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images. The creation of deepfakes is a grey area in Canada’s Criminal Code. As AI becomes more complex and prevalent, it’s crucial for governments to respond accordingly. We hope to see the B.C. government and federal government working in tandem to address the gaps that exist in the Criminal Code around the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images and AI.

The current legislation around intimate-images protection in B.C. requires the Civil Resolution Tribunal to publish damages decisions made under this act. Although personal information is kept confidential, it has been found that there are enough details to identify persons involved in these decisions. By no longer requiring the CRT to publish damages decisions, we hope that persons who have had their intimate images shared without consent will be better protected from being identified.

These proposed changes to the act reflect the government’s responsiveness to Dr. Kim Stanton’s final report, The British Columbia Legal System’s Treatment of Intimate Partner Violence and Sexual Violence. We applaud the Attorney General and the government for taking steps to respond to Dr. Stanton’s 21 recommendations.

I’d also like to emphasize the importance of continuing to implement the remaining recommendations and addressing the gaps and barriers in B.C.’s legal system. Systemic changes are needed to ensure that survivors of intimate-partner, sexual and gender-based violence are supported through the province’s legal and health systems. This is a step in the right direction, but more work needs to be done.

I look forward to seeing this government take action to address Dr. Stanton’s recommendations. We hope to see this government declare gender-based violence an epidemic, ban the misuse of non-disclosure agreements, improve support for prevention initiatives, provide stable core funding to organizations supporting survivors and eliminate the silos and barriers across governance and justice systems.

People who experience the nonconsensual sharing of their intimate images, and anyone experiencing other forms of sexual violence, should feel well supported through every step of the justice system.

The Third Party will continue to monitor the government’s progress on improving justice and services for survivors of gender-based and sexual violence. I’ve heard the concerns of the opposition, and I hope they will be seriously considered at the committee stage.

In the meantime, the Third Party caucus will support this bill through second reading.

Rosalyn Bird: Before I begin, I’d like to acknowledge that I’m going to be talking about a young boy today. I do have his parents’ permission. Some of the things I’m going to speak of may actually trigger people, so I’d just like to apologize for that in advance.

[4:20 p.m.]

I have risen today with a heavy heart and a deep sense of duty to speak to Bill 17, the Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act. Although we support the principle of this legislation, there are concerns and considerations that need to be raised and explored at committee stage.

On the 12th of October, in a few days, it marks the two-year anniversary when Prince George residents were shocked and outraged by a tragic story of 12-year-old Carson Cleland. Carson was a bright young boy. He was loved by his family, engaged in his community and he had his whole life ahead of him.

But Carson fell victim to online sextortion, a predator posing behind a screen, using manipulation and deceit to obtain intimate images and then using those images to threaten and torment him.

Carson was only 12 years old, a child, yet he was faced with pressures and fear that no child should ever have to bear. Those pressures resulted in Carson taking his own life. Twelve years old, a child. A child so afraid that he chose suicide.

Bill 17 speaks to one of the most painful, destructive yet increasingly common realities of our digital age: the nonconsensual sharing and threat of sharing of intimate images online. This is not just about legislation; it is about lives shattered. It is about the quiet torment of victims who feel trapped, humiliated and helpless in a world that never forgets. It is about our children and our grandchildren growing up in an online landscape far more dangerous than any of us ever imagined.

Carson’s parents, Ryan and Nicola, are constituents of mine. They have bravely spoken out. They have said what every parent feels deep in their heart: our children are not built for these kinds of adult problems in a child’s world. They are right.

This is a moral crisis, a technological one that demands more than words. It demands leadership, responsibility and a full commitment to protect those who are most vulnerable.

Unfortunately, Carson’s story is not an isolated tragedy. According to the RCMP reports, reports of online sextortion in Prince George alone increase yearly, with more than 62 cases being reported last year.

Across Canada, we’ve seen hundreds of similar cases. Cybertip.ca reports that between January 1 and December 31, 2024, they received an average of six sextortion reports per day. Ninety-two percent of sextortion victims are boys or young men, and 63 percent of sextortion incidents occurred on Instagram or Snapchat.

For many of the victims, they are too afraid or ashamed to tell anyone until it’s too late. These predators are sophisticated. They target youth on platforms like Snapchat, Instagram or gaming apps. They manipulate, they threaten, and often, as in Carson’s case, they extort from across the world with devastating consequences for families at home. The predator that targeted Carson was tracked to Nigeria, and charges have never been laid.

This isn’t just a crime about technology. It’s a crime of trust, a violation of innocence and a symptom of a deeper moral and social decay where anonymity breeds cruelty and accountability vanishes behind a screen.

Bill 17 amends the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act and the Intimate Images Protection Act. It provides new procedures to help individuals prevent or stop the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images. It allows victims to apply directly to the CRT for orders to stop distribution, to remove content and to seek damages. It removes these cases from the small claims category, recognizing that this is not a simple civil dispute. It is a personal violation.

These are positive steps, and we acknowledge the intent behind them. We all want a faster, more accessible way for victims to get help and to have those images taken down and to reclaim some measure of dignity. But good intentions are not enough.

[4:25 p.m.]

This bill focuses on administrative efficiency, but it misses the moral and legal depth of the issue. It is more about process than protection. It does not create new offences. It does not strengthen coordination with law enforcement, and it does not meaningfully deter those who prey on our youth and exploit them online.

A predator who ruins a child’s life should not only face civil tribunal, they should face criminal prosecution and serious consequences. Financial damages are important, yes, but no dollar amount can repair a child’s stolen innocence or a parent’s broken heart.

The reality is that most victims are not looking for compensation. They are looking for safety. They want the images gone. They want the threats to stop. They want justice and peace of mind. That cannot be delivered by an overworked tribunal that was designed for parking disputes, strata fees and small debts.

The CRT has done very important work, but it is not equipped to handle cases involving trauma, sexual exploitation and digital evidence that crosses borders and platforms. These cases require trained staff, trauma-informed procedures and coordination with police, not another layer of administrative paperwork.

Bill 17 introduces confusion. Victims can choose to file with the Civil Resolution Tribunal and/or the Provincial Court. That may sound empowering, but in practice, it risks confusion and chaos.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Victims who are often unrepresented and already traumatized will have to decide where to file, how to navigate two different systems and what rules apply. We could potentially see inconsistent rulings between the CRT and the courts on nearly identical facts, undermining the fairness and clarity in the law.

The government says that this bill will make justice faster, but it may slow justice down as the CRT’s caseload grows and delays mount. There are already 381 active cases involving intimate images before the CRT. How many more will there be once this law comes into effect? How will the tribunal ensure that each of these cases receives the attention and the care it deserves?

The bill also allows the CRT to withhold publication of its decisions in these cases. That may seem compassionate, a way to protect victims from further exposure, but it raises real concerns about transparency and accountability. Should it not be the victim or the remaining family that determines whether the decision should be published?

Justice must be both compassionate and visible. From a Conservative perspective, the issue goes beyond procedure. It goes to the heart of what kind of society we want to be and what we are willing to stand for.

We believe that every child deserves protection from online predators. We believe that families, not bureaucracies, are the first line of defence. We believe that social media companies, the ones who profit from these platforms, must bear real accountability when their tools are used to harm children.

For too long, big tech has shrugged off its moral duties. They collect our data, they profit from our children’s attention, but they don’t take enough responsibility when those same children are exploited. We must demand stronger cooperation between governments and technology platforms, with mandatory takedown systems, real-time reporting and penalties for companies that fail to act.

We must also restore parental empowerment, ensuring that parents have the tools, knowledge and authority to protect their children online. As Carson’s mother said so powerfully: “Be more active with your kids. Even if you are active, be more active still.” This is about building a culture of awareness, vigilance and accountability, not one of compliancy and blame.

We also need to talk about education. Prevention begins long before an image has ever been sent or shared. Our schools must teach digital responsibility not just as a technology topic but as a moral one. Children, youth, young men and women as well as mature adults must understand that once an image is shared online, it can never be truly erased. They must know that trust online can be weaponized, that shame should never be faced in silence.

[4:30 p.m.]

Just as importantly, our young men and women must be taught respect, empathy and consent. We must raise a generation that understands that sharing someone’s image without consent is not entertainment, it is exploitation.

We also owe victims more sympathy, and we owe them justice. This means the swift removal of images across platforms and jurisdictions, access to trauma counselling and legal aid, coordination between police, prosecutors and victim services and recognition that nonconsensual sharing of intimate images is a form of sexual violence and it should be treated as such.

The federal government has made progress, now allowing offenders to be added to the national sex offender registry. That is a great step in the right direction. But laws alone cannot heal the damage done. Only compassion, education and responsibility can do that.

We must do more than pass laws that look good on paper. We must ensure those laws work in practice, that victims are heard, predators are punished and our children are truly safe online.

This bill, while well-intentioned, does not go far enough. It does not strengthen criminal enforcement. It does not give police the tools to trace offenders across borders. It does not ensure that the tribunal is properly resourced or trauma-informed. We can do better, and we must.

To the parents in British Columbia, I say this. Talk to your children. Know what they’re doing online, not out of suspicion but out of love. Let them know that they can come to you without fear, without shame, if something goes wrong.

To our young British Columbians, if someone online is trying to manipulate or threaten you, stop, speak up and get help. You are not alone. You are not to blame, and there are people who care very much about you. There is help available.

We are serious about addressing this crisis. Trauma-informed training must be an essential part of this solution. Those who handle these cases within the CRT, law enforcement or victim services must be equipped to respond with compassion, understanding and skill.

Victims of image exploitation often suffer deep psychological harm, anxiety, depression, isolation and, unfortunately, in some cases, suicidal thoughts. Without trauma-informed care, we risk re-traumatizing victims when they seek help. A system that truly protects must not only act swiftly but also treat every survivor with dignity and humanity.

We must also not forget the residual victims, the families left behind when the unthinkable happens. When a child takes their own life after being tormented online, the pain does not end with them. It ripples outward, leaving parents, siblings, friends, entire communities changed forever. These families face not only unimaginable grief but also guilt, isolation and questions that they may never have the answers for. They, too, deserve support, grief counselling, mental health services and the assurance that their loss will drive meaningful change.

There should be clearer provincial pathways for families to access bereavement and trauma counselling after such losses. No parent should have to search for help while mourning a child. No sibling should have to face the silence that follows such a tragedy without support.

When a life is lost to online exploitation, the responsibility to respond extends beyond justice. It becomes about healing. We owe these families not only compassion but action, ensuring that no other family endures the same heartbreak.

Trauma-informed training and comprehensive victim and family supports are not optional. They are the foundation of a humane response to a modern epidemic. Protecting our children must also mean caring for those who carry the scars of loss. If we truly believe that every life has value, then our systems must reflect that belief.

We cannot bring back Carson Cleland. We cannot undo the harm that so many families have already endured, but we can honour their pain by acting with purpose. Let us pass laws that truly protect victims, not just in process but in outcomes. Let us demand accountability for those who profit from digital exploitation.

[4:35 p.m.]

Let us empower parents, educate our youth and treat this issue not as a bureaucratic file but as a moral responsibility. Because behind every case, every statistic and this bill, there is a child, a parent, a family praying that somebody will finally make it stop.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I want to thank the member for Prince George–Valemount and, really, every member that I’ve had the privilege of listening to today on this proposed legislation, this bill. They’ve brought valuable perspectives and have brought the human stories behind the need for this legislation into this House.

I think that’s valuable. It’s the best of this place when we’re able to share real examples, when we don’t get into mudslinging and name-calling and all those other things that people sometimes associate with this place.

This legislation, this bill, is important. It amends the Intimate Images Protection Act to make it stronger. Now, folks might not know where the Intimate Images Protection Act came from, but we brought it forward. The Attorney General. I give her a lot of credit, and the critics and constituents and people who’ve dealt with this.

But mostly it’s the families. It’s the Clelands. It’s Carol Todd. It’s others who’ve had to deal with this in their own lives, who’ve raised their voices and demanded action.

There was no legislation like this at a federal level. The federal government has the Criminal Code, and thankfully, it has been changed now to ensure that when people do share intimate images without consent, they can actually be brought forward through the criminal process and have their offence dealt with.

This was brought forward before changes at the federal level, specifically to deal with the harm created by the sharing of that image so that we could get it taken down right away. Social media companies were not doing the work, as we’ve heard, as we know. This legislation was brought forward so that we could force them to do the work that they were refusing to do.

They were not taking the steps they needed to protect young people. Not just young people but any person who had their intimate images shared without their consent.

I give credit to the government for stepping forward to take this on. Some say: “Oh, well, that was a federal matter. Why were you acting?” Well, we actually have the ability to act through the Civil Resolution Tribunal to bring some safety to people now.

Obviously, their safety had already been violated. This gave the government, gave the victim, gave the victim’s family a chance to move quickly. We know that the longer the image is out there, the more the harm is done — the more it can be replicated and taken to places where it’s even harder to track down, like cases overseas.

Obviously, B.C. is a provincial jurisdiction. We also need federal support on these issues too. I think that’s very clear. B.C. has been leading on this. We know other provinces have stepped up, and they want to do what B.C. is doing, or they are bringing forward legislation to take similar actions within their abilities. But of course, the strong arm of the Criminal Code is where a lot of this needs to land.

We know the federal government is certainly looking at this and has been taking the leadership from B.C. to take further actions themselves.

I guess I would say that not everybody, though, wants to pursue the Criminal Code. Not everyone wants to take a former partner or somebody through that process. We know we’ve had reports done provincially to look at how the court system can sometimes re-traumatize a victim, can bring a focus on them that they may not want or be able to face.

I think that a process like this can work for people in a better way, but it’s not always the only way. I think some people may want to use the Civil Resolution Tribunal to get the images taken down right away. Then later on, they may pursue criminal actions, may pursue actions with the police. Others may want to go straight to the police and not work through this process.

We need to give the victims the tools to make the best choices that they can make or for their families to make, in cases of the tragedies that the member opposite had mentioned.

I think the issue here is about consent. That means we have to bring the victim to the front of this process, not after the fact, and give them that ability to retake some power that’s been robbed from them because of people sharing some of their most intimate images — who they are.

[4:40 p.m.]

I had somebody share with me that we need to start thinking more about courts as a place of healing or justice, through the CRT as a place of healing, as a place to get better, as a place to solve things, as a place that leads to better outcomes for the victim, rather than trauma.

I thank the Attorney General for her work in that stead, looking at issues of how we best support victims. A lot of these things happen and they’re never reported. People don’t feel that they can say anything. They have such shame delivered to them by the victimizer, by the bully, by the person who has shared their most intimate images. It’s often a break of trust, and a break of trust can lead to a real feeling of shame.

I just think of constituents I have spoken to — young people but not just young people, older folks that I know — who in some cases have been threatened to be outed. Maybe they’re not out to their family as a gay person. Maybe they’re not able to speak out on these issues because of the threats of going public, and they get caught in a cycle of blackmail. They get caught in a cycle of victimization again and again.

To be able to act quickly is vital. I’d say that if there are those who are wondering where to go for more information on this, takebackyourimages.gov.bc.ca is a good place to start to give you a sense of some places to go. Of course, phoning your police is another avenue, sometimes you need to do both.

Sometimes you may only be comfortable doing one of those two things. There are a number of other websites and places where you can actually get either support from somebody over the phone, support in person or victim services as well.

I just want to encourage people that you’ve done nothing wrong. The person who has done the wrong is the person who is sharing your image. The person who has done the wrong is the one making the threats, the one who is trying to get you to share an image.

That’s another thing. We need to have that strong education for young people, but not just young people. I say this because I’ve met a number of seniors who have been pulled in by deepfakes.

Anybody on social media these days will see people sharing stuff that they think is real, but it’s not. Somebody has taken an image and run it through AI to create a story which is just not true. Often they’re friendly, and it sounds nice, but it’s not true. It’s not real. It didn’t happen. And that’s happening more and more with images, intimate images. Or an image of somebody’s face which gets attached to somebody else’s body through the work of computers, and people think that what’s happening is real.

We have to educate people. Sometimes I’ve had to take a senior through showing them how easily somebody can manipulate an image, because they wouldn’t believe me. They just said: “Well, no. That can’t happen. I would understand it. I would know it.” But we don’t always know it anymore, because the computers are getting so smart. The images are being so easily manipulated, and people are believing lies about each other because of image manipulation.

Just to say that throughout society, it’s incumbent upon all of us, whether it’s through the education system, through our conversations with constituents, with our parents, with our children…. It’s not just a youth issue here. This goes across society.

I’m grateful that the government is moving forward with these amendments to allow stronger penalties, to allow for changes to better protect people when they do follow this process to maintain some anonymity if necessary and to try to find that path so we can get to a place where people understand this is never acceptable. Just because it’s easy for you to do, just because you are angry or you have something going on in your life…. This is not a victimless crime, just as AI images of other people is not a victimless crime.

There has got to be the criminal aspect at the federal level, but we also need to act quickly. That’s where I think this happens, this work comes through. I’m told that you can get in touch, and in some cases, they’ve been able to get images withdrawn within, I think I read, two to three days. There are other cases that might have taken longer for a variety of reasons, but I’ve heard about the success.

[4:45 p.m.]

By bringing this in, yes, it has made real changes for people in their lives. Over 300 cases, is my understanding now, through this process. And I know there will be more, unfortunately. But when we give people the option to stand up for themselves, we allow them to start taking some of that power back that their aggressor, their victimizer, has taken from them.

Thank you, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity to share my support for this legislation.

Kiel Giddens: I rise today to speak, to continue debate on Bill 17, the Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act. This legislation deals with something deeply troubling and, frankly, something that scares a lot of parents and families across the province. It’s about the sharing of intimate images without consent and the rise of online sexual exploitation, especially of children and youth.

I want to thank the member for Langley–Walnut Grove for sharing a very personal story. Indeed, many members have shared personal stories here.

I want to thank the Minister of Indigenous Relations for his remarks. I appreciate his words and all the words of the government members.

Thank you to the member for Prince George–Valemount, who recounted the terrible story of a young boy in Prince George, Carson Cleland, a victim of criminal acts that we are discussing in this bill. We need to honour Carson’s memory in the battle for justice that his family continues to wage today. I felt it was my duty to continue that work, so as another Prince George MLA, I’m going to continue to emphasize Carson’s memory in my remarks.

The legal language in this bill is complex, and it will be analyzed by lawyers and judges and the law community, as it should be. I’m not a lawyer. We’ve got to remember that the legislation we pass here isn’t just about the words on paper. It’s about people. So let’s make sure that it’s written to truly protect people from the new threats that come to the world we live in today.

This is about kids. It’s about families. It’s about trust and about the reality that technology, which we’re now using more than ever…. It connects us all. It’s also being used to harm people in ways that we couldn’t have imagined ten or 15 or 20 years ago.

I want to begin by saying clearly that I support this legislation in principle and make that abundantly clear. Protecting people’s dignity, safety and autonomy online shouldn’t be a point of contention for anyone in this chamber.

In fact, I think we should be working with the federal government to find ways to throw the book at anybody who is actually harming children in any way and preying upon them. I appreciate some of the words that the Minister of Indigenous Relations mentioned about seniors as well. I think that is a vulnerable population in this story that we want to remember as well.

Our job here is to look deeper and to ask whether this bill truly delivers the protections it promises, because when it comes to online exploitation, we all know the stakes are very high these days. Before getting into the policy, I also want to share another reason why I think it’s important for me to get up to speak today.

I’m a dad of two young kids. They’re eight and five. They’re still at that wonderful age where Dad is their superhero. I took them swimming at the public pool in Prince George recently. My five-year-old couldn’t wait to show me his wicked dives off the diving board. They love fishing, science camps, soccer, you name it.

But none of this involves a screen. Like every parent, I know the world they’re growing up in is changing fast, and my kids’ learning, their games, their friendships, much more than when I was a child, will happen online.

As much as I want them to explore and be independent, I also know how dangerous that digital world can be. Behind those apps and those messages, there are people who use those same tools to prey on children, to manipulate them, threaten them and extort them. What terrifies parents the most is that it can happen quietly, right in their own homes, to good kids who make one small mistake, one moment of misplaced trust, and suddenly their lives are turned upside down.

[4:50 p.m.]

When I’m speaking today…. Of course we’re all here as legislators, but as a father and as a neighbour and as someone who represents a community that has seen the very worst of this tragedy, I think this is a very important topic for us to cover.

I’m worried that we’re living through a time of rapidly rising online child exploitation, as I’ve said. Across B.C., police have reported alarming increases in child exploitation cases, and that’s been talked about by previous speakers. The RCMP and municipal forces have said the cases are surging not by the dozens but by the hundreds.

The Civil Resolution Tribunal now has hundreds of claims since the original legislation came into force. Officers describe a flood of reports, explicit images, coercion, sextortion and blackmail. The number of images being shared is quite staggering, and the sophistication of these criminal networks is unlike anything seen before.

I know that my colleague from Prince George–Valemount talked about Cybertip.ca, and the Canadian Centre for Child Protection reports that tips to that service are up more than 1,000 percent over the last decade. Behind those numbers are real people. They are kids. They are people in our communities. Some of them are children who thought they were chatting with a friend or a peer that they could trust.

Predators today are increasingly organized. They use fake accounts, encrypted platforms, even AI to generate realistic images. They target hundreds at a time, hoping just one will respond. The consequences are devastating. These can be depression, anxiety, shame, isolation and, far too often, tragedy.

As we’ve heard in the course of these deliberations, in my community of Prince George, we’ve seen that tragedy firsthand. In 2023, we lost 12-year-old Carson Cleland, a bright, kind, funny boy who had his whole life ahead of him. Carson was targeted online by predators who tricked him into sharing a private image and then threatened to expose him. Within hours, the fear and humiliation became unbearable, and Carson took his own life.

His parents, Amanda and Ryan, have shown extraordinary courage in speaking out. They’ve turned their grief into advocacy, calling for stronger protections, faster action and more awareness so that no other family has to live their nightmare. Their story has shaken our community and, I believe, all of B.C. to its core.

In Prince George, I can honestly tell you that schools, parents and kids are talking about online safety in ways we’ve never done before. But talk, of course, has to lead to action. It has to lead to laws, resources and systems that protect kids like Carson. That’s why getting this bill right, I think, matters.

We’ve heard from the government that Bill 17 aims to strengthen the framework for people whose intimate images are shared without consent. It aims to update the Intimate Images Protection Act to make it easier for victims to apply for court orders to remove content, stop further sharing and seek damages. That’s very important progress.

We also need to stay on top of new threats, things like AI-generated images, deepfakes, as the previous member had spoken about, and other manipulated content. I want assurances from the government that these things are being taken into account, and I hope we can get there.

I will say that I want to commend the Attorney General for bringing this forward relatively soon after the original bill was brought into force. I think this is an issue we have to keep an eye on and stay current on. We all have a role to play in keeping up with how fast this online harm is changing.

But a law is only as strong as how well it’s enforced and is accessible to the people who it’s meant to help. We have to ask: will Bill 17 actually work for victims, especially young victims, and especially in smaller and northern communities like mine?

Just a few key questions that perhaps, as we continue the discussions on the bill, we can ask ourselves as MLAs.

First, will this law have reach beyond our borders? I think we’ve talked about the fact that federal law has changed. That’s very important. We need to coordinate with federal laws and changes very closely. If an image is posted on an app and that’s based overseas, how can B.C.’s court compel its removal? How can we work with the federal government to do that? All of that has to be thought of.

[4:55 p.m.]

Can we rely on voluntary compliance for multinational tech companies, or do we need stronger agreements in place? If we don’t build these partnerships now, then the law risks being enforceable only inside our borders, while the harm travels everywhere.

Second, how fast will the process be? When an image is online, hours matter. A process that takes weeks or months is not enough protection. We need an emergency mechanism, something like an injunction that allows for immediate removal when there is clear evidence of harm.

It’s good that individuals can apply to the Civil Resolution Tribunal, but how fast can they process those applications? What’s their capacity? That’s something I would like clarified from the government as we get into committee stage.

Third, who will help the victims through this process? Imagine being a 15-year-old who’s been sextorted, trying to navigate legal forms, or a parent in crisis trying to figure out options while their child is spiralling. We need legal aid, advocacy programs and designated supports, especially in smaller communities where those resources are even more scarce.

I understand that the Civil Resolution Tribunal is supposed to make access to justice more accessible. I’ve been an advocate of this tribunal for many years, particularly in the small business access case. This is very different, though, and it deserves special treatment within the tribunal itself because of the urgency of it and how sensitive it is for the trauma that many of these victims and their loved ones are going through.

Fourth, as I’ve said, it’s very important that we understand how this bill aligns with federal law. The Criminal Code, as we’ve talked about, criminalizes nonconsensual image-sharing, and Ottawa, I think, is working on updates. Bill 17 needs to complement and not duplicate the work but also strengthen the work Ottawa is doing. Victims shouldn’t have to choose between a civil process under B.C. and a federal criminal one that could take years, so let’s make it very clear the pathways and options for victims and their families.

Fifth, how will we measure success in this bill? I think that’s something that…. Now that it’s been in for a short period, we’re in that period where I think that accountability and public reporting matters. How many applications have been filed? How many orders were granted? How many images were actually taken down? Transparency will help to figure out how we strengthen this law going forward in the future.

Finally, what are we doing on prevention? No law can undo harm that’s already been done. Prevention means education, helping students, teachers and parents recognize manipulation before it escalates.

I want to touch on the rural and northern communities piece a little bit further. Where I live, in Prince George, and for sure the surrounding communities, families often don’t have access to the same supports as larger centres. When online exploitation happens in the North, it can be harder to know where to actually turn to.

Internet connections are getting faster, but help often isn’t. Police are stretched quite thin, and mental health supports are limited. Stigma still remains a barrier. All of these things need to be taken into consideration.

In Mackenzie right now, in my riding, we actually don’t have an MCFD social worker at all. When a family faces this kind of a crisis, they actually don’t know who to call. It’s a major problem that has to be thought of. That’s why our response has to be provincewide.

Rural kids are just as connected online as urban kids these days, really, and sometimes even more so because their neighbours could be a kilometre or more away. They deserve the same protection, the same justice and the same mental health support when something goes wrong.

We can’t talk about online exploitation without talking about its mental health toll. Victims describe being powerless, ashamed and alone. Many blame themselves, and some withdraw completely from school or friends. Obviously, we’ve heard, tragically, like Carson’s case, some can come to believe that there’s no way out.

That’s why any legislative response must include mental health resources for survivors and their families. Every school, youth centre and police detachment should know exactly where to refer families in crisis, and those services must be properly funded and trauma-informed. Families have been left to navigate this for too long, and we need to all do better.

[5:00 p.m.]

Beyond the law, we need a cultural shift, one that recognizes that privacy, consent and respect don’t end at the screen. Young people are growing up in a world where every moment can be recorded, reshared and judged publicly.

We have to teach young people how to navigate that world safely and treat others with empathy and respect. That starts in classrooms. It starts around dinner tables, in even how we talk about mistakes we’ve all made online, and in asking for forgiveness in doing so. We can’t expect kids to understand boundaries online if adults aren’t modelling them offline as well.

In wrapping up my remarks, when I think of Carson Cleland, of course, I think of his parents, of their love, their strength and their determination to turn grief into change. As a father, I can’t imagine the loss that they faced, but I can imagine what we owe to families like theirs. We can’t just rely on offering sympathy. We owe them action that leads to laws that work, to faster supports and to a culture that teaches respect and consent from the very beginning.

I’ll be following this bill very closely to make sure it’s a real step in the right direction. It won’t solve the crisis on its own, of course, but my hope is that it’s part of a broader effort to make our digital spaces safer for everyone. Let me be clear. This bill alone won’t solve it, but all of us have a role in society to make sure that we can do that and spread that message.

Let’s strengthen this bill. Let’s make it faster, clearer and more accessible. Let’s make sure that no other family in British Columbia has to go through what the Clelands have endured. We can’t bring Carson back, but we can make sure his story leads to change, and we can make sure that what happened to him never happens again.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks for the opportunity to speak on the Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, legislation brought forward by the Attorney General.

Maybe with some latitude, Madam Speaker, I had an opportunity to stand in this House in question period the first time this fall to once again thank the incredible people of Langford-Highlands for the opportunity to be able to represent their points of view and perspective in what is the people’s House.

I’m so thankful every day for getting the opportunity to sit in this chair, stand up in this House and represent their perspectives, especially as we talk about a piece of legislation like this one. I want to thank my colleague across the way for his eloquent remarks and really talking about the important role that we all have as legislators, community leaders, in protecting our children, protecting the most vulnerable.

I really wish we weren’t talking about a piece of legislation like this. It’s a shame that we live in a world where we have to. But I think we agree that we have to, as legislators, in a non-partisan way, take the necessary steps to be able to bring forward legislation like the one we have before us, to protect not just children but anyone who may be put in a position that needs to be protected when it comes to intimate images.

I want to thank the Attorney General not only for showing leadership here in British Columbia but also for showing national leadership, to the point where, as the member opposite rightfully acknowledged, the federal government is now looking at similar legislation for Canada as a whole. I think that’s something that should be commended.

The federal government should be commended for looking at British Columbia as a jurisdiction that has put in work on this. I’m hopeful that there’ll be opportunities to ensure, as the member acknowledged in his remarks, that our legislation aligns well with their legislation. My understanding is that it’s a commitment. I’m not sure if we’ll see that federal legislation this fall or in the spring of next year, but it’s really great to see the federal government take that approach.

Again, I want to recognize the Attorney General for her role in shepherding this legislation through for the first time and, obviously, for the important work of bringing it forward. I think she should be commended once again for the fact that we’ve been talking about this legislation for the past couple of legislative sessions. It speaks to the importance that this issue has for all of us, in particular for the government, in bringing forward amendments so quickly after we introduced the act back in 2023.

[5:05 p.m.]

This act, as has been rightfully acknowledged by members of both sides of the House, is about protecting people. It’s about giving victims more legal options, faster options, affordable ways to stop and prevent sharing of intimate images.

I’ve got a great organization in my community that provides so much information. I really appreciate the comments of the member for Prince George–Mackenzie about rural communities. In so much of our conversations with regard to technology and innovation, sometimes it feels like rural communities can be left out of that. This is an issue that doesn’t just impact urban communities. This impacts every corner of the province. That’s why it’s so exciting to see this legislation brought forward for amendments.

Proposed amendments to the act will substantially increase the value of damages that can be awarded by the Civil Resolution Tribunal, a tribunal that has been put in place to be able to deliver justice for British Columbians and of course to deliver monetary awards, while continuing to improve the options for victims to see their cases resolved as well.

I have had an opportunity to listen to many speeches this week so far on this legislation and, obviously, the conversation that ensued, when the Attorney introduced this legislation earlier this week, about the importance of this legislation.

The education piece is obviously very important. I think that’s something we can all acknowledge. As legislators, our hope is that folks are paying attention and listening to our speeches here. It’s one thing to talk about legislation. It’s another thing to pass it. It’s another thing to take this work back into our communities as well and have those conversations in rural communities and urban communities, every corner of the province — people knowing that there is legislation like this that is out there to protect them.

Something I’m more mindful of, as we introduce amendments to this legislation, is the important work that I have, as an MLA, to go back to the people of Langford-Highlands, our schools, our parent advisory councils, district parent advisory council — you name it.

It’s not just for young people but for other organizations, as well, other community groups. There’s the ability for me and all of my colleagues to go back to those organizations and groups and encourage them to spread information about this legislation and the protections that exist currently and that will exist once this amendment is made as well.

I also want to commend the Attorney General for the work on the legislation around looking at exploring a damage ceiling as well. I think we have to send a very strong message to anyone who attacks people, who uses and manipulates images of anyone, no matter their age or sexual orientation. We have to show strength. And I really appreciate the leadership the Attorney General has shown in a very no-nonsense approach, saying we’re going to make sure this legislation delivers for British Columbians. We are going to go after people who perform these acts.

Again, I think the Civil Resolution Tribunal really does two things. It goes after people who do it, but it also holds these social media accounts accountable. These social media accounts play an important role in our societal functions in allowing people to engage.

I think of the Facebook groups in my community that are creating platforms for people from every part of Langford-Highlands to be able to come together and engage on so many important topics. It can also be very challenging topics as well.

Also, it’s just as important…. As we talk about this legislation going after people, we have to hold these accounts like Meta, X, TikTok — you name it, all of these social media accounts and websites — accountable for the role that they have to play.

This is why it’s great to see this not being just a British Columbia initiative but now becoming a national initiative. It’s great to be able to see the federal government step up and ensure this across Canada. I hope other jurisdictions that I might not be aware of have brought in similar types of legislation as well.

It’s great to see the leadership being provided by the federal government in regard to this, to be able to push these social media companies, to establish offices and processes to respond immediately.

When someone’s intimate image is put up online, we need assurances from those social media companies that they are going to respond immediately to be able to do that. I heard that in a number of comments from my colleagues across the way. I completely agree with them. We need to create the mechanisms within legislation to do that.

[5:10 p.m.]

I look forward to the dialogue that will occur in the committee stage to ensure that we can take the necessary steps to continue to strengthen this legislation. I think there’s agreement on how important this legislation is. It’s now a matter of making sure it truly can deliver for British Columbians.

I’ll also add, as part of that work in holding companies accountable, that it’s just as important for us to be able to, in holding them accountable, find them as well. If you are not doing your part, you will receive an administrative penalty. I think we have rightfully acknowledged, as many people saw when this legislation was introduced in 2023 and then passed, and with the amendments coming forward, we have been successful.

The Civil Resolution Tribunal and government have been successful in administering penalties for those that have been found to have contravened the act and, of course, those companies that are not doing their part. Again, I know that there’ll be lots of opportunities for us to be able to have conversations with those companies. They play a critical role in our democracy and bringing people together virtually to be able to have conversations. But it’s just so important that they do their part.

The member opposite talked about Carson. I think of Amanda Todd. These are the people that are top of mind for us when we are talking about legislation like this, the type of people that we need to protect. I think of the young people in my constituency who have cell phones, have devices, and never want to be put in this position.

I also think about the important role that we as a government have to play, as I acknowledged in my earlier remarks, about taking this legislation, once it’s passed, out to our communities.

We also have to talk about the important work we have to do in racialized communities. This is something that I’ve spoken to with someone from the South Asian community, not too long ago, on, with language barriers and other challenges, not having the mechanism to go out and really find out how best to be able to support their loved one. I think that’s just as important for us as well.

A member opposite talked about sextortion, and how we are seeing increasing cases of those, not just here in British Columbia but nationally and internationally as well. I think there are so many examples that the Attorney General provided in her second reading remarks, as well as my colleagues all across the House, about the important work that this legislation does in terms of protecting people.

I’ll just conclude here. There are a lot of things going on in our province, but foundationally, we have to be ensuring every single day that we’re protecting people. This legislation protects British Columbians. This legislation that was first introduced in 2023, that is now being amended in 2025, is the leadership of our province, the leadership of our Attorney General. That is now leading to the federal government looking to British Columbia to show national leadership. I hope there will be an opportunity where we can take the legislation here and show international leadership as well.

Thanks very much to the people of Langford-Highlands for the opportunity.

I’m very grateful to the Attorney General and all of her team for the support to the constituents of Langford-Highlands who’ve raised issues like this, in particular two gentlemen who’ve done an outstanding job in my community of communicating this out not just in Langford-Highlands but across the province.

In particular, thanks to everyone’s involvement, and thanks to everyone for the important conversation on this.

I certainly look forward to the dialogue that will continue after second reading, in committee stage.

Kristina Loewen: I rise today to speak to an issue that is both urgent and deeply personal for many British Columbians: the protection of victims of the increasing threat of nonconsensual sharing of intimate images, particularly in this rapidly evolving digital world.

While the bill before us amending the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act and the Intimate Images Protection Act offers some steps in the right direction, I believe that we must go further. We must have a serious conversation about real protections, real enforcement and the long-term implications for justice, privacy and safety.

Before I continue, I want to acknowledge the recent tragic death in my riding of a mother, daughter, friend to many, Bailey McCourt. Sadly, Bailey was murdered in broad daylight after being a victim of intimate-partner violence. This event occurred in the middle of broad daylight in Kelowna Centre.

While this bill does not directly relate to her specific circumstances, please bear with me. It’s because of her tragic event and the work that I’ve been doing as a result that I’ve had the honour of attending many meetings and spending many hours with survivors and advocates through my work on intimate-partner violence.

[5:15 p.m.]

Bailey’s story and the many other stories shared in these meetings have highlighted for me something that we cannot ignore. The protections that we have for victims of intimate-partner violence, including aggression and revenge, are simply not strong enough. We’re letting people down.

There is an undeniable lack of teeth in our systems, a lack of teeth that fails victims and survivors; policies that sound promising on paper but that fail victims in practice. We must admit that here in this chamber, where real change can happen.

Let’s talk briefly about what this bill does. It does move intimate-image cases out of the small claims category, giving them a distinct legal identity. That’s a good start. It acknowledges that these are not just minor disputes over money but often life-altering — even life-threatening, as we’ve heard today — violations of privacy and trust.

This bill also empowers the Civil Resolution Tribunal, or the CRT, to hear these cases, with jurisdiction up to $75,000. It gives claimants the option to file in either the CRT or the Provincial Court, and it allows for orders to be made, varied or cancelled regarding intimate images. Thankfully, it also recognizes the need to withhold publication of sensitive decisions in some cases, which could prevent further harm.

This is all good. I agree with limiting publication where it could or would cause further harm. I will also always advocate for protecting victims and not increasing trauma.

These are meaningful changes, but I have to be clear. This bill does not create new offences, and it does not improve enforcement or coordination with law enforcement. It primarily remains in the realm of civil, not criminal, recourse.

I don’t think this bill is enough. From a Conservative viewpoint, there are certainly positives here. We value individual choice in access to justice. This bill allows victims to choose the forum that suits them best, be it the tribunal or the courts. It creates a more streamlined process, potentially making it easier and faster for victims to seek compensation.

We support the notion that perpetrators should be held financially accountable, absolutely. Allowing victims to pursue damages up to $75,000 is significant. That sends a clear message that these violations are serious and deserve recognition.

Of course, we support protecting privacy. Giving discretion to withhold decisions from publication can help prevent further trauma.

However, we also have serious concerns.

First, while creating a new category for these claims is symbolically important, it does not guarantee better outcomes. The CRT, let’s not forget, was designed for minor vehicle disputes and strata fees. But it’s now being tasked with highly sensitive, emotionally complex and often legally nuanced cases involving trauma and abuse. It lacks the specialized expertise, the trauma-informed training and the procedural safeguards that these cases demand.

Second, we’re creating a dual system. Victims can choose either the tribunal or the court, but without legal guidance, how will unrepresented claimants know which is best? It takes a lot of courage for a victim of intimate-partner aggression of any sort to come forward. There’s a huge lack of faith in the system, first of all. Then, when victims do come forward, the system in general proves to the victim that they were right to doubt it after all.

A common story that I’m hearing is the difficulty in navigating the system. Which charges will bring the most impact? Which avenue will be the best one to go down? What will bring the most relief for the victim and the best safeguards? It’s difficult to ascertain, even with advice, and to find the best path that you should take.

Will this be easy to navigate as to which to choose, the CRT or the provincial court? How will the government address this? How will they implement it? Who will advise? How will victims discern? Who will support them as they make this decision? Will it be left to non-profits to come alongside? Will we give them the proper direction? We risk causing confusion, inconsistent rulings and a sense of injustice when different outcomes emerge from similar facts.

[5:20 p.m.]

Perhaps most concerning, the CRT is already under strain, a reminder of lots of strata, small-debt and minor vehicle incidents to compete with. With over 380 active cases related to intimate images already in the system, what happens when that number triples? Justice delayed is justice denied.

Finally, withholding publication of decisions, while protective, also could remove transparency. Over time, this could undermine public accountability and make it harder to detect patterns, bias or systemic failures. This needs to be considered.

We’re only beginning to understand the power of artificial intelligence and the growing prevalence of deepfakes, hyper-realistic AI-generated images or videos often indistinguishable from reality.

I remember the first time that I saw an altered image. It was an image that was intimate in nature, and it fooled me. It was about 18 years ago right when Facebook was new, so it probably wasn’t that great or believable by today’s standards, but even so, it was scarring for me. I’m not going to get graphic, so don’t worry. It was a picture of a close family member engaging in a pornographic scene, and it was one that did not reflect his values or his relationships. It jarred me.

Thankfully, I was able to recognize the false source rather quickly. However, today AI and deepfakes are so much more sophisticated. Images are powerful. This decades-old experience has left an impact and an imprint on me, and I wasn’t even the victim.

So what happens when someone creates a synthetic image, intimate image, of a real person’s face on another body? What happens when abusers use AI to terrorize former partners with false videos? Our legal system is not prepared.

While this bill addresses real and existing harms, we must now begin discussions around deepfake-specific legislation, criminal penalties for synthetic abuse and technological safeguards for victims. We cannot allow our legislation to lag behind the tools being used to harm.

As a parent, I think it’s worth noting that we need more education for parents and for our children and our students around internet harms, AI and deepfakes. This will continue to be an issue, and we aren’t even remotely tackling this as a government or a society. And we will need to address this. I’d argue we should be already addressing it.

I want to make one more note as a parent. I started having my children in the early 2000s, so I was right on the front lines. When they were becoming teenagers and going through puberty, that’s right when Instagram and Facebook were being created. They all started to have these little handheld games and everything in their hands. As a child, I did not grow up in a digital world, and suddenly I was a parent with children growing up very suddenly in a digital world.

Parents raising that generation that was hitting puberty around 2010, 2015 in there, 2012…. I think we were kind of taken advantage of. We were naive. We had no clue what we were up against.

One of my children actually ultimately got exposed to pedophiles through an online, handheld gaming system that I literally just thought Dora the Explorer plugged into, and you carried on and said, “Swiper, no swiping,” and all that jazz, and that was it. But it was really incredibly damaging to her, caused eight years of shame and guilt and not sharing.

We were a family that had all the right values, family dinners almost every night. I was pretty much a stay-at-home mom through those years, and we simply had no idea what we were up against.

The hope that I have is that my kids were raised with this, so when they raise their kids, they will know. But I still think we owe our society something as government to bring forward some education and some parameters around online harms.

I want to be really clear. I strongly support victims of intimate partner aggression, including where images are used. I believe that we need new legislation that is up-to-date, modern and delivers justice. My concern is that this bill makes attempts but may not do enough.

Let me close by saying this. We cannot continue to offer survivors words without action, paths without safety or promises without enforcement. This bill is a start, but it must not be the end. We will need to hash this out in committee. We owe it to the survivors, to every British Columbian navigating the pain of intimate partner aggression, to parents navigating this with their children who’ve been victims.

[5:25 p.m.]

We need to build a system that is just, transparent and effective. We need stronger deterrents, clearer coordination with police, trauma-informed processes and urgent attention to the risks posed by artificial intelligence.

Let’s not settle for symbolic change. Let’s make real change together across partisan lines.

Korky Neufeld: First, I just want to say thank you to all the members who were open and vulnerable, shared some very difficult experiences in their lives. This impacts all of us deeply. It humanizes us all, and it erases partisan lines.

Victims are retraumatized, and even their families are retraumatized every time they retell the story. They’re very brave.

I just want to say thank you to them all and thank each member in this House for your empathy during that time.

My wife and I were very fortunate to raise our kids before this digital threat. But I have two grandchildren, a grandson that just turned six and a granddaughter that’s two — and the other children in our communities who have to navigate this very complex, very real threat.

I speak to Bill 17, which proposes a series of amendments to the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act and the Intimate Images Protection Act. At its core, this bill is about giving victims of one of the most evasive and traumatic forms of modern exploitation, the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images, a faster, more accessible and more compassionate path to justice.

I want to begin by acknowledging that intent and wholeheartedly supporting it by this side of the House.

For too long, victims of intimate-images abuse have found themselves navigating a justice system that can feel distant, a justice system that’s intimidating, a justice system that many times re-traumatizes them. Court processes can be very costly. They can be slow and deeply public, exactly the opposite of what victims need when seeking relief from a situation that already involves a profound violation of their privacy and their humanity.

This bill proposes to address that by giving the Civil Resolution Tribunal, or the CRT, direct authority over intimate image claims, removing them from the small claims category and creating a new specialized stream. This change allows people to bring or continue their claims through the tribunal instead of the courts, giving victims a choice in how they pursue justice.

It also authorizes cabinet to establish a monetary limit of up to $75,000 for these claims and empowers the CRT not only to make but to vary or to cancel orders related to intimate images, including the ability to withhold publication of decisions to prevent further exposure or harm to victims.

These changes reflect a growing understanding that justice should not be a one-size-fits-all. The traditional court system, while essential, is not always the right forum for every kind of harm, especially those rooted in digital misconduct, online harassment and the exploitation of personal images. Giving the CRT jurisdiction over these matters is, in principle, a step forward, a recognition that access to justice must also mean timely, affordable and trauma-informed justice.

However, I do want to speak carefully to some of the important questions and concerns this bill raises, because while I support its intent, the details of the implementation will determine whether it succeeds in practice.

My city in the country, Abbotsford, has also been directly impacted by these abhorred crimes. Let me just read for you some of the news articles.

“Abbotsford Man in his 30s Aentenced for Sexting with a 12-Year-Old Girl.” “The former North Vancouver husband, a father, asked a girl for nudes, knowing she was underage. He will only serve a sentence of house arrest after pleading guilty to child luring.” December 9, 2022.

[5:30 p.m.]

“A father in his 30s who had sexually explicit conversations with a 12-year-old girl and exchanged nude photos with her online will serve only a two-year conditional sentence after pleading guilty to a charge of child luring in North Vancouver Provincial Court.”

This traumatized and changed the direction of this young girl’s life, and this man, only a two-year conditional sentence.

Another article, “Abbotsford Man Pleads Guilty to Sexual Extortion Through Social Media,” April 4, 2025: “An Abbotsford man was sentenced to only nine months in prison after pleading guilty to online extortion crimes. The police department says Jesse Toews was charged in December of 2022 in relation to crimes reported by a young female being extorted through social media.”

But our small community of Abbotsford doesn’t sit idly by, so they have started to take some action. “Abbotsford’s Community Action Team Raises Awareness During Sexual Exploitation Awareness Week,” February 26, 2025.

“As the digital world expands, so do the risks for our youth. This sexual exploitation awareness week, the Abbotsford community action team, or ACAT, is once again raising awareness in high schools in Abbotsford and the broader community about sexual exploitation.

“Reports of online exploitation soared during the COVID-19 pandemic as the world turned to online. Unfortunately, these instances have not decreased after the pandemic and have been increasing year after year. For example, the B.C. RCMP integrated child exploitation, or ICE, unit handled over 16,000 cases in 2023, more than double that of 2022.”

But there is help. There are groups coming forward that are there to help.

I quote: “Sextortion: an organized attack against youth. Cybertip.ca receives an average of six sextortion reports per day. We have information on how it occurs, ways you can help prevent it and what teens can do if it happens to them.”

This issue is broad. Its impact is destructive. And here’s the challenging thing: victims are getting younger and younger. I will probably repeat what previous speakers have spoken, but I hope this government hears. Hopefully, we’ll repeat it so many times that they’ll remember.

A few considerations.

One, capacity and readiness of the CRT. The CRT was designed for disputes over strata fees, small debts and minor motor vehicle accident claims, relatively straightforward civil matters. Intimate image cases, however, are fundamentally different. They involve emotional trauma, psychological harm, reputational damage and often the need for urgent interim relief.

If we are now asking the CRT to handle cases that carry this level of sensitivity and complexity, we must also ensure it is properly equipped to do so. This means trauma-informed training for tribunal members and staff, strong privacy protections, access to legal support for unrepresented victims and consistent timelines for decision-making.

Currently there are more than 380 intimate-image-related cases already before the CRT. This bill will almost certainly increase that number. We need assurances that the tribunal has the resources and expertise to handle this growing caseload without causing new and further delays. Otherwise, what is intended as a fast-track system could quickly become another bottleneck.

Two, jurisdictional overlap and consistency. This bill allows claimants to bring an intimate image claim either before the CRT or the Provincial Court. While that flexibility is commendable, it may also create some confusion. Think about yourself as a victim, particularly those without legal representation. Victims will now need to decide between two forums, each with different procedures, each with different costs, each with different potential remedies.

[5:35 p.m.]

There is a risk that similar cases could produce inconsistent rulings depending on where they are filed. We must ensure that there’s clear, accessible guidance for claimants about which form is best suited for their case. The government should also monitor outcomes across both the CRT and the courts to ensure consistency and fairness.

Three, transparency and publication of decisions. The bill authorizes the CRT to withhold publication of decisions involving intimate-image claims in order to protect victims’ privacy and prevent further harm. This is a reasonable and compassionate measure.

There are also questions about transparency and accountability. When decisions are withheld or anonymized, it becomes more difficult to identify systemic issues. It is also difficult to track precedents and to assess whether justice is being applied equitably.

I would urge the government to establish clear criteria for when decisions can be withheld and to publish anonymized summaries or statistical reports so that the public confidence in the system remains intact. Victims’ privacy must be protected, but justice must also remain visible and accountable.

Four, monetary limits and remedies. The bill allows the cabinet to set a monetary cap of up to $75,000 for the CRT decisions in this case. That is a significant increase from typical small claims limits and reflects the serious harm these violations cause.

However, the bill does not specify when or how these limits will be set. The government should clarify whether that cap will be implemented immediately and whether the CRT will have flexibility to award non-financial remedies such as orders to remove content, prohibit further distribution or require the deletion of intimate images from online platforms. Victims must have access not only to compensation but also to meaningful, enforceable relief that helps restore their safety and their dignity.

Five, collection of personal information. The bill also introduces new provisions allowing the minister to indirectly collect personal information about individuals if it is necessary to assist an aggrieved person, particularly if there is a perceived risk of harm from the distribution or threatened distribution of an image.

While the intent is understandable and commendable to enable quicker action to protect the victims, the government must be careful to ensure that these powers are exercised with proper safeguards, proper oversight and proper respect for privacy laws. The threshold for collection should be high. Any data gathered should be used only for the purpose of assisting victims and not for broader administrative purposes.

Six, implementation, oversight and consultation. This bill gives cabinet significant regulatory powers to define jurisdiction, set monetary limits and determine procedures. That flexibility can be useful but also means that many key details will be decided after the legislation passes.

I believe it is essential that the government commit to transparent consultation with key stakeholders, including victim advocacy groups, privacy experts, legal professionals and technology platforms, when developing those regulations. British Columbians deserve to know how these decisions are being made and who is consulting.

Seven, broader context and remaining gaps. Finally, it is worth remembering that while this bill improves access to civil remedies, it does not create new criminal offences or strengthen coordination with law enforcement. In many cases, perpetrators of intimate-image abuse face few real consequences beyond civil penalties.

I read some of them just earlier, how these perpetrators are getting away with very little legal consequences. If we truly want to deter this kind of conduct, we must ensure that civil, criminal and education systems work together, that victims have a clear path to justice and that offenders understand the seriousness of their actions.

As the critic for AI, what is also missing is AI-generated sexual images, including nonconsensual deepfake pornography and intimate images created using generative AI. Technology is rapidly changing, and our policies must also be.

[5:40 p.m.]

In the digital age, the threat of having an intimate image shared without consent is something that can devastate lives in an instant. The emotional, psychological and reputational damage is profound. Too often victims are left feeling alone and powerless.

This bill is an effort to change that. It aims to make justice faster, simpler and more victim-centred. For that reason, I am cautiously supportive, but I also believe we must proceed with care. The CRT must be properly trained. The CRT must be properly resourced. The CRT must be properly monitored. Privacy protections must be strong. Transparency must not be lost. The victims must continue to have real choices and real confidence in a system that serves them.

If implemented thoughtfully, these amendments could help restore dignity and accountability in an area of law that desperately needs both. But if implemented hastily or without adequate support, we risk creating confusion and disappointment where there should be relief and resolution.

On this side of the House, we will be supporting this bill at this stage, while urging the government to provide regular updates on implementation, consultation and outcomes. This is important work, and we all share a responsibility to make sure it’s done right. In committee stage, we will be asking for more clarity and assurances.

Macklin McCall: I rise today to speak about Bill 17, the Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025. This legislation confronts a deeply serious issue, the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images, what many have come to call image-based abuse.

Let me begin by saying clearly: I support the intent of this bill. The protection of personal dignity, privacy and autonomy in the digital age is not a partisan issue. It’s a moral one. These amendments are an important attempt to help victims seek faster access to justice and to reclaim some control over their lives.

When someone’s private images are shared without consent, it’s not simply a breach of trust. It’s a violation of one’s personal rights. This can destroy careers and families and affect mental health. For some, it’s a trauma they can never fully recover from.

Creating a faster route to justice through the Civil Resolution Tribunal in principle is a step in the right direction. But as we know too well in this chamber, the gap between intention and implementation can be vast, so we must ask: will this bill truly help victims? Will it protect them? Will it be enforceable, timely and fair? Or are we creating the appearance of justice without the ability to fully deliver it?

This legislation makes important structural changes. It gives the Civil Resolution Tribunal, the CRT, jurisdiction over intimate image cases, treating them more seriously than other small claims. It allows cabinet to set a monetary ceiling of up to $75,000, ensuring that victims can pursue meaningful compensation without having to navigate the costly and intimidating world of higher courts. It also gives victims flexibility. They can choose between the CRT or Provincial Court.

Crucially, it allows the tribunal to withhold the publication of decisions in sensitive cases to prevent further humiliation or exposure.

These are sound ideas. They reflect an acknowledgement that digital exploitation requires modern tools. But tools are only useful in the hands that wield them as steady, skilled and properly supported. Without resources, coordination and clear enforcement, these measures will fall short.

We live in a world where one careless click can ruin someone’s life. An image shared in confidence can be spread to thousands within seconds. Even if it’s deleted later, it’s too late. Copies remain screenshot, archived, mirrored overseas, with additional personal data embedded in every image. This is the reality of a new frontier of harm in the digital age, yet legislation in B.C. lags behind.

Now, deterrence is as important as remedy, but this bill creates no new criminal offences, no new enforcement mechanism and no partnership with law enforcement agencies to ensure takedown or accountability. Civil remedies are not significant deterrents.

[5:45 p.m.]

The people committing these acts often act anonymously, without fear. Without the power to investigate and prosecute, we are failing victims while offenders walk free. A justice system fit for the digital age must be fast, coordinated and backed by consequences that actually mean something.

Let’s consider the true scale of what we’re dealing with. The RCMP’s National Child Exploitation Crime Centre receives over 20,000 reports every year related to the sharing of intimate or exploitative images. The Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics reports that image-based sexual abuse has tripled in the past decade, with young women under 30 being the vast majority of victims.

Police estimate that fewer than one in ten victims even come forward, most too ashamed, too confused or too afraid of not being believed. In British Columbia, those victims are told to call the police, then told to file a civil claim and then told to contact the tribunal. The process itself can become a second trauma.

Numbers are not abstract here. They represent real British Columbians, often young, whose trust was betrayed and whose lives were changed forever. This bill creates new avenues for legal recourse but no guidance for how to use them.

Right now victims have to decide between three separate systems: the CRT, the provincial court or the criminal justice process. No one tells them which one is appropriate. There is no central resource hub, no guaranteed legal aid, no victim navigation service.

There are people already traumatized, often young, isolated and terrified. To tell them, “You have options,” and then leave them to figure it out alone is not justice. It’s bureaucratic ignorance. A person should not have to choose between calling the police and filing a tribunal complaint. There should be one clearly defined path with guidance, human support and follow-through.

Victims need support, not complexity. They need compassion, not more forms. This brings me to highlight a flaw. The CRT is not a criminal body and has no power to investigate. It cannot subpoena phone records, issue search warrants or compel social media companies to cooperate. In many cases, offenders act anonymously. Victims may not even know who posted the image. How can you bring a civil claim without evidence?

This bill offers an unclear mechanism for police involvement, no shared evidence channels, no process for parallel investigations. When civil and criminal systems operate in isolation, offenders exploit the gap, and vulnerable victims will fall through it. If someone threatens to post private images to control or extort another person, that’s not a civil dispute. That’s a criminal coercion. Without enforcement and police coordination, this government is reducing crimes of exploitation to paperwork disputes.

Other jurisdictions have acted with greater clarity. Australia created an eSafety Commissioner in 2021, an independent body that forces tech companies to remove illegal images within 24 hours, an independent federal office with power to issue removal notices to platforms and individuals. Victims can file directly with the commissioner, a single point of contact. Platforms must remove intimate images within 24 hours or face fines up to $555,000 in Australian currency. Australia has built a one-stop system. A victim sends proof once, and the image comes down everywhere. That’s the kind of efficiency British Columbians deserve.

In the United Kingdom, their Online Safety Act made sharing intimate images without consent a specific criminal offence with real jail time — up to two years for threats. The U.K. government created specific criminal offences for sharing and threatening to share intimate images without consent. This provides jail guidelines, takedown powers and regulatory oversight through Ofcom and includes provisions for anonymity protection and platform responsibility. Criminal law plus regulatory oversight, not civil tribunals, is the dominant model internationally.

Here in Canada, Nova Scotia’s Cyber-safety Act attempted something similar but was struck down for overreach, a reminder that we must balance protection with due process. When Nova Scotia rushed to act, the court struck it down. Let’s not repeat that same mistake. British Columbia must protect victims and protect the rule of law.

Meanwhile, the European Union recognizes the right to be forgotten, where individuals can demand erasure of personal data online, including images. This is closely enforced through national data protection authorities. There digital privacy protection is treated as a fundamental right, not an optional process.

[5:50 p.m.]

Another example is New Zealand’s Harmful Digital Communications Act of 2015. It allows victims to complain to an independent approved agency that mediates with offenders and platforms. If mediation fails, victims can apply to the district court, which can issue takedown and non-publication orders. This approach is focused on being accessible, human-scaled and focused on resolution before litigation.

What distinguishes these international models is coordination and enforcement. Victims in those jurisdictions have a clear, single authority to turn to, while offenders face clear punishments as deterrence. In British Columbia, this bill disperses responsibility across multiple bodies, none of which are fully equipped to respond. It’s the illusion of reform without the infrastructure to make it real.

Once again, this government’s answer to a complex human problem is to push it further into a bureaucratic maze. We’ve seen it before. New offices, new portals, new forms, but limited accountability or justice for victims. The CRT is being asked to handle matters of deep trauma and digital privacy as if they were strata disputes. Justice cannot be reduced to an administrative process. Victims don’t want another website. They want someone to take responsibility when things have gone wrong.

Consider a hypothetical young woman. Her ex-partner posts private messages online after a breakup. She reports it to the site. No reply. She goes to police and is told to seek civil remedy. She contacts the CRT and is told she needs the perpetrator’s name. After months of trying, she gives up. The images remain online forever. That’s what access to justice could look like with incomplete legislation and minimal coordination.

This is not just an abstract case. There are real British Columbians being let down right now by the same system this bill seeks to expand.

Let me share two examples that should give this House pause. The first concerns the Civil Resolution Tribunal’s ongoing dispute with X, formerly known as Twitter, over the nonconsensual posting of an intimate image belonging to a British Columbian woman, referred to in tribunal findings as TR. Her image was uploaded without consent and shared widely on the platform. She did what every victim is told to do. She reported the post, contacted the police and ultimately sought recourse through the CRT under the Intimate Images Protection Act, which came into force just last year.

The tribunal ruled in her favour. It ordered X to remove the image and pay a penalty for non-compliance. Instead of taking responsibility, the company refused to delete it globally. It merely geofenced the image, blocking access within Canada, while leaving it visible everywhere else in the world. The tribunal found that response unacceptable and levied a $100,000 fine, warning that further penalties could follow. Yet to this day, questions remain about whether the image was ever fully erased or whether the platform will simply absorb the fine as a cost of doing business.

That case tells us two things. First, that victims are using the new laws. They are trying to find justice. Second, and more troubling, is that our provincial system cannot enforce its decisions beyond our borders. If one of the world’s largest companies can brush off a tribunal order from British Columbia, what chance does the average victim have when the perpetrator is anonymous, offshore or using an encrypted app? This is not theoretical. It is happening in real time. It underscores precisely why Bill 17 must go beyond jurisdictional language and address enforcement in the digital domain.

The second example involves the first damages award ever issued under the Intimate Images Protection Act. Earlier this year, the tribunal awarded a woman $5,000 in compensation after finding that her private photos were shared without consent. This case, too, is historic. It marks the first successful civic award under this new regime.

It also exposes a sobering truth, that $5,000 may acknowledge harm, but it does not begin to reflect the scale of the violation or the emotional and professional damage many victims endure. It’s roughly what you might receive in a small claims car accident, hardly justice for an act that can destroy a person’s life.

That is where Bill 17’s monetary cap provisions come into focus. If the government is serious about empowerment, then compensation must be meaningful. Victims should not be forced to accept token awards for what amounts to digital assault.

[5:55 p.m.]

These two real-world cases, one concerning a multinational tech giant and both involving individual British Columbians, reveal both the potential and the profound limits of our current framework. The tribunal can issue decisions, but it cannot compel international compliance. It can award damages, but it cannot make those damages consistent with the harm.

British Columbians deserve a system that doesn’t stop at moral victories. We need clear enforcement mechanisms that cross borders, meaningful penalties that deter repeat offenders and faster trauma-informed processes that don’t take months to resolve. Right now the only people truly complying with the law are the victims.

The CRT is not prepared for this work. The Civil Resolution Tribunal was designed for strata fees, for parking disputes and small debts, not digital exploitation with psychological trauma.

This bill adds an enormous new workload without new resources. There are already 381 active cases before the CRT involving intimate-image disputes. This bill will multiply that number. Where is the plan to hire and train trauma-informed staff? Where are the digital forensic specialists, the privacy experts, the funding commitments? Without them, this bill will create backlogs and frustration, the opposite of justice.

If a victim files a CRT claim while police are investigating the same incident, what happens? Will they have to testify twice? Will evidence overlap? Will different bodies issue contradictory rulings? None of this is adequately addressed. We cannot afford disconnected systems when dealing with crimes that are inherently digital, fast moving, and cross-jurisdictional. British Columbia needs a unified digital justice framework, not a patchwork of silos.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Let’s also confront the role of the digital and online platforms themselves. Social media companies have profited immensely from the open sharing of user content. But when that content includes someone’s private image, they suddenly claim neutrality.

In Australia and the U.K., platforms are required to remove harmful material within strict timelines or face penalties. Here in B.C., victims are still told to submit online takedown requests and wait. Justice should not depend on whether a multinational tech company feels like replying to an email.

Clause 12 of this bill gives the Attorney General power to collect personal information about affected individuals without consent if deemed reasonably necessary. While the intent is to help victims, the scope of this authority raises concerns. Who decides what is necessary? Who oversees this decision? Could it be quietly expanded over time?

Conservatives believe that the state exists to protect freedom, not to become the sole custodian of it. Privacy is not the government’s to grant or revoke. It’s a natural right that predates bureaucracy. When the state assumes the power to collect private data without judicial oversight, even for good reasons, it risks eroding the very liberty it claims to defend.

I wish to stress that we can protect victims without normalizing surveillance. Ultimately, true deterrence for offenders lies in criminal law. Yet there is no clear coordination on how image-based abuse cases are to be managed. The result is duplication and confusion, no shared database, no integrated victim services and no unified national strategy for digital takedown protocols. We need collaboration, not competition, between levels of government because predators don’t care about jurisdictional boundaries.

The CRT is entirely online. That might seem efficient in theory, but in practice, it creates barriers. Many older British Columbians, rural residents and people without stable internet access will struggle to use it. Victims without digital literacy or resources will face yet another barrier between them and justice. That’s how we create two-tier justice, quick for those who know the system, slow or impossible for those who don’t. Justice should never depend on geography or Wi-Fi.

We must confront an uncomfortable truth. Our legal system moves in years while technology evolves in weeks. The greatest weakness in this bill is not intent but implementation. Social media platforms are borderless. Servers hosting illicit images are often overseas, outside Canadian jurisdiction. A tribunal order in British Columbia has no practical force in California or Singapore. Without international cooperation, takedown orders are symbolic gestures.

The government has not explained how these tribunal decisions will be enforced beyond our borders, nor have they presented a plan for engaging major tech firms headquartered elsewhere.

[6:00 p.m.]

Conservatives believe in the rule of law, but the rule of law must also mean the reach of law. It must be enforceable. Otherwise, the very people this bill seeks to protect will remain trapped in a system that can only write letters to websites that will never read them.

Real digital justice requires partnership between the provincial government, the federal government and industry. British Columbia should be leading those national conversations, not waiting for Ottawa to act.

It’s not enough to create new categories of claims. We must create new capabilities of enforcement. A modern government should be able to contact a platform, flag a harmful image and have it removed within hours, not months. This is the benchmark of genuine protection in the digital age.

The bill allows the CRT to withhold decisions to protect privacy, and that’s understandable, but too much secrecy undermines transparency. If decisions aren’t published, how will we know whether justice is consistent, fair or effective? We must protect victims’ identities without concealing the operations of justice itself. That’s how public trust is maintained.

Laws punish behaviour. Education prevents it. Digital literacy must become part of the curriculum, like it is in Saskatchewan. Young people need to understand that consent does not end when the camera turns off. It extends to the digital realm.

Parents need tools to talk about digital respect. Schools need resources to teach it. Prevention is not about censorship. It is about responsibility, and personal responsibility is the cornerstone of freedom.

There is also the aspect of an economic cost in lost income, mental health treatment and policing resources. Studies estimate that the average victim of image-based abuse loses over $10,000 in productivity and legal costs. If this bill succeeds, it could save lives and dollars. But if it fails, taxpayers will end up paying twice, once for the victims and once again for the bureaucracy that failed them.

While we discuss statutes and clauses, we must not lose sight of the people living with the consequences. Victims of image-based abuse face profound psychological trauma. Studies from the Canadian Women’s Foundation and UBC’s faculty of law show that nearly 80 percent of victims experience symptoms of depression and anxiety. Sadly, one in five report suicidal thoughts.

The fear of judgment, the loss of control and the permanence of online exposure create a form of ongoing victimization, what experts now call digital permanence trauma. Yet this legislation contains no requirement that tribunal staff receive trauma-informed training, no requirement for psychological support services, no victim advocate built into the process.

In courtrooms across Canada, victims of sexual assault are offered access to specialized prosecutors and counselling referrals. Why are victims of digital sexual abuse treated differently? A trauma-informed justice system recognizes that healing and justice are intertwined. It ensures that victims are not retraumatized by the very system meant to help them.

The Conservative vision of justice is rooted in both compassion and deterrence. We believe that government’s role is not to perform empathy but to deliver it through structure, training, accountability and strict enforcement. If we want victims to come forward, if we truly want to end the culture of silence, then the system must meet them where they are, with sensitivity and respect. If we want offenders to be deterred, then we need swift justice and strong punishments.

Bill 17 tackles an urgent problem, and it deserves serious consideration. But good laws require more than compassion; they require competence. If we’re going to send victims to the CRT, we must fund it properly, staff it properly and train it properly. If we’re going to offer victims a choice of legal paths, we must ensure they have the information to make that choice safely. If we truly want accountability, we must make coordination between CRT, law enforcement and prosecutors the rule, not the exception.

Justice must be swift, fair and accessible, but above all, it must be real. A democracy like B.C. measures justice not by how many laws we pass but how well those laws defend the dignity and liberty of the individual and deliver justice and swift punishment for the offender.

Let us make sure that this law and the system around it lives up to that standard.

[6:05 p.m.]

Linda Hepner: I rise today to speak to Bill 17, the Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act.

Before I begin my remarks, I do want to acknowledge my colleagues from Langley–Walnut Grove and from Prince George–Valemount and Prince George–Mackenzie for their incredibly powerful and brave comments this afternoon that really struck me emotionally.

In Surrey–Serpentine River, our communities are built on hard work, family values and personal responsibility, principles that I think define British Columbia’s conservative heart. Our neighbourhoods, from Cloverdale to Fleetwood, are home to diverse families who cherish trust, honour and the sanctity of personal dignity.

Yet for far too many, especially our young women, that dignity is stolen when intimate images are shared without consent. And I know it’s not just women. There are oftentimes young boys and men who are also victims.

This is not just a crime. It’s a violation of the values that we all hold dear. It’s a betrayal that erodes mental health, shatters reputations, destabilizes families and has even had suicidal results. In communities where honour is a cornerstone, the damage is profound.

Bill 17, the Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, aims to address this scourge, and we support it. We also believe that it can be improved.

Let me be clear that we stand with victims. The stories, even from Surrey, a student humiliated by a vengeful ex, a mother fearing for her daughter’s future and a young boy being bullied…. They all demand actions. This is so, so personal. We believe in protecting the vulnerable.

Not all claims can be defined by a monetary stipend. We also need the corresponding police resources, the corresponding victim services, the trauma counsellors and the system that will get us through what could very well be a long and scary process for victims.

While Bill 17 takes steps forward, it does risk becoming another government program that overpromises and underdelivers, and we must ensure that that does not happen here. In some cases, perpetrators may be hard to find, even harder to prosecute.

The bill has many merits. Clause 3 expands the Civil Resolution Tribunal’s role, allowing victims to seek protection orders and damages without the crushing costs of Supreme Court litigation. For families in Surrey, where legal fees can be a barrier, this is a practical step.

The tribunal, however, is not necessarily equipped for high-value damages, so that’s something we need to look at as we go through the committee stage of this process.

Clause 4 in the bill ensures victims can access legal representation if needed. That may level the playing field, no matter the economic reality of some of our victims, especially those that have less of a claim than some of the others that we’ve heard about from my colleagues and across the aisle today.

Clause 10’s provisions that protect privacy and sensitive orders are also commendable, recognizing the deeply, deeply personal nature of these cases. These measures align with my belief in empowering individuals to seek justice without undue financial burden.

[6:10 p.m.]

However, good intentions don’t always guarantee good outcomes. Bill 17 lacks clarity, accountability and the proactive measures that we need to truly protect British Columbians.

Let me just talk a little bit about, I think, some of the things that we can deal with at committee stage: the CRT and its ability to manage the capacity of cases, the specialized training that will be necessary and a pathway that people can use to understand what is available to help and where is their best avenue to proceed.

Clause 12, which allows the minister to collect personal data to support victims, is vague and ripe for abuse. Privacy is a fundamental right, not a privilege to be eroded by bureaucratic overreach. In Surrey, where trust in government is hard-earned, constituents worry about their personal information being mishandled.

We’ve seen too many data breaches. Think of the ICBC breach in 2019, that scandal where personal records were compromised. Without ironclad safeguards, clause 12 risks becoming a blank cheque for intrusion. We would support amending it, perhaps to tie it to data collection within the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, with mandatory audits and, at least, public transparency down the road to ensure accountability.

One of the other clauses, 5, has flexible damages limits, and they sound very reasonable, but they lack transparency on how those limits and amounts would be set. Without clear guidelines, we risk arbitrary decisions that could either shortchange victims or overburden defendants, clogging the courts even more.

I believe in fairness and predictability. Perhaps we should have some better understanding before damages limits…. I was very pleased to read, in the bill itself, that the limit currently goes as high as $75,000, and I think that’s reflective of how important this issue is to both sides of the House.

The bill is reactive, not proactive. Justice after the fact is certainly necessary, but prevention is even better. In Surrey, our tech-savvy youth are already glued to platforms like Snapchat and TikTok, where intimate-image-sharing is a growing risk. Reports show that over 1,200 complaints have come in to B.C. since 2024 — with Surrey, by the way, hit hard; we had the higher number of those complaints — yet Bill 17 does nothing to address the root causes.

Conservatives believe in empowering communities, not just courts, so we urge the government to advance more digital literacy programs in B.C. schools, teaching kids about content, online risk and personal responsibilities. Prevention saves families from pain and saves taxpayers from costly legal battles.

To make Bill 17 work, we do need practical solutions.

Strengthen oversight. Clause 8’s transitional rules are a start, but we need regular public reports on tribunal, court and victim outcomes — case backlogs, resolution and how the court has performed relative to this new legislation that we’re looking at today. This data would show whether the system is delivering or just creating more red tape.

[6:15 p.m.]

Second, hold online platforms accountable. Companies like Meta and ByteDance profit while our kids face harm. Government must push for federal-provincial collaboration to enforce stricter regulations on social media giants, ensuring they prioritize users’ safety over profits.

To ensure Bill 17 succeeds, the government must commit to a rigorous, ongoing assessment, like annual performance reports. Require the Civil Resolution Tribunal and the court to publish data on the case volumes, the resolution times and the victims’ satisfaction. This will expose when there are bottlenecks and ensure accountability, reflecting our demand for results-driven governance.

I think we need community feedback mechanisms. Seek out high-impact areas like Surrey to gather impact from victims, families and advocates to ensure that the law adapts to the community needs without top-down mandates.

I would also suggest that perhaps we need a comprehensive five-year review assessing how effective this has been and if there were any other unintended consequences. Take a look at the transparency and trust that we have received from the public, should this make its way entirely through the House.

At the committee stage, I would like to expand on a little bit more of that.

We do support British Columbians from digital abuse, and Bill 17 is a welcome step, but it is not enough. We envision a B.C. where individuals are also empowered to protect themselves and where communities lead the way in prevention. We have many grassroots advocates who stand with victims today, and their work reminds us that solutions often come from communities working with legislators.

As we move forward to committee stage with this bill, I look forward to talking more about where I think we can make some improvements. But I completely support Bill 17 and thank the government, the opposition, for recognizing how important this is to communities, no matter what side of the House you’re sitting on in this Legislature.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to Bill 17 today.

Amelia Boultbee: I would also like to thank my colleagues who spoke previous to me who shared very personal and very moving and powerful stories related to this piece of legislation. Thank you for that.

I rise today to speak to Bill 17, the Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025. This is a bill that speaks to one of the most devastating forms of modern harm, the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images, and the long shadow it casts over victims, families and communities.

Before we dive into the details, I want to talk about people. Behind every clause in this bill is a life that was changed forever by an image that should have never left someone’s private hands.

Few British Columbians will ever forget the name Amanda Todd. She was a 15-year-old girl from Port Coquitlam who in 2012 shared a single image under duress, an image that was used to torment her, blackmail her and eventually drive her to despair.

She posted a video before she died, holding up flashcards to tell her story not with words but with silence and courage. That video has been viewed millions of times. It was a plea for understanding and a warning that went unanswered for far too long.

Amanda’s death became a turning point for Canada. It forced this country and this province to recognize that the internet had created a new kind of cruelty, a cruelty that follows you into your bedroom, your classroom and your workplace. A cruelty that never switches off.

[6:20 p.m.]

We would like to think that since Amanda’s death, things have changed, that laws, education and awareness have made this kind of harm a relic of the past. But the truth is it’s getting worse. Every school in British Columbia, including those in my own riding of Penticton-Summerland, has seen the growing impact of online exploitation.

Teachers and counsellors are dealing with this rise in what used to be the unthinkable — youth being manipulated online, pressured to share intimate photos or having images circulated among classmates.

This isn’t something happening somewhere else. It’s happening in this province. Just last year, a South Okanagan case made headlines when a teenager was charged after filming sexual content and threatening to share it without consent.

The story, covered widely by local media, including Castanet news, sparked an urgent conversation about online safety and consent education in our schools. School district 67 confirmed, in that coverage, that consent and digital responsibility are now part of its sexual health curriculum.

These aren’t isolated incidents. They’re part of a growing and painful reality that our educators are struggling to address in real time. They are dealing with it, often, when it is already too late and after they have gone viral. This is happening in our schools, in our communities and in the lives of families who never imagined their children would become targets for digital exploitation.

Imagine that feeling, being a parent, knowing that your child’s pain is spreading faster than you can even understand it; that the image is out there, copied, shared, reposted. There’s no way to bring it back — no lock, no door, no safe place where it can’t reach them.

That is the reality of the harm that we’re talking about today. It’s not just about privacy; it’s about human dignity. This is the kind of harm that can follow a person for life. It doesn’t just end with embarrassment or emotional distress. It reaches into their work, their livelihoods and their futures.

As a lawyer, I have worked on cases such as this, and I have personally seen the firsthand devastation that it leaves victims. For many victims, especially adults, a private image leaked online becomes a professional sentence. Teachers, nurses, lawyers and public servants — people who have built careers on trust and integrity — suddenly find themselves judged not for their ability but for something done to them.

A single image can undo years of education and hard work. Employers search a name online, and instead of a resume, they find an invasion, a crime. Colleagues whisper. Clients disappear. Doors close quietly. I’ve heard from professionals who left their careers altogether because they couldn’t bear the stigma or the gossip that followed. Some are terrified every time they apply for a new job or promotion, wondering if that image will surface again or if it already has.

For young adults, it can mean the loss of internships, apprenticeships or the confidence to even enter the workforce. They start to see the internet not as a tool for opportunity but as a weapon that could be turned against them at any moment.

We often talk about economic opportunity and equality in this House, but this is an equality issue too, because the people most often targeted by image-based abuse are women, and the consequences they face in professional life are often far harsher and longer lasting. Reputations can be rebuilt after mistakes but not after violations that often live forever online. The internet never forgets, and society rarely forgives.

For many victims, that becomes the cruelest part of it, not the original act but the relentless permanence of it. What was meant to humiliate them once becomes a shadow that follows them through every job interview, every relationship, every new beginning.

It reaches far beyond age or circumstance. This kind of harm can touch anyone — students, professionals, parents and partners alike. It crosses boundaries of gender, income and community. The common thread is the same: the loss of control, the loss of dignity and the loss of peace of mind.

For some, the consequences are public — careers damaged, reputations shattered, trust eroded in workplaces and relationships.

[6:25 p.m.]

For others, the pain is private — sleepless nights, constant fear and the quiet erosion of confidence that comes from never knowing when that image might resurface or who has it. It can end relationships and careers and, for some, make life itself feel unbearable, as we have heard in this chamber today.

That’s why this bill matters, because the sharing of explicit images without consent isn’t just online mischief. It’s a form of violence — emotional, psychological and social. It’s a violation that leaves deep scars and, for too many, no way back.

When I look at this bill, I think not only of Amanda Todd, whose story still haunts our conscience and mine, but of the countless unnamed victims who will never make headlines, the professionals who lose their livelihoods, the partners betrayed, the people who find their most private moments weaponized against them. And I think of families, not just parents but spouses, siblings and friends, who stand by helplessly as someone they love becomes trapped in a digital nightmare with no clear way out.

For them, it’s the desperate hope that someone somewhere will take this suffering seriously and act quickly to make a difference. This bill in many ways is a response to that plea. It tells victims that their pain is real, that their privacy matters and that the law will stand beside them.

We must also be honest. This legislation, while important, is only one part of the solution. Behind every image that gets shared without consent, there is a human story, one that begins long before the law ever gets involved. By the time a case reaches a tribunal or a courtroom, the damage has already been done. The question for us as legislators is how to stop that harm before it begins and how to deter that behaviour.

We have an obligation to do more than respond to pain. We must work to prevent it. We must ensure that every British Columbian, young or old, has both the tools and the confidence to protect themselves and the reassurance that when harm does occur, there is a system ready to help.

Bill 17 takes a meaningful step forward. But as I’ll discuss later, there is still more work to be done to strengthen, clarify and build on it, because if we don’t get this right, we will continue to fail the very people we are trying to protect.

The sharing of explicit images without consent isn’t a one-time event. An intimate photo, once released, takes on a life of its own and travels across continents, replicated thousands of times, often by strangers who will never know the person in the picture but who, in doing so, help destroy their life all the same. The harm is profound, personal and touches every part of a person’s being.

For many, this comes with a loss of trust in friends, institutions and even in themselves. The question of who they can rely on and whether they can ever rebuild a sense of safety…. The internet has turned what used to be fleeting gossip into permanent evidence. A rumour used to last a week. An image now lasts forever.

I have spoken to young women who no longer apply for jobs because they’re terrified that a potential employer will google their name and see something they didn’t consent to. The law calls this nonconsensual distribution of intimate images. Victims call this the end of privacy and, often, the end of peace.

While Amanda Todd’s story is the most well known, she is not alone. Across British Columbia, police and counsellors are seeing a rise in what we are calling sextortion, predators targeting youth online, coercing them into sending images and threatening to share them unless they pay or send more. It’s happening to children as young as 12.

In 2024, Victoria police issued a public warning after multiple local students were targeted through Instagram and Snapchat. Some victims were so distraught, they attempted to take their own lives.

Now technology has created a new frontier of exploitation, one that didn’t exist even a few years ago. I’m talking about AI-generated deepfakes — realistic, computer-generated images that can make it appear as though someone has posed in an explicit photo or video when they never did. This has actually happened to me.

[6:30 p.m.]

You don’t even have to make a mistake anymore to be victimized. Someone can take your face, your likeness, and with a few clicks, create an image that could potentially ruin your life. That’s where we are in 2025.

While our laws are trying to catch up, technology is sprinting ahead.

AI tools that can manipulate, fabricate and distribute images are now freely available online, often marketed as entertainment. The result is a growing number of victims who can’t even prove that the image of them is fake, because to most people, it looks real. The damage, however, is the same, and the damage is real.

We’ve entered an era where consent can be faked and reputations can be destroyed by code. That’s why this bill and this discussion matter so deeply. It’s not just about keeping pace with technology. It’s about defending the right to dignity in a world where privacy has become a luxury, and it’s about recognizing that this issue is not limited to teenagers or public figures. It affects people across every demographic — students, parents, teachers, health care workers, small business owners and even seniors.

In smaller communities, like those in my riding of Penticton-Summerland, the harm can be even more intense. Everyone knows everyone. A single photo can spread through a community in hours, leaving no refuge for the victim.

These are not isolated stories. They are daily realities. The problem isn’t slowing down; it’s accelerating. Every new app, every new AI tool, every new platform adds another layer of risk. Yet most victims don’t know where to turn. They don’t know how to have an image removed, they don’t know what legal recourse they have, and they often don’t even know that some laws exist to protect them. By the time they reach out for help, the harm has multiplied, and the trauma is compounded by helplessness.

That’s what makes this bill important, because it acknowledges a truth that many have tried to ignore: that digital harm is real. It’s not something that happens in a separate, pretend, online world. It’s something in the real world that affects real people in real time, in every corner of this province.

As we recognize that, we must also be careful to not treat this bill as the end of the conversation, because the threat is evolving faster than our legislation. We need to ensure that the tools we’re creating today are strong enough to protect people for tomorrow. If we fall behind, it won’t just be the technology that moves faster than the law. It will be the harm itself. And every day we delay, another person, another family, another child could become the next Amanda Todd.

For some of its limitations, and there are some that I will speak to, this bill deserves credit for one thing in that it recognizes reality. It recognizes that the harm caused by the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images is one of the defining safety challenges of our time, one that began with the early days of the internet and has now grown more dangerous with every new platform, algorithm and every new way to share.w

We are long past the era when online harm could be dismissed as virtual. The internet is no longer separate from our lives; it is our lives. It’s where we study, work, meet, fall in love and express ourselves. That means it’s also where we can be hurt the most deeply.

I want to acknowledge that this bill does acknowledge that reality. It takes an area of law that was designed for a slower, simpler time and brings it into the digital age. It says that victims shouldn’t have to wait months for a hearing or spend thousands of dollars on legal fees to have an explicit photo taken down. It does create a faster, more accessible path to justice through the Civil Resolution Tribunal, one that ordinary people can navigate without a lawyer.

For a victim, that speed matters. When a photo is spreading online, every hour counts. The difference between immediate intervention and delayed response can mean the difference between recovery and catastrophe.

This bill also brings a welcome clarity to how intimate image claims are handled. It consolidates the confusing overlap between different statutes, aligning the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act with the Intimate Images Protection Act passed in 2023.

[6:35 p.m.]

It’s technical work, but it’s important because legal confusion too often leaves victims stranded between agencies, unsure where to turn or who has the authority to help them.

The bill also protects privacy and justice, recognizing that victims who have already been exposed should not have to relive that exposure through the publication of tribunal decisions or legal documents that carry their names.

That’s not about secrecy. It’s about compassion. It’s about ensuring that the act of seeking justice doesn’t become another form of public shaming. It’s about something even deeper, the principle that people who have been violated should not have to sacrifice their dignity to find redress.

The bill also represents something broader. A growing social recognition that technology is not neutral. It can be used for harm as easily as for good, and if the law doesn’t keep pace, it becomes an accomplice to exploitation. By expanding the jurisdiction of the Civil Resolution Tribunal and modernizing the language of the law, this bill moves British Columbia one step closer to closing that gap.

It also builds on the foundation laid by the Intimate Images Protection Act, which itself was a landmark recognition that the justice system must evolve to meet digital threats. In that sense, Bill 17 is part of a much larger story, one that began with tragedy but can now move toward accountability and protection. When we talk about the importance of this bill, we are not just talking about the law. We are talking about hope.

We are talking about sending a message to every victim who has ever felt powerless, every young person who has ever been humiliated online, every parent who has watched their child crumble that their government sees them, believes them and is willing to act. That’s why this bill matters. While we can’t undo the pain that has already been caused, we can make sure that the system moves faster, listens better and protects sooner.

The bill is an important acknowledgement that the internet may be global but the responsibility to protect the people of British Columbia begins right here in this chamber. The legislation gets several things right, and it’s important to acknowledge those steps before we talk about what is missing.

Bill 17 takes the right approach in making justice more accessible. Previously victims of image-based abuse had only two choices: call the police and hope for a criminal investigation, or hire a lawyer and face months, often years, in the civil courts and a lot of expense. Most victims can’t afford either the time or expense. By moving these cases to the Civil Resolution Tribunal, the government is creating a path that is faster, less formal and less intimidating.

Victims can file claims online, get expedited protection orders and seek damages without facing the cost or trauma of a full court process. That accessibility matters. It matters to young people who don’t know where to start or single parents who can’t take time off to navigate the courts. It matters to anyone who has already been stripped of control and dignity and needs a process that gives some of that back.

By allowing the Civil Resolution Tribunal to withhold publication of its decisions in intimate image cases, this bill acknowledges that victims deserve protection from not only the person who harmed them but from the system that’s supposed to help them.

For everything the bill does right, we should not ignore what it leaves undone. This legislation, while necessary, is still reactive and not preventative. When we are talking about something as devastating and far-reaching as the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images, after is already too late. Prevention and education still need to be emphasized by this government.

Every parent I’ve spoken to in my riding says the same thing: “We can’t keep up.” They can’t keep up with the platforms, the risks and the new ways their children can be targeted online. Our education system, though full of dedicated teachers and counsellors, hasn’t yet been given the tools or the resources to keep up either.

[6:40 p.m.]

The government often talks of digital literacy, but what we need is digital safety — real, consistent education in every school about online exploitation, consent and the permanence of images shared online.

We need to teach kids not only how to protect themselves but also how to protect each other. The cruelty that drives this crisis often comes not from strangers but from peers. It is not enough to tell young people to be careful what they share. That can sometimes place the burden on the victim instead of the perpetrator. It implies that privacy is a privilege and not a right.

The second gap is in how we respond to victims after the harm has occurred. While this bill creates a faster legal path, there is no emotional or psychological path that accompanies it or accompanying legislation. There is nothing in this legislation about counselling supports, trauma recovery or mental health services for victims or their families.

Yet the connection between digital exploitation and the mental health crisis is undeniable. We’ve seen it in our schools. We’ve seen it in our hospitals. We have seen it in the heartbreaking stories like Amanda Todd’s.

When a victim calls a government helpline, they need more than a referral. They need someone who understands trauma and who can guide them through every step — legal, emotional and digital. What the bill does is give victims a process, and what it doesn’t give them is support in one place. Until we bridge that gap, we are still leaving victims to fight their battles alone.

Another major omission in this bill is the lack of accountability for the platforms where this harm lives and spreads. The bill focuses on victims, perpetrators and tribunals but not on the companies or accomplices that host and often profit from the content. Big tech cannot continue to shrug off accountability and responsibility while lives are being destroyed for profit on their platforms. The burden shouldn’t fall entirely on victims to chase takedowns or prove harm.

There should be clear obligations for platforms to remove explicit content swiftly when notified, with real penalties for failure to comply. Right now an individual can have a court order, a tribunal order or even a police report. But if the platform doesn’t act, the image remains. We need stronger laws that make social media platforms active partners in protection, not passive bystanders.

This legislation also does not adequately address artificial intelligence, and that is a problem that’s only going to grow. Deepfake technology allows anyone anywhere to take an image of a person, even an innocent photo, and transform it into something explicit. For victims, the result is indistinguishable from an actual photo. We must ensure that future amendments close this gap so that the next wave of victims targeted through synthetic imagery are not left without protection simply because the law is a few years behind the technology.

I also want to raise a concern about privacy and oversight, not to criticize the intent of this bill but to ensure that compassion doesn’t come at the expense of accountability. The bill gives the Attorney General’s ministry new powers to collect personal information about affected individuals from sources other than those individuals themselves. While the intent to help victims navigate the system is commendable, it opens questions about how that information is gathered, who can access it and how it’s stored.

Finally, there is the issue of damages and limits. The bill allows the Civil Resolution Tribunal to handle claims for damages up to a certain limit, but it doesn’t define the limit in law. It leaves it to cabinet to set later by regulation. This is one clarification I would like to pursue in committee so that victims will have certainty about what compensation will actually be available to them tomorrow.

For some, the harm caused by these violations — the lost jobs, the therapy costs and the lifelong impact — can’t simply be measured in small claims figures or civil resolution figures. We should ensure that victims can seek adequate compensation without being forced into costly court battles.

[6:45 p.m.]

I know that every member in this chamber would agree that the kind of harm we are talking about today is intolerable. We may differ on how we get there, but our goal is the same: to make British Columbia safer for everyone who calls it home, especially for our young people.

The question is not whether this bill should pass. It should. The question is how we make it stronger, how we close the gaps and how we ensure that it truly meets the moment we are living in.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We need to bring together schools, parents, law enforcement, technology companies and advocacy groups to build a coordinated approach, one that focuses not just on legal remedies but on education, prevention and mental health. The Civil Resolution Tribunal can offer a process, but it must do more, and that is where the next phase of this work may go.

While I stand today in support of this bill, we must have further discussion in the later stages of this legislative process. With that, I will conclude my comments.

Amelia Boultbee moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Point of Order
(Speaker’s Ruling)

The Speaker: Hon. Members, further to the point of order raised earlier today by the member for Burnaby East, the Chair has confirmed that no unparliamentary language was recorded in Hansard by the member for Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream.

Following discussion with the members involved and clarification of the words exchanged, the Chair is satisfied that the matter has been resolved.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:47 p.m.