Contents

The House met at 1:02 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

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

Hon. Jodie Wickens presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill intituled Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2025.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I move that Bill 29 be introduced and read a first time now.

It is my honour to introduce amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act. This statute is the foundational legislative framework for the child-protective system in British Columbia.

Every day child protection workers meet families who are facing some of the most challenging times of their lives. They work to keep children safe and supported. This can mean working with families to help care for their children and connecting them with the supports that they need, or it can mean making incredibly difficult decisions, such as to remove a child from an unsafe home.

Above all, the most important thing at the centre of all of this work is the safety and well-being of children and youth. That is what I am most concerned about as a mother and as the minister. It’s what families and staff in community are most concerned about.

The legislation I’m introducing today is about safety plans, which are one of the least intrusive measures available to help keep children and youth safe and supported.

[1:05 p.m.]

A safety plan is a voluntary, short-term and collaborative process between a child’s parents and ministry staff. They are a common tool used in the early stages of a child protection response, while an initial assessment or investigation is underway or a decision on a court order application is pending.

Safety plans are used to mitigate safety concerns in a way that supports the child or youth so they are able to remain safely with their parent or a trusted adult. Safety plans include information related to the concerns at hand, names of the parties involved and a description of the respective roles of the plan and actions to be taken to ensure that a child is safe.

The amendments will make it clear that the safety planning process provides the space to build or strengthen involvement with an Indigenous child’s community to support their sense of belonging and connection to culture, languages and customs.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: 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.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Ravi Parmar: This House continues second reading on Bill 17.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

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

Claire Rattée: I’m speaking today to Bill 17.

I just wanted to start by saying that there were a lot of really powerful speeches given on this yesterday from colleagues on both sides of the House, and I really appreciated hearing those stories. This is a very important piece of legislation. Those personal stories are a really important part of it.

If you would allow me, I would just like to really briefly say, because it’s my first time speaking outside of question period as we’ve come back into this session, that I’m really grateful for this experience, for the people of Skeena putting their faith and their trust in me to serve them here. I think that this piece of legislation could potentially be very helpful to a lot of people in my riding and throughout this province.

Bill 17 is an important piece of legislation that proposes to amend both the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act and the Intimate Images Protection Act. The subject of this bill is deeply painful for many British Columbians, but it is precisely because of that pain and because the stakes are so high that we must engage with this bill fully, sensitively and empathetically.

This is a very important issue, now more than ever, due to the changing digital world and the rising frequency of intimate images being shared without consent. At the core of Bill 17 is a promise that individuals who have had intimate images shared without their consent will have a faster, more accessible and more victim-centred path for relief.

The government is rightly seeking to shift the burden away from victims; to reduce barriers of cost, delay and legal complexity; and to send a strong social message that non-consensual distribution of intimate images is not merely a private affront but a deeply harmful act deserving serious remedy.

I support that intent, and I believe that the law must evolve to reflect the realities of our digital age where photos, videos, live streams, AI-generated fakes and the instantaneous spread of content make intimate image abuse devastatingly easy and damaging. But support in principle is not enough.

[1:10 p.m.]

For laws to protect rather than injure, they must be well-designed, trauma-aware, resourced and coherent. That’s why I’d like to use today’s speech to voice both encouragement and caution and, during committee stage, to press for stronger safeguards.

We must never forget that behind every claim, every statutory term and every decision, there is a human being — someone who has trusted another person, shared a private moment, intentionally or not, and been betrayed; someone whose reputation, dignity, self-esteem and emotional well-being are at risk.

In our digital era, the sharing of intimate images without consent no longer requires secret cameras or stolen prints. It can happen with a tap on a smartphone, screenshots, forwarding, reposting, deepfakes and algorithmic spread. The velocity and scale of distribution often mean that even if you succeed eventually in getting something taken down, copies spread elsewhere in degrees you can’t trace.

The harm is not hypothetical. Survivors describe relentless humiliation, fear, suicidal ideation, loss of employment, social isolation and lifelong shame. I know many people who have been affected by this issue, and the consequences really are devastating.

Our legal system must respond with compassion, speed and sensitivity. Traditional courts — with costs, delays, procedural complexity and the trauma of exposure — often discourage victims from coming forward. Many never do. The psychological barrier is immense.

So when government proposes a pathway via the tribunal, with simpler processes, lower cost, confidentiality protections and more speed, we must take that seriously. We must also ask: does the design live up to the ideal, and will implementation realize rather than frustrate that promise?

Already under the existing Intimate Images Protection Act, the Civil Resolution Tribunal may issue protection orders to delete, de-index or require removal of content, as well as award damages up to $5,000. But many survivors and advocates say that it is insufficient both in scope and remedy, given the lives upended by these violations.

The new bill seeks to change that landscape. As one organization puts it, survivors need an alternative and faster option to remove content and seek compensation. The longer these images remain on the internet, the more difficult it will be to ever fully remove them.

Already in May of this year, the CRT awarded $5,000 in one of the first intimate-images cases. That is a start, but for many victims, the real losses go far beyond what $5,000 can cover, particularly if you factor in the potential future financial implications if the distribution of such images cannot be contained and potentially affects employment opportunities.

We also have a recent, real-world signal that the stakes are not abstract. In one high-profile case, the CRT fined X, formerly Twitter, $100,000 for failing to remove a non-consensual image after an order, when the platform attempted only a geofencing workaround. That decision underscores two things. One, the tribunal and laws must be capable of holding internet intermediaries accountable. Two, the symbolic and practical power of robust statutory design is ideal.

On the topic of the digital world online, all of those things that I think are making these amendments important, things really are changing when it comes to the use of cell phones, the use of the internet. For me, when I was in high school, it was kind of when social media was starting to become a thing, and people were starting to use cell phones and things like that. So I’ve seen, firsthand, how difficult it can be to kind of catch up with that.

Parents struggle. Even nowadays many of my friends, my nieces and nephews that I see using cell phones, using the internet at very young ages…. It’s just different. It’s what’s expected now. It’s normalized, but that comes with a lot of potential consequences. I think it’s really important that when we’re looking at legislation like this, we take into account how to make sure that those potentially harmful side effects of this digital age are properly mitigated.

Currently intimate-image claims are handled under the Intimate Images Protection Act, which gives the CRT authority for certain protection orders and limited damages.

Bill 17 goes further. It embeds direct authority in the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act to deal with intimate-image claims. In other words, it makes intimate-image claims a formal part of what the CRT can adjudicate. That clarity is essential.

Under current law, intimate-image claims are effectively treated as small claims in many respects. Bill 17 removes them from the small claims classification, distinguishing them from ordinary, transactional small debt or strata disputes. That is a signal that these cases are more serious, more complex and deserve their own category.

[1:15 p.m.]

Perhaps the most dramatic change, under Bill 17: the cabinet may set a monetary cap on CRT decisions, in intimate-image cases, of up to $75,000. A significant leap from the existing $5,000, this is intended to allow victims to seek meaningful compensation without moving into the court system. It may also help to work as a deterrent for perpetrators in the future.

Importantly, Bill 17 also allows claimants to bring or continue intimate-image claims in Provincial Court, even when the CRT would otherwise have jurisdiction. In other words, the bill does not force victims into one forum. Victims can choose what route makes sense for their circumstances. This could potentially have both positive and negative consequences.

The CRT will be given the authority to make, vary or cancel orders in intimate-image claims, not just static protection orders but dynamic remedies. Further, the CRT may withhold publication of decisions in these cases to protect victims’ privacy and reduce the risk of revictimization. Claims already filed under the small claims tribunal framework that relate to intimate images will also be reclassified automatically as intimate-image claims once Bill 17 comes into force. Some amendments to limitation deadlines and procedure are also included.

Under the bill, the minister is granted limited powers to indirectly collect personal information about an affected individual or the alleged perpetrator where that information is reasonably necessary to support an aggrieved person’s claim or risk management. Also, if there is a perceived risk to the victim from threatened distribution, the minister may collect necessary personal information. These powers would also be delegable in writing.

The bill contemplates that sections 1 through 9 come into force via regulation and that the other provisions come into force on royal assent. That staggered approach is to allow for administrative preparation.

In summary, Bill 17 seeks to make intimate-image claims a fully integrated and elevated part of our tribunal landscape, increase financial-remedy ceilings, preserve victims’ forum choice, protect privacy and provide additional supports and information-gathering. All these goals are worthwhile and important to strengthen British Columbians’ sense of safety and security when it comes to their personal lives, particularly in today’s current landscape of the digital era and an increase of young people incorporating technology into every facet of their lives.

While the vision of Bill 17 is compelling, we must recognize that design does not guarantee outcome. A well-intentioned statute poorly implemented can hurt more than help. Here are what I see as potential concerns, not to reject this bill but to challenge us all to fix its vulnerabilities in committee stage.

One of the central features of Bill 17 is the dual route. Victims may choose CRT or Provincial Court, even for similar fact patterns. That flexibility appears well-intended but also carries potential risk. For example, some claimants may shop for the forum that seems most favourable to their case — for procedural advantages, legal representation, higher damages, etc. — which would undermine consistency. As a result, we may also see inconsistent decisions on nearly identical facts because different adjudicators apply statutes or tests differently.

Unrepresented or vulnerable victims may also be forced to choose incorrectly without sufficient legal guidance and end up in a forum less appropriate for their case. To mitigate this, this legislation must include strong guidelines, clear procedural defaults and extensive supports or decision aids for victims in making the forum choice.

Allowing the CRT to withhold publication of decisions addresses a pressing need. Victims must be protected from renewed exposure, doxxing or further harassment, yet complete secrecy is not harmless. Over time, this could also lead to the body of precedent and jurisprudence withering; systemic patterns such as biased decision-making, algorithmic inequities or tribunal backlog pressures becoming impossible to detect; or litigants, courts, academics and advocates lacking the ability to compare interpretation, consistency or development of the law.

We must strike a balance: privacy for victims but transparency for accountability. At committee, I would like to see rules proposed for anonymized summaries, redacted opinions or a public register of an anonymized case law rather than wholesale suppression.

The CRT’s existing mandate deals mainly with strata disputes, small debts, minor vehicle collisions and other relatively mechanical adjudications. Handling intimate-image claims is a far more delicate task involving emotional trauma, mental health consequences, complex digital evidence and high stakes.

[1:20 p.m.]

A few other potential concerns around the CRT’s capacity would be whether the CRT has staff and tribunal members with trauma-informed training, sensitivity to gender-based violence, anonymity protocols and appropriate supports. Given their current scope of mandate, I would think likely not. Will the influx of new cases, especially under the higher cap, overwhelm the system, causing delays or shortcuts?

The government also mentions there are currently 381 intimate-image-related cases before the CRT. We need projections. How many new claims might arise under a $75,000 cap? If we assume even a modest multiplication factor, can the CRT respond promptly?

Without additional funding, the CRT could become backlogged, which would undo the promise of speed. The government must commit to dedicated funding, recruitment of specialized members and ongoing training before expanding jurisdiction. Any expansion of jurisdiction without commensurate resourcing risks delay. Victims seeking fast relief might find themselves in month-long or year-long waits during which harm compounds.

Similar challenges have emerged in other tribunal areas — for example, strata and property fee disputes. We must prevent a scenario where a judge or tribunal becomes the bottleneck rather than the remedy.

The proposed ministerial power to collect personal information about an affected individual is delicate. While the intent is to support victims in showing wrongdoing or risk, we must guard against abuse. I would ask: what are the oversight, internal controls, privacy safeguards and limits on delegation? How will such data be stored, used and protected under FOIPPA or other privacy law frameworks?

Might this power chill fair process, being perceived as government overreach or intrusion into individual privacy? And should there be a harms-benefits test, third-party oversight or judicial authorization before information-gathering? We should refine these powers at committee to ensure transparency, accountability and rigorous privacy protection.

This bill is predominantly civil in nature. It does not itself create new criminal offences, nor does it strengthen active coordination with police, Crown counsel or criminal justice agencies. That means that some offenders may continue to operate under the assumption that civil remedies are the worst they might face. Victims may also face duplication, confusion or advice from criminal counsel that discourages civil claims while pursuing police routes.

Further, the signal to public safety actors and internet platforms may be muted absent stronger legislative teeth. If the law aims to deter non-consensual distribution, we need parallel investments in policing, criminal law awareness, platform accountability and public education. To address the concerns around the dual forum choice, we could mandate that victims be offered legal advice referrals, plain-language decision aids and a forum-choice decision memo to help them choose CRT versus Provincial Court.

We could also ensure an opt-in system of adjudicator or case manager preferences, specifically if a victim prefers a male or female due to the sensitive nature of these offences. Another option would be to guarantee that support persons or advocates may accompany victims through the process without being disqualified.

To address concerns around publication, we could require that all CRT decisions be published in anonymized form unless the tribunal members order specific suppression or design a publicly accessible anonymized summary registry or headnote database to preserve precedence and systemic transparency.

Another option would be to impose mandatory reporting by the CRT to legislative oversight bodies or an ombudsperson about case volumes, delays, cancellations and rejection rates.

Establishing a specialized intimate-image division within CRT, with members trained in gender-based violence, trauma, psychology, digital forensics, privacy and youth issues; requiring ongoing training in trauma-informed practices, cultural competency, equity and mental health in decision-making; and ensuring dedicated staffing, funds and tech capacity before the expanded jurisdiction becomes active will also likely be needed.

To create clear jurisdictional guideposts, we should supply statutory criteria or presumptions to guide when a case should go to CRT or Provincial Court, limiting forum shopping. Where possible, have default assignment rules for unrepresented victims. An example would be automatically filing in CRT unless damages exceed a specific threshold and specifying thresholds or opt-up rules to reduce overlap and conflict.

To address privacy oversight for ministerial information powers, we could mandate judicial or quasi-judicial oversight or reporting for ministerial data collection and require ministerial collection to be documented, justified and subject to review.

[1:25 p.m.]

Incorporating sunset clauses, periodic audits, limiting delegation, requiring rigorous internal privacy protocols and reporting to the Information and Privacy Commissioner could also help.

Stronger platform accountability and enforcement mechanisms would also be necessary, adding rules to allow CRT to issue site-level or platform-level orders, in addition to individual takedowns when proliferation is extreme; requiring frameworks for international platforms to respond to British Columbia orders, mirroring the lessons from the case I mentioned previously with regard to X; ensuring funding or processes to assist victims to enforce removal, compliance or follow-up administrative penalties.

To ensure a smooth transition and reasonable timelines, a preparedness requirement should be enshrined in the act so that the CRT may not accept new high-value intimate-image claims until capacity benchmarks are met, such as staffing, infrastructure and training.

When victims of non-consensual, intimate-image-sharing reach out for help, they are not asking for vengeance. They are asking for dignity, safety, justice and control over what was taken from them. Bill 17 is a step to modernize our legal apparatus and close a gap in access to justice.

Good intentions must also be matched by strong structure. It is not enough to say faster; we must ensure faster. It is not enough to say choice; we must make choice meaningful and fair. It is not enough to promise privacy; we must enshrine balance and accountability. And it is not enough to expand jurisdiction; we must fund, train, staff and monitor the system that must deliver.

Therefore, I lend my support to this bill in principle and look forward to working constructively in committee to shore up its weaknesses, strengthen protections, ensure oversight and calibrate for real-world use. I believe that by combining empathy, legal precision and rigorous review, we can transform Bill 17 into legislation that truly gives survivors recourse, dignity and hope, while maintaining fairness, transparency and systemic integrity.

I look forward to seeing this bill go to committee stage and to receiving feedback from victims, legal advocates, privacy experts, tribunal staff and civil society — all voices that must shape this final statute. I encourage the government, opposition and all members of this House to treat this bill not just as a political markup but as a moral imperative deserving of care.

I thank you for the time today, and I look forward to debate on the floor and in committee.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Attorney General to close debate.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move second reading.

Deputy Speaker: Members, you’ve heard the question.

Division has been called.

[1:30 p.m. - 1:35 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 17 intituled Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 12.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle
Amendment Act, 2025
(continued)

Lawrence Mok: I rise to speak to Bill 12, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025.

The people in my riding of Maple Ridge East, in Mission and across British Columbia want a driver licensing system that works, one that is efficient, modern and fair. Everyone agrees that the driver licensing process should be faster and less confusing, but British Columbians also expect their government to act with transparency and accountability when it wants to change the rules that affect millions of drivers.

Bill 12 claims to expand and modernize licensing and reduce backlogs. Yet when we examine the bill closely, we find something very different, a bill that hands sweeping new powers to ICBC and government cabinet, powers that can be used by them to change testing, training and standards with little or no public consultation.

The Conservative caucus supports genuine streamlining and improved road safety, but what we oppose is unchecked authority that replaces clear law with discretionary regulation. That is not modernization. It is centralization.

The most consequential pieces of this bill are found in sections 23 and 25. These amendments allow the cabinet to prescribe different amounts of driving experience, waiting periods and even testing requirements for different classes of persons. They also give ICBC the ability to decide whether a driver even needs a test. That means the standards for earning a driver’s licence, something fundamental to daily life, could change by regulation behind closed doors with no debate in this Legislature.

[1:45 p.m.]

Flexibility is fine when it is defined, but flexibility without limits becomes arbitrary power. It allows rules to be rewritten quietly, leaving drivers to navigate a moving target. That is not how accountable government should function. Modernization should make the system clearer and more predictable and not more confusing for the people.

In addition, Bill 12 is full of undefined terms like “prescribed classes” or “prescribed considerations.” Those phrases may sound technical, but they matter. They decide who must take a test, how long someone must wait or what experience counts.

Furthermore, what exactly is a class of persons? Is it an age group? Is it a region? Is it a profession? We don’t know, and neither do the people affected. For commuters in Maple Ridge and Mission, who rely on the Mission Bridge, the Lougheed Highway and the Golden Ears Bridge to get to work, these changes could mean longer waits or inconsistent standards.

For small business owners who depend on employees with class 5 or class 7 driver licences, uncertainty in regulation means uncertainty in staffing. If this government plans to treat people differently, then it should do so through open legislation and not through undefined regulations that can change at any time.

The central change in Bill 12 is the removal of mandatory testing for certain drivers. Under this bill, ICBC may decide a road test isn’t necessary for some applicants moving from a novice to a full licence. That might sound efficient, but testing isn’t red tape. It is a safeguard. It ensures that every person behind the wheel has demonstrated driving competence, not just accumulated time.

ICBC’s own data shows distracted driving and inexperience remain leading causes of serious accidents. In 2023, the Lower Mainland accounted for nearly half of all crash claims in the province. The solution is better training and more access to testing and not lower standards.

Maple Ridge and Mission families tell me their kids sometimes have to wait weeks or even months for a drive test date. That’s very frustrating. But the solution for the government is to hire more testers and expand capacity and not to remove tests altogether. We need a driver licensing system that rewards skill and responsibility and not simply endurance.

Bill 12 also lowers the self-application age for a full licence from 19 to 18. That change could make sense. Many young people work or attend college outside their hometown. When you combine it with the removal of mandatory road testing, it raises some serious concerns.

Graduated licensing exists for a reason. It builds good and safe driving habits through structured evaluation. If we were to shorten the process or waive the test, we would surely undermine that foundation.

In communities like Abbotsford, Maple Ridge and Mission, young drivers face complex conditions such as fast highways, rural roads, winter rain and growing road congestion. They need robust, evidence-based driver education. If the government wants to shorten wait times, it should first prove that approved courses deliver the same safety outcomes as testing. Without that evidence, we are taking a gamble with public safety.

[1:50 p.m.]

Another issue at large is fairness. Bill 12 exempts certain existing licence holders from new distracted-driving restrictions for motorcycle learners, meaning older licences are treated differently from newer ones. Two people could ride the same road at the same speed using the same type of vehicle, but only one would face penalties. That’s arbitrary and confusing. Safety rules should apply based on risk, not on when someone happened to get their licence. If a measure is important enough to include in legislation, it’s important enough to apply universally.

Perhaps the biggest red flag is how much of this bill is deferred to future regulations. There’s no requirement for government cabinet to consult the public, report to the Legislature or publish data on outcomes. In practice, entire policy frameworks could be created by order in council.

That is government by regulation, not representation. British Columbians deserve better.

The Conservative caucus strongly believes that every major change to licensing standards should come back to this House for review and that ICBC should publish annual safety reports showing whether these reforms are making our roads safer. Transparency builds trust. On the contrary, regulation in the dark erodes it.

For people in Maple Ridge and Mission, a driver’s licence isn’t a luxury; it is a necessity. Many residents commute daily to Abbotsford, Port Coquitlam, Coquitlam, Burnaby or Surrey for work. Transit options are limited. Driving is part of life. So when rules change without warning, it affects real households, parents driving kids to hockey practices, tradespeople hauling equipment and seniors visiting their family doctors.

ICBC’s decisions shouldn’t be made in isolation from those communities. Government should consult municipalities and driving schools before changing wait times or testing rules. If efficiency is the goal, then let’s expand regional testing capacity so people don’t have to drive to Langley or Coquitlam for a test. Let’s use technology to improve scheduling, not to eliminate safeguards.

With regard to evidence and data, a responsible reform process starts with data and ends with transparency. If this government believes these amendments will maintain or improve safety, then it should prove it by publishing the collision statistics, showing the comparison between tested and untested drivers and allowing independent evaluation. Without that, Bill 12 simply asks British Columbians to accept risks on faith, and faith alone is not evidence.

Safety is not a partisan issue. Every MLA in this House wants to see fewer accidents on the road and safer communities, but safety cannot be achieved by assumption. It must be earned through measurable standards.

Now let’s take a look at clause 10 of this bill, which gives cabinet general power to make any regulation needed to implement the amendments and even to decide when the act comes into force. That kind of open-ended authority tilts the balance too far toward executive control. This Legislature should never surrender its role in determining when and how laws take effect. Oversight is not an inconvenience. It is a constitutional responsibility.

I want to recognize one positive element in Bill 12, the intent to strengthen safety for motorcycle learners by mandating protective gear and limiting device use. I agree that those goals are great and make sense. But again, the specifics are deferred to cabinet.

[1:55 p.m.]

We ask: what is protective equipment, when is it required and for which classes? Riders and police need clear, consistent rules, not shifting regulations. If gloves, boots and jackets save lives, then let’s put that in the statute itself where everyone can see it.

The Conservative Party’s approach to licensing reform is grounded in three simple principles. One, transparency. Major changes to public safety laws must be debated openly, not hidden in regulation. Two, competence. Testing and training must remain evidence-based, ensuring every driver meets consistent standards. Three, fairness. No exemptions or double standards. Rules must apply equally to everyone on B.C. roads.

We support genuine modernization that reduces bureaucracy while strengthening safety. We oppose anything that concentrates power without accountability. Modernization and oversight are not opposites. They work best together.

In closing, Bill 12 could have been a model of balanced reform, an opportunity to improve efficiency, embrace data and enhance road safety. Instead, it expands discretion and leaves critical decisions to ICBC and cabinet, far from public view.

For communities like Abbotsford, Maple Ridge and Mission, where driving is part of daily life, clarity does matter. People need to know what the rules are, how they are enforced and that they apply to everyone equally. Streamlining is good; don’t get me wrong. But secrecy is not. Efficiency is valuable, but accountability is essential too.

While we support the goal of safer, more efficient licensing, we cannot support a bill that achieves it by weakening oversight. So let’s bring these changes into the open, ensure they are guided by evidence and keep competence, not convenience, at the heart of driver licensing in British Columbia. That is the Conservative vision for safe, fair and accountable reform.

David Williams: I rise today to speak of Bill 12, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025, a bill that, at first glance, appears to make practical updates to our licensing and safety laws. But details matter. This legislation gives sweeping new powers to ICBC and the cabinet, reshapes how young drivers progress through the system and imposes new safety requirements, yet it does so without clear legislative boundaries or fairness between urban and rural communities in British Columbia.

We all support safer roads. The question is whether this bill achieves that goal fairly and with accountability. Little by little here, we’ll go through a few things.

Clause 1 is minor. It’s mostly a grammatical correction, but it does mark the calm before the storm. Beyond this simple word change, every following clause touches on how people live, work and travel in this province. We must not allow housekeeping language to disguise a deeper shift of power. Like I said, words matter. Any lawyer will tell you that.

Clause 2 gives the cabinet the power to prescribe different experience requirements for different classes of persons. That flexibility might sound harmless, but when government can redefine who qualifies for a licence by regulation, it does take that decision away from this House and from legislators.

[2:00 p.m.]

If we are to treat one group differently from another, whether it’s newcomers, youth or even seniors, those distinctions should be debated openly, not buried in regulation. It should be with input, fairness and transparency.

Clause 3 is the engine of the bill. It expands ICBC’s power to decide who must test, how long drivers must wait and which education programs can shorten those waits. That doesn’t sound very democratic to me. Safety education is great, but fairness must come with it.

Let me share a story of how this could affect certain groups of people, I’ll give an example of a young person. Say they live in Grindrod, which is a small community just outside of Enderby, a very small community, rural. They finish high school, and let’s say they go out and get their first job. It may be at a nursery, or it may be at a small farm operation. In order to have that job, they need a licence, because they have to do deliveries. But the nearest ICBC-approved training centre may be in Vernon.

To get the course, you might have to go to Kelowna. That’s hours away, and you might have to book it months ahead. Without that course, you face a longer waiting period. You can’t remove your N, and you can’t move on to get a full class 5.

Meanwhile, the same student living in a large urban centre probably could take the course within the next week and get their licence within days or weeks. That’s not because one is more skilled than the other. It’s simply because of where they live, geography. Bill 12 rewards those who can access or afford these approved courses and penalizes those who can’t.

Regions like Salmon Arm, Shuswap, Fort St. John or Burns Lake…. That becomes a two-tiered licensing system, in my mind. Well, people who live in urban areas, those that are fortunate to live in a large urban area where courses are readily available, great. The people who live in the rural areas have to wait, and they’re unfairly penalized, in a roundabout way.

Furthermore, clause 3 lets ICBC decide which out-of-province licences or offences count towards B.C. records. Well, that’s a major policy power being handed over to a Crown corporation without any legislative checks. Again, that’s not democracy.

I do believe in education courses, of course. I think that’s a very good thing. Back when I was in high school, they offered…. Through the high school, if you joined and took a licensing program to get your driver’s licence, they would actually offer credits, and it would go towards part of your high school graduation program.

To me, that seems like a very good option, and it was offered through the school. They had licensing training companies that they worked with. Again, I don’t know if that’s something that was explored, but it’s certainly something that should be looked at.

Anyway, let’s move on here. Clause 4 lowers the independent application age from 19 to 18, which makes sense. It aligns with other provinces, and I don’t see any issue with that. But if young people still face higher barriers to advancement due to the distance or cost, the change is just symbolic. It really doesn’t mean anything. Turning 18 should open doors, not highlight inequalities.

Clause 5 mandates that certain riders wear prescribed protective clothing and footwear. We all want everybody to be safe. We want riders to be safe. We want drivers to be safe. The issue is that “prescribed” is underdefined. What exactly does that mean?

[2:05 p.m.]

Until the regulations are written, police and riders alike won’t know what qualifies. And if the regulations require expensive or brand-specific gear, small-town riders and poor old delivery workers could bear the unnecessary costs. During these unaffordable times, I don’t think that anybody can afford any additional costs.

Safety rules should be clear, affordable and practical, not written in a way that only professionals can meet. Clause 5 bans novice and learner drivers from using electronic devices entirely, even hands-free GPS or mounted phones. The intent is good; the problem is enforcement. An officer on the roadside now has to interpret not only the behaviour but also the driver’s licence class.

A class 7 driver may be fined for glancing at a GPS, while a class 5 driver next to them can legally use it. Doesn’t sound very fair, does it? That inconsistency undermines respect for the law and makes enforcement subjective. I don’t think when it comes to regulations or law that it should be subjective.

Clauses 7 to 10. These are basically transitional and regulatory powers, right? Clauses 7 to 10 basically let cabinet handle a messy transition, including deeming class 7 licences to be class 5 and class 8 to be class 6. In principle, it smooths out administration, but in practice, it could create unequal treatment and confusion.

Two drivers with the same experience could be classified differently, and employers or insurers may struggle to keep track. Such changes belong in legislation, not hidden behind cabinet orders.

Clause 11, basically, is a repeal of an old provision. This repeal cleans up an old, never-enforced amendment. That’s fine. We do want to get rid of old stuff that doesn’t mean anything. It reminds us of how many laws get passed and never proclaimed. We need fewer symbolic bills and more fully implemented and practical ones.

Finally, the act comes into force by regulation, which clause 12 outlines. That means the cabinet decides when and that the public won’t know when that happens. It seems this happens a lot with many of the bills presented. It shouldn’t happen. A fair system should give citizens a clear notice of when the new requirements take effect, clear and defined.

Bill 12 aims to modernize our licensing framework, and some elements do that just fine. But modernization should not come with the cost of transparency or fairness. This bill concentrates the authority within ICBC and the cabinet and leaves critical definitions for future regulations and, unintentionally, creates barriers for rural youth and low-income drivers.

One thing I certainly believe in is getting rid of any kinds of inequalities. It should be fair across the province, and it should be fair across demographics and income classes. I don’t think that the bill fully addresses that.

We can and should support safer roads. That goal also must be paired with equal opportunity. Every British Columbian, from Vancouver to Salmon Arm to Stewart, way up north, deserves a fair path to earning their licence. We can all agree on that. But let’s fix this bill by defining protective gear standards before the enforcement starts, guaranteeing access to improved training in all regions or removing the long waiting period incentive until equal access is guaranteed.

[2:10 p.m.]

Where are the training places going to be and how many? How many people can we expect are going to be taking advantage of this program? We need clear stats. It should be fair across the province, or there should be a slight deviation across the province, limiting ICBC’s discretion by embedding key criteria into law.

Again, no one entity should have the discretion to lay down regulations unless it has public input and is legislated, requiring public consultation before new licensing rules or testing requirements take effect, right? There definitely should be public consultation.

If all those changes are made to Bill 12, Bill 12 could indeed enhance safety and efficiency, but as it stands, it risks deepening divides and eroding trust in the fairness of our system.

The story I presented about the person from Grindrod isn’t unique. It represents hundreds of young people across our province who simply want to work and to drive safely and to move forward in life. And they want to do so without being penalized because of where they live.

Let’s ensure that when we modernize our motor vehicle laws, we modernize them for everyone. Let’s not leave anyone behind. Not just those who happen to live near an ICBC training centre or within reach of an urban convenience.

Anyways, like I said, the essence of the bill is good, but it’s not without its flaws, and it’s certainly not without its inequities.

Hon. Terry Yung: If I may seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Statements

Vancouver Canucks

Hon. Terry Yung: It’s been a long week, and I just got some good news. As some of our hockey fans might be aware, today is the season opening for the Vancouver Canucks, who play at Rogers Arena, which happens to be my riding of Vancouver-Yaletown. I understand the game is sold out.

I just wish everybody here, along with me, to wish the Vancouver Canucks a great season, a winning season.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle
Amendment Act, 2025
(continued)

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I move second reading.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 12, intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025.

Division has been called.

[2:15 p.m. - 2:20 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Before we continue, I’m going to ask MLA Davis just to confirm.

I understand you are in a private room. Would you please confirm it? MLA Davis, do you confirm that you are in a private room?

Pete Davis: I am in a private room, yes.

The Speaker: Okay. Thank you so much.

[2:25 p.m.]

Members, the question is second reading of Bill 12, intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025.

Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We are now moving on to second reading of Bill 18.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Bill 18 — Sexual Violence Policy Act

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I move that the bill be read a second time now.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill 18, the Sexual Violence Policy Act.

Before we begin, I’d like to acknowledge that we’re gathered today on the territories of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking peoples, the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.

[2:30 p.m.]

I stand before you today as the Minister of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills but also as someone who believes deeply in the transformative power of education. Our colleges, universities and institutes are places of learning, of growth and of discovery. They are places where young people come to find their voices, to shape their futures and to build our communities, but for far too many, these spaces have not always been safe.

Let me share a story. It’s not a single story but a reflection of many. It’s a story of a student, bright, ambitious and full of promise, who experiences sexual violence on campus. In the aftermath, she feels isolated, unaware of where to turn. She worries about being believed. She fears retaliation. She questions whether her institution will support her, whether justice is even possible.

This story is not fiction. It’s real, it’s lived, and it’s wholly unacceptable. Sexual violence is never acceptable — not in our homes, not in our workplaces and certainly not in our post-secondary institutions. Today we are taking another step forward in changing this story.

Since 2017, every public post-secondary institution in British Columbia has been required to have a policy in place addressing sexual violence. This was a critical first step. Our understanding of sexual violence has evolved since then. We’ve continued to listen to students, faculty, staff, Indigenous and Métis partners, and community organizations.

We’ve heard about the gaps in our current framework. We’ve heard about the barriers that survivors face when trying to report incidents. We’ve heard about the need for trauma-informed approaches, for transparency and for accountability. And we have acted.

Over the past two years, our ministry has undertaken a comprehensive review of the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act. We held consultations across the province with student societies, sector associations, unions, Indigenous and Métis partners and community-based service organizations. We asked hard questions, and we listened to difficult truths, and we committed to doing better. The result of that work is what brings us here today.

Today I am proud to stand and support Bill 18, titled the Sexual Violence Policy Act, new legislation that replaces the previous act and marks a significant step forward in our collective efforts to prevent and respond to sexual violence in post-secondary communities.

This legislation is more than a set of rules. It reflects our values. It is a declaration that every person — student, staff member, faculty member, contractor, volunteer or board member — feels safe, supported and empowered. Let me walk you now through what this new act will do.

First, it expands the scope of sexual violence policies beyond students. For the first time, institutions will be required to include all members of their community — faculty, employees, contractors, volunteers and board members — because sexual violence does not only occur between students, and our protections should reflect that.

Second, it strengthens consultation requirements. Institutions must engage meaningfully with their communities when reviewing and updating their policies. This includes forming an advisory committee, which must include students and community members, to guide their policies, because policies must reflect the lived realities of those that they are meant to protect.

Third, it enhances transparency and accountability. Institutions will now be required to make annual reports on sexual violence policy implementation and make them publicly available. These reports must include information on prevention, awareness and response initiatives by the institutions, because we know that transparency builds trust.

Fourth, it reduces barriers for survivors. The act provides institutions with express authority to share information about interim measures and case outcomes with survivors. This addresses long-standing concerns about privacy and ensures that survivors are not left out in the dark about the outcomes of their cases. Rather, this process centres survivors and provides them with greater autonomy in the reporting process.

[2:35 p.m.]

Fifth, it establishes consistent standards provincewide. The act expands the government’s regulation-making authority, allowing government to set clear, consistent expectations for all public post-secondary institutions, because safety should not depend on where you live and how an institution decides to implement standards.

These changes are more than just legislative. They are cultural. They send a clear message that sexual violence in any form is unacceptable, and we will never tolerate it.

All of this being said, we also recognize that this can’t be accomplished through legislation alone. That’s why, alongside the new act, we are launching the sexual violence action plan, which is a comprehensive roadmap to guide our efforts in prevention, response and support. The action plan includes 12 concrete actions under five strategic priorities.

First, lifting up Indigenous approaches. We have worked with Indigenous partners to develop intersectional training resources that reflect Indigenous knowledge systems and support reconciliation. We are setting standards to ensure policies are responsive to UNDRIP, the calls to justice and the calls to action.

Second, increasing prevention through awareness and training. We have provided training resources tailored to the needs of international students, graduate students and those affected by technology-facilitated sexual violence. We are establishing education and training requirements for institutions to address sexual violence proactively.

Third, we are improving institutional responses. We are developing guidelines for trauma-informed investigations, creating a roster of trained investigators and setting standards for accountability measures. Institutions will be required to communicate transparently with survivors about the status and outcomes of their investigations.

Fourth, we are improving data collection and reporting. We have released a toolkit to help institutions prepare annual reports, and we are creating a schedule for future iterations of the student perceptions of sexual violence survey and committing to publishing the results.

Fifth, we are strengthening privacy and confidentiality. We are developing standards of confidentiality in cases of sexual violence and providing guidance on the use of non-disclosure agreements.

Three of these actions — developing training resources, releasing the reporting toolkit and creating intersectional supports — are work that has already been completed. This legislation will support the implementation of several others, and we will continue to work closely with our partners to complete the rest.

This action plan is more than a document. It is a commitment, and it is a promise to survivors that we see you, we hear you, and we are acting. This work does not exist in isolation. It builds on the broader efforts of our government to address gender-based violence across British Columbia. We are proud of the gender-based violence action plan and the Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity and the gender equity office.

We are proud of the legislative amendments to Bill 17, the Intimate Images Protection Act, which strengthen protections against online sexual harassment and non-consensual image-sharing. And we are proud of the partnerships we’ve built with the Ending Violence Association of B.C., the AMS Sexual Assault Support Centre and countless others who have contributed their expertise, their passion and their lived experience.

We’re proud of the progress that’s been made so far. Since 2017, our government has invested over $2 million in sexual violence prevention and response in post-secondary communities. We have developed open-source training resources, enhanced reporting systems, supported rural and remote campuses and reached out to students to better understand their diverse experiences.

The results speak for themselves. In our most recent survey, 88 percent of students said they feel safe from sexualized violence in their post-secondary communities, which is up from 78 percent in 2022. We are making progress, but we know that there is still so much more to be done. There’s more to be done, and we will continue to do more. We will continue to work with institutions as they implement these changes, even in the face of financial pressures.

[2:40 p.m.]

We will support our institutions by providing guidance, training and tools to help them better support survivors. We will monitor implementation. We will hold institutions accountable. We will ensure that survivors have access to the support they need, whether through campus services, community organizations or provincial resources such as Here2Talk and VictimLinkBC.

We will continue to update our annual sexual violence awareness campaigns to reflect best practices and sector needs. Preparations for the 2025-2026 campaign are already underway, with a launch anticipated in early 2026. And we will keep listening, because this work is never done, because the needs of survivors evolve, because our understanding deepens, because our commitment must be unwavering.

Today I invite each of you in this House to join us and support this bill. Join us in building a culture of safety, respect and inclusion across British Columbia’s post-secondary sector. Join us in standing with survivors, in believing them, in supporting them and in fighting for them. Join us in ensuring that every student, every staff member, every faculty member, every community member knows that they matter, they are protected and they are not alone.

Together, we are rewriting the story. Together, we are building safer futures.

Thank you for your support. I really do look forward to having support from our entire House in forwarding this very important legislation in this House.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you to the minister for walking us through this legislation.

Thank you to the opposition for letting me go first so that I can make a meeting in a few minutes.

I’m pleased to rise to speak to the Sexual Violence Policy Act. This bill addresses some key issues regarding the ongoing gaps in sexual violence protections for survivors and accountability from the institutions we expect to protect them. Updating this act is a demonstration that our understanding of sexual assault, its consequences and how to seek justice are evolving.

I want to add a trigger warning, for anyone at home listening, that this is a heavy topic, and I urge people watching to take care of themselves, first and foremost.

There’s plenty of evidence that we as a society are slow to respond to sexual violence and are not prioritizing survivors and accountability. This is evident in how courts treat perpetrators when they are athletes, celebrities or have promising careers ahead of them. We prioritize their well-being over the survivors’.

We recently learned that our national sports leagues have secret funds to pay off survivors of abuse and associated legal fees to protect their players. It seems assault is an integral part of sports culture, not just the exception. We also see this in decreasing access to sexual health services and education.

The Green caucus intends to support the government on this second reading because it is a demonstration of this government doing good work on an important issue. It intends to address some major gaps in how we understand and address sexual assault and how to ensure public institutions make their campuses as safe as possible for everyone.

As the father of 11-year-old daughters, I don’t have to think about this for a few more years, and I’m putting it off as long as possible, but graduating high school and going off into the world is supposed to be the start of an incredible journey. You leave your small town, your family and the friends that you’ve known since kindergarten, and suddenly you’re a stranger in a new place.

You have to cook for yourself, get to class on time, make new friends, but you no longer have a curfew. Maybe you’re going to the bar for the first time. Suddenly there are lessons to be learned, like having a buddy system, what a Burt Reynolds is and how you get home safe.

Post-secondary is an opportunity to learn about ourselves, to figure out what the future could look like and how to get there. It’s also supposed to be a safe space, whether it’s learning new things in class, hearing new ideas or trying new experiences. But not all experiences are good. Some can be quite bad, as we know.

When things go wrong, we expect we’ll be protected by the adults around us — our mentors, teachers and leaders.

This legislation makes a very important distinction. It changes the language describing assault to sexual violence, rather than misconduct. This new definition creates the inherent understanding that sexual assault is a serious offence and a violation, not just bad behaviour.

[2:45 p.m.]

Hopefully this doesn’t happen, but if you were to get punched in the face, you would probably describe this as a violent attack and expect it to be treated as such. But for some reason, the discourse and resulting policies on sexual assault have sidelined and downplayed its severity. Any attack on someone’s body, mind or soul is an act of violence.

Alongside language modernization, this act will require all 25 of British Columbia’s public post-secondary institutions to establish and implement a policy to address sexual violence and have clear procedures for allegations. This includes establishing an advisory board that must include student representation. We’ll also ensure everyone on campus is safe, because assault is not limited to students. B.C. students have been calling for these changes for years, and they are long overdue, but better late than never.

Here’s some data I would like to share with the House. Sexual assault is the most underreported violent crime in Canada. A StatsCan survey done in 2019 revealed that almost three-quarters of students at Canadian university campuses had witnessed or experienced unwanted sexual behaviour. One in ten female students experienced a sexual assault in a post-secondary setting.

From 2021 to 2022, reported sexual assault in B.C. rose 15 percent. From 2017 to 2022, police reported sexual assault increased 38 percent among men and women.

However, women are five times more likely to be sexual assault survivors than men. Those who identify as bisexual experience sexual assault nearly 29 times higher than heterosexual Canadians. Women with a disability are four times more likely to be sexually assaulted, and 70 percent of trans youth in Canada have experienced sexual harassment. Indigenous women and girls are 16 times more likely to be murdered or disappear.

These are horrifying statistics, and they’re unacceptable. Sexual assault is a highly gendered crime, with women and girls accounting for 90 percent of reported survivors, and 74 percent of survivors knew the person accused of the crime.

Learning how to protect themselves from assault is something that women and queer folk learn at a very young age. It’s part of a daily routine. This is where, as a male, I am speaking on behalf of some of the people who helped me write this or wrote this speech for me. They are some of our young caucus team. This is something that I can’t possibly understand, so I’m really grateful for our caucus staff for helping me to understand.

Here are some of the things that are done daily to avoid assault. Out for a walk and someone is coming? Move to the other side of the street. Taking out headphones walking through the woods, through a tunnel or a dark street. Calling a friend to share a location. Walking with our keys through our fingers. Putting a coaster on top of a drink. Wearing a nail polish that changes colour to see if a drink has been drugged.

Pretending to be in a relationship to avoid confrontation. Changing one’s clothes. Making eye contact or avoiding eye contact. Changing walking routes. Changing gyms. Not running when it’s dark. Not running when it’s early in the morning. Locking the car doors as soon as we enter a car. Parking in well-lit areas. Getting escorted to cars. Avoiding elevators. Avoiding the stairs.

This is a mental load and a burden that I don’t have to experience, and I am chagrined to understand that others do have to think about this at all times. It’s a systemic and cultural problem.

Just this summer an independent review of the province’s justice system warned that gender-based violence has been “normalized.” According to the report, 94 percent of sexual assaults were not reported to the police. Part of the blame can be placed on a lack of access to justice for survivors, institutional barriers and lack of accountability within institutions.

This bill addresses one of these issues. Trauma-informed, transparent and accountable policies are the very least of what we can expect from our public institutions to protect their students and staff. Open, accountable, inclusive and trauma-informed policies, working groups and pathways to justice are only a start.

This legislation is another step to ensure that policies and annual reports are publicly available every year and updated to ensure they offer the best available protection for survivors. We need to simplify the pathways for survivors to come forward, to be heard, to be taken seriously and to be protected by their peers and institutions.

One of the ongoing issues regarding sexual violence cases is the use of non-disclosure agreements. Too often they are used as gag orders that enable the concealment of harmful behaviours.

[2:50 p.m.]

The Third Party has previously called on this government to limit the use of NDAs in cases of assault, harassment and discrimination. Although this bill does not directly address the use of NDAs as a tool of silence, it’s important that this work is being done to fix this issue.

In a perfect world, kids are sent to school without a care in the world, but we know that that’s not the case. Until you’ve existed in a world where every turn feels like a new danger, it’s difficult to explain the significance of clear, consistent and consultative policy — policy that is meant to help and not silence.

For policy to be successful, its corresponding services need funding. A continuum of care for assault survivors includes on-campus supports, such as support centres. These can be run by student organizations and can provide much-needed ground support.

We’re looking forward to hearing from this government on how they intend to implement these changes in a good way and support institutions to achieve the best possible outcomes.

Bryan Tepper: I rise today to speak to Bill 18, the Sexual Violence Policy Act of 2025. I’m proud to speak to this legislation today in my capacity as MLA for Surrey-Panorama and critic for Post-Secondary Education.

This legislation deals with an issue that can reach every student, faculty member and staff at our universities. While surveys show that 71 percent of students have witnessed unwanted sexual behaviour, I would suggest that most of the rest just didn’t realize that they had.

It is the right of every person to feel safe, respected and protected when attending or working at British Columbia’s public post-secondary institutions. Sexual violence is not just a legal or administrative concern. It is a human one that affects trust, dignity and the very sense of belonging that higher education is meant to inspire.

This bill seeks to strengthen protections and modernize processes so that post-secondary institutions can respond better when harm occurs at work, proactively, to prevent it. These are positive goals that I think all members can share. The existing 2016 act was a first attempt to set a consistent framework for handling sexual misconduct at universities and colleges. Nearly a decade later, it’s clear the landscape has changed.

It is important to remember where we started. The original Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act of 2016 was created after years of advocacy from students and survivors who felt that their universities were not listening. That legislation was, in many ways, the first attempt to impose a uniform standard of accountability across all post-secondary institutions. It set the baseline.

Every campus needed a written policy, a process for disclosure and a commitment to review, but in the years since, the world of post-secondary education has evolved. Awareness has grown, yes, but so have expectations. The early framework relied too heavily on self-reporting and left too much discretion in institutional hands. Some schools developed robust procedures and survivor supports; others offered compliance by paperwork alone.

The new 2025 act is, therefore, both a response and a correction. It acknowledges that sexual violence prevention cannot remain a patchwork, a system dependent on who happens to be in the president’s office. It recognizes that university autonomy must be balanced with public accountability, and it signals that this Legislature is aware of the lived realities of students who have struggled for fairness and clarity for nearly a decade.

As Conservatives, we can appreciate that progress should be evolutionary, not revolutionary, grounded in evidence and informed by experience. Bill 18 reflects that steady improvement.

This new legislation replaces that earlier act and broadens its reach to include not only students but also faculty and staff. It introduces requirements for advisory committees, consultation and annual reporting. It mandates training and gives institutions clear responsibilities to educate, prevent and respond.

[2:55 p.m.]

These are positive updates. They reflect an understanding that preventing sexual violence is not a single-policy matter. It’s about improving culture, clarity and accountability.

According to Statistics Canada, nearly seven in ten incidents of sexual assault on campus go unreported. In 2019, nearly one-quarter of female university students reported experiencing unwanted sexual contact in a single academic year. Behind every statistic is a story, and too often, those stories never reach the light of day.

We have seen the consequences of silence. The controversies at major institutions, from the University of British Columbia to universities in Ontario and Alberta, show that culture can change only when leadership acts.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Other provinces have already introduced binding campus safety standards, public data requirements and survivor-centred training. B.C.’s new framework brings us closer to that level of accountability. At the same time, we must be cautious. Legislative change should not simply be reactive to headlines. Our aim must be consistency so that a student in Cranbrook enjoys the same protections as a student in Vancouver. A policy that lives only in a binder is not enough. It must live in the conscience of the institution.

The Conservative caucus is happy to support the principle of Bill 18. We believe that safe learning environments are an essential component of academic freedom and fairness for students. Bill 18 introduces several important new layers of reporting, consultation and training.

When it comes to responding to sexual violence, survivors must be supported. At the same time, due process must be respected. Institutions must have transparent procedures so that no one is left in the dark and everyone can have confidence in the outcome. Transparency, however, cannot exist without fairness. While we must always believe survivors and support them, we must also preserve due process. A true culture of respect protects all parties, the survivor seeking justice and the respondent entitled to a fair hearing.

Across Canada, there have been troubling examples where campus tribunals acted hastily, without clear evidence or procedural safeguards. This undermines trust and invites legal challenges. B.C.’s legislation must therefore strike a careful balance between compassion and consistency.

A strong framework should include independent oversight, clear timelines for investigation and protections for privacy and procedural rights. If universities fail to apply those principles, they risk eroding faith in both their policies and their leadership.

The Conservative caucus supports an approach that places justice at the centre, not ideology; not expediency but fairness. That is what sustains trust in our institutions.

There are also practical realities we should keep in view. Whenever new duties are placed on institutions, they come with costs: time, administration and personnel. Smaller colleges and regional campuses may not have the same capacity as large universities to meet every reporting or training requirement.

We need to ensure that these expectations are realistic and supported so that compliance does not become a burden that diverts resources from teaching and student support. That concern is especially true outside the Lower Mainland. Smaller colleges in regions such as the Kootenays, the North or Vancouver Island do not have the administrative infrastructure that major universities possess. When government imposes new reporting obligations, those tasks often fall to one or two overstretched staff.

[3:00 p.m.]

If compliance becomes a matter of forms rather than outcomes, we risk undermining the very goals this bill sets out to achieve. The ministry must ensure that all institutions, large and small, receive the resources and training necessary to meet these standards. Otherwise, the legislation risks creating a two-tier system, one for metropolitan universities with compliance offices and another for rural campuses forced to choose between meeting provincial mandates or funding student programs.

This issue is not bureaucratic; it is moral. Rural students deserve the same level of safety and responsiveness as any other British Columbian. Our government must not download responsibility without support. A shared-service model or targeted grants could help small campuses build the capacity they need.

Similarly, clarity will be needed where these new obligations intersect with the work of other bodies such as the Civil Resolution Tribunal. That tribunal already faces an expanded workload under recent legislation, and we would not want to see delays or confusion over jurisdiction. Our goal should be to simplify access to justice, not complicate it.

A common thread in this bill is the idea of transparency, and that is essential. Trust is built when institutions are open about their policies, honest about their performance and accountable to their communities.

When a student or staff member makes a disclosure, they should know exactly what will happen next. When an institution publishes an annual report, it should tell the truth about how many incidents were addressed, how many were resolved and what lessons were learned, without breaching privacy but without hiding behind process either.

Transparency is not about assigning blame. It is about ensuring that those in power answer to the people they serve. That principle should guide not only our universities and colleges but this Legislature as well.

If there is one place where prevention can make a difference, it is education. Education is the foundation of prevention, but it must begin long before students arrive at university. Respect and responsibility are learned first at home, reinforced in schools and tested in adulthood.

We cannot expect universities alone to fix cultural decay that starts much earlier. Provincial curriculum must support age-appropriate lessons in consent, personal boundaries and digital citizenship. Families should be partners in that work, not spectators.

When students enter post-secondary life, they should already understand that freedom and accountability are two sides of the same coin. Our universities can then build upon these values with consistent messaging through orientation programs, student mentorships and leadership training. In this way, prevention becomes cultural, not merely procedural.

Rules matter, but character matters more. That is where education and morality intersect and where a free society reminds its young people that liberty without virtue becomes licence. Consent at its heart is an expression of liberty, the freedom to choose and the obligation to respect that choice. Teaching consent properly means teaching that freedom and responsibility go hand in hand.

Students must be empowered to speak up, to seek help, to know that silence is never the price of belonging. If this bill helps to reinforce that message in every classroom and every orientation week, then it will have served an important purpose.

[3:05 p.m.]

When parents send their sons and daughters off to university or college, they are placing enormous trust in those institutions. It’s not only an investment in education. It’s an act of faith that their child will be safe, respected and supported.

This trust cannot be maintained through policy manuals or bureaucratic structures alone. It is built through culture — a culture that honours family values, that encourages personal responsibility and that reminds every student that freedom is inseparable from respect.

The protection of students’ well-being must go hand in hand with the preservation of the principles that built our communities: decency, fairness and respect for human dignity. That is what we should want for British Columbia — institutions that reflect the values of the people who built them, that serve families as much as they serve industry and that recognize that every policy begins and ends with human dignity.

As we debate Bill 18, let us remember that safety and morality begin in homes, in communities and in the classrooms that teach not only facts but virtues. If our post-secondary institutions can rediscover that mission to educate both the mind and the character, then this legislation will have done something truly meaningful for the next generation of British Columbians.

Bill 18 is a step forward in an ongoing effort to make our post-secondary institutions safer and more accountable. It’s not perfect, and no law ever will be. But it represents a positive attempt to confront a difficult reality that sexual violence remains a persistent challenge and that society must respond with compassion, enforcement, clarity and courage.

Our support for this bill comes from that understanding. We support it not because it involves every problem but because it moves the conversation forward and creates a framework for continued improvement.

At the same time, we remind the government that real progress will depend on listening to students, to survivors, to faculty and to the institutions themselves. Implementation will matter more than announcement. Indeed, that is where the true test will lie.

Legislation can set expectations, but follow-through determines impact. Who will ensure that annual reports are accurate and comparable? Will the ministry publish a provincewide summary of campus incidents and resolutions?

The government should commit to transparent evaluation. A central, public dashboard could allow parents, students and legislators to track progress, not to shame institutions but to encourage accountability.

There should also be regular, independent reviews of institutional compliance, perhaps every five years, to ensure that universities are not simply ticking boxes. Without consistent oversight, even well-intentioned laws lose their meaning.

In addition, the ministry must coordinate with the Civil Resolution Tribunal and human rights bodies to avoid duplication or jurisdictional confusion. Students deserve clarity, not bureaucracy.

Implementation, not press releases, will determine whether this bill delivers real change. We must ensure that the measures introduced here are fair, transparent and sustainable. We must also keep sight of the deeper goal to build a culture of respect, where both safety and freedom can thrive together.

That is what the people of British Columbia deserve, and that is what we will continue to stand for on this side of the House — freedom with responsibility, justice with fairness and compassion guided by principle.

I’d like to finish by noting that this bill states that the Offence Act does not apply to it. I believe this is an important addition to the bill, as we do not want bad actors to use this as a way around reporting to police. All reports of sexual violence should be reported to police so that criminal investigations can be undertaken and the truth can be exposed. We know far too many cases go unreported.

[3:10 p.m.]

When we step back, Bill 18 is about more than campus policy. It is about what kind of society we want British Columbia to be. A university is a mirror of the community that built it. If our campuses reflect respect, fairness and integrity, it is because those values are alive in our homes, our churches, our families and our schools. The reverse is also true. When moral courage weakens in society, our institutions falter.

This legislation, then, is not simply administrative housekeeping. It is a reminder that self-government begins with self-respect and that freedoms we cherish must be exercised with moral responsibility.

As Conservatives, we believe law should serve people, not replace conscience. We support measures that strengthen character as well as compliance. We want universities that are not only safe but also noble, places that shape good citizens, not just good employees.

If Bill 18 helps renew that ideal, if it helps a generation rediscover that respect and responsibility are inseparable, then this debate will have been worthwhile.

Stephanie Higginson: I rise today in support of Bill 18, the Sexual Violence Policy Act, and I am quite thrilled to hear that, so far, there seems to be unanimous support for the bill. The proposed Sexual Violence Policy Act will replace the current legislation, the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act, which was put into place in 2017, introduced in 2016.

This work, Bill 18, the Sexual Violence Policy Act, will close gaps in the existing framework and establish clearer, more consistent standards across public post-secondary institutions. It will help post-secondary institutions strengthen their prevention and response efforts and reduce barriers for survivors seeking support.

All public post-secondary institutions have had a policy in place since 2017, and this new act will help improve prevention of and responses to sexual violence in the public post-secondary sector by strengthening consultation requirements, increasing accountability and transparency in annual reports, reducing barriers for people when making formal allegations of sexual violence and helping support institutions to develop policies that are guided by a trauma-informed approach.

These proposed changes respond to the feedback that we heard from students, employees, Indigenous partners and community partners. The existing act came into effect in 2017, but since then, the ministry has received a lot of feedback from students, from staff, from Indigenous partners and community organizations about opportunities to strengthen and improve the current act’s provisions and implementation. In response, the ministry undertook a comprehensive review of the existing policies and engaged with post-secondary communities and partners to inform the development of this new legislation.

Through the course of this week, we have heard a lot of concerns on some of our bill debates from the opposition about engagement, so I think it is important to highlight who we engaged with and how we engaged to inform this work. It was brought on by requests from the communities impacted by sexual violence to review the current act.

We talked to First Nations and Métis partners, to public post-secondary institutions, to student societies, student-led sexual violence organizations, subject-matter experts, community organizations, post-secondary-sector associations and staff and faculty unions.

In the summer and fall of 2022, the ministry conducted a series of consultations and focus groups with external partners to collect input on the previous act, the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act.

[3:15 p.m.]

The feedback from 2022 engagements informed the draft version of the current action plan. The ministry then engaged with the post-secondary sector and First Nations and Métis partners between January and April 2024 to validate the draft of the action plan and make sure it met its needs. During these engagements, participants shared that the action plan addressed many of the current issues in the sector, including those identified in previous engagements in 2022.

If we already had an act, then why did we need to update it? Because we heard from the stakeholder groups that there were gaps in the existing act. But more importantly, we should always strive for continuous improvement.

The Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act was introduced in 2016 and put into place in 2017 in response to a growing number of sexual violence incidents at public and post-secondary institutions.

Under the act, all public post-secondary institutions in B.C. are required to establish and update their own sexual violence policy, provide an annual report to their board on the implementation of the policy and review their policy at least once every three years to ensure it remains effective. The proposed Sexual Violence Policy Act will replace the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act, and the proposed new legislation of these requirements will remain in place.

The proposed legislative changes aim to close gaps and improve responses to and prevention of sexual violence in public post-secondary institutions, including:

Setting objectives for sexual violence policies that promote a culture of consent and accountability with proactive prevention and response.

Expand the scope of policies beyond students to include faculty, employees, contractors, volunteers and other institutional community members.

Enhance consultation requirements to ensure effective policy reviews by requiring institutions to establish an advisory committee that includes student representation.

Update language and terminology to better reflect best practices that are trauma-informed — for example, using the term “sexual violence” instead of “sexual misconduct.”

Provide express disclosure authority for institutions to give survivors information on investigation outcomes. Can you imagine not knowing the outcome of the investigation of your own assault because of privacy?

More transparent and accountable annual reports through public availability of reports, including information on prevention and response efforts.

Expand regulation-making authority to ensure consistent policies.

One of the key aspects of the improvements of this act is to lift up and amplify the importance of Indigenous approaches to this work. Thanks to the relentless focus and resilience of our First Nations and Métis partners, we now know more about the importance of making space for the ancient wisdom of the lands that we are on to inform our work. This is critical not only for Indigenous victims but also for non-Indigenous.

It is important to look at the success of the past work but also to identify areas of improvement. The results from the ministry’s 2025 student perceptions of sexual violence survey show that 88 percent of students agreed that they felt safe from sexual violence in post-secondary communities, up from 78 percent in 2022.

That shows that we’re making progress, but it’s that 22 percent that we must focus on, that 22 percent that keeps us up at night and where we know Indigenous women are heavily overly represented.

I want to highlight that this work aligns with the government’s priority to create safer communities and end gender-based violence. I’m proud of this work. I’m proud to be part of a government that prioritizes women’s safety.

We heard a speech just a minute ago from a member of the Green Party talking about things that the young women on his staff have to do on a regular basis. They read out a list of actions that they take.

I have to tell you that except for the jogging part and also the drinks at a bar — those days are left behind for me, mostly — many of those things that they listed I have done in the last five days. Walked with keys between my hands. Crossed the street just the other day to avoid a close contact. Took a different elevator. Called a friend while walking home alone because somebody was walking very close to me.

I want to thank my colleagues for this critical work. It’s necessary. It’s important. It’s relevant.

I look forward to supporting the bill as it moves forward to committee stage.

[3:20 p.m.]

Lawrence Mok: I rise today once again to speak but this time to speak to Bill 18, the Sexual Violence Policy Act, 2025 — legislation that seeks to expand, modernize and strengthen the framework for how sexual violence is viewed and addressed within our post-secondary institutions.

At its core, this bill is about ensuring that every student, every faculty member, every staff person, every contractor, including board members, can study, teach and work in an environment that is safe, respectful and free from fear. That goal is something we all share and cherish.

While I want to begin by affirming my support for that principle, for the commitment to safer campuses and communities, I also believe we must look carefully at whether this legislation will actually achieve that outcome or whether it risks becoming yet another framework that looks good on paper but lacks the teeth to deliver meaningful change.

Bill 18 repeals and replaces the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act passed in 2016. That earlier law required post-secondary institutions to create and maintain a sexual misconduct policy that applied primarily to students.

This new legislation expands that coverage — now including faculty, staff members, contractors and board members — and modernizes language, mandating shifting from “misconduct” to “sexual violence.” It introduces mandatory advisory committees, consultation processes, annual reports and requirements for training and surveys.

These are all important steps. Expanding protections beyond students to include the broader institutional community recognizes that sexual violence does not discriminate by role or title. It can occur between students, between staff, between staff and student or in any direction of power. That reality needs to be reflected in law, and I commend the government for acknowledging it.

What this bill still lacks is substance beyond structure. It tells institutions how to report, how to consult and how to meet bureaucratic compliances. But it doesn’t tell us how survivors will actually be supported or how accountability will be enforced when an institution fails to act.

We have seen time and again that policies alone do not change culture. They can, at best, provide the scaffolding, but it is the will, the follow-through and the consistency of enforcement that determine whether they mean anything in practice.

If we look more closely at the clauses in this bill, we will see a great deal of emphasis on process. For example, clause 3 requires that every post-secondary institution establish and implement a sexual violence policy that sets up procedures for disclosure, for formal allegations and for disciplinary action. That’s fine. That’s structure.

Clause 5 then requires that every institution review its policy every three years or when directed by the minister. Again, that is structure. Clause 6 creates an advisory committee, clause 7 outlines consultation requirements, clause 8 allows the minister to direct surveys, and clause 9 mandates annual reports to the governing body.

[3:25 p.m.]

While those are well-intentioned measures, they all focus on how institutions communicate and report rather than on what actually happens to a survivor who discloses abuse. So we ask questions like: where are the minimum standards for victim-support services? Where are the timelines for action once a complaint is made? Where is the requirement that investigations be handled independently, not internally, to avoid bias or institutional protectionism?

It is one thing to ask post-secondary institutions to foster a culture of consent. It is another to make sure that when someone comes forward, they don’t face weeks or even months of waiting, silence or intimidation. There is a difference between a framework and a solution.

Talking about clause 10 and privacy concerns…. Clause 10, which authorizes post-secondary institutions to provide information about the outcome of a formal allegation to the complainant, is a welcome improvement. Survivors deserve to know that their case has been taken seriously and to be informed about any action taken.

Even here, the bill leaves significant discretion to the institutions themselves. It says they may provide that information, not that they must. That kind of vague language is often where real accountability dies in practice. If the government truly wants to empower victims, it should require transparency, not merely allow it.

At the same time, we must be mindful of protecting due process and privacy for all parties involved. Striking that balance between confidentiality and accountability is critical, and it’s not entirely clear that this legislation has done so.

Clause 6 and clause 7 mandate the establishment of advisory committees and consultation processes before policies are even developed or reviewed. Including students and ensuring diversity in these committees is essential, but I worry that this bill may unintentionally create more administrative weight than real engagement. We have seen similar committees established in the past, well-meaning but quickly bogged down in procedure, reporting and internal politics.

If these advisory bodies are to mean anything, they must be empowered to challenge institutions, not merely endorse them. They must be more than symbolic. They must have the authority and independence to hold universities and colleges accountable for real change.

I must also say that this bill focuses too narrowly on post-secondary institutions. Sexual violence is not confined just to those settings. Trade programs, apprenticeship sites and community training centres are also educational spaces, many with young or vulnerable learners often working in close quarters or isolated environments.

These environments can also carry risks, and it’s not clear that they are fully captured under this framework. If we truly, truly want to make a provincewide impact, we must extend these principles of safety, consent and accountability beyond the traditional university or college campus.

Moreover, this bill doesn’t address what happens when institutions fail to uphold their responsibilities. There is no penalty, no enforcement mechanism and no oversight beyond self-reporting. A university can publish a glossy policy, hold a few training sessions and submit an annual report. But if victims are still being silenced or re-traumatized by internal processes, then what have we really accomplished?

[3:30 p.m.]

Many young women, men and non-binary students who have gone through the institutional process have described it as more painful than the incident itself. They recount stories of being passed from office to office, of delays stretching for weeks and months, of being told to be patient, where the alleged attacker continued to attend the same classes or work in the same building. That is not justice. That is not compassion.

If we are serious about tackling sexual violence, we must prioritize survivor-centred supports. That means guaranteed access to counselling and mental health resources. That means clear and enforceable timelines for investigations. That means independent review bodies that ensure fairness and consistency. That means funding for prevention and awareness programs that reach beyond compliance checkboxes. None of these elements are found in this legislation.

Now, let’s examine clause 13. Clause 13 gives regulation-making powers to cabinet, meaning the government can determine through regulation how procedures will be defined, how consultations will be conducted and what information must be reported. That flexibility can be helpful, but it can also be dangerous. We have seen too many examples where regulation replaces responsibility. Governments announce bold principles, then quietly water them down in regulation later.

If this issue is as important as the government claims, then those core standards should be written directly into the legislation, not left to cabinet discretion. Survivors shouldn’t have to wait for regulations to find out what rights they actually have.

Culture change is not achieved through paperwork. It is achieved through true leadership, through empathy and through a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths. This bill says all the right words: consent, accountability, respect, prevention. But those words will mean very little if they are not backed by funding, transparency and measurable outcomes.

Every annual report required under clause 9 should include not just summaries but useful data such as how many disclosures were made, how many resulted in investigations, how long they took to resolve, what supports were provided to victims. Without that kind of useful data, we are just operating blindly.

In conclusion, yes, I think I can support the principle of Bill 18 because any step forward, any step towards safer campuses, is a step worth taking.

Let’s be very clear. This is not the finish line. It is a framework, one that still leaves too much undefined, too much to regulation and too much faith in systems that have already failed too many people.

Sexual violence is not an abstract policy issue. It is real. It is painful. It is ongoing. And every time we stand in this chamber to legislate on it, we have a moral duty to ensure that our words will translate into real protection, real accountability and real justice for survivors.

[3:35 p.m.]

British Columbians deserve more than another policy binder sitting on a shelf. They deserve institutions, both public and private, that act swiftly, transparently and compassionately when harm occurs. That is how we build campuses and communities that are not just compliant but genuinely safe.

With this, I make my case.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Because they asserted their right to take space in what was once considered a men’s profession, 14 female engineering students were shot on the campus of the École Polytechnique on December 6, 1989. The Montreal massacre changed our country, and we now name acts of femicide. This horrific violence against women because they were women shocked people around the world, and Canada in particular honours and recognizes December 6 every year.

The intersection between post-secondary campuses and violence against women is very well established. I was very honoured when I became Member of Parliament in 2015 to be named the critic, for the New Democratic Party, for the status of women. My legislative analyst, Jannie Bédard Guillemette, was born on December 6. She’s from Quebec. The spirit that she brought to our work I want to recognize in particular.

Hi, Jannie.

I got to meet so many advocates from across the country who had been galvanized by repeated violence. What I describe is an actual act of femicide, but of course, the student movement to recognize sexual violence on the campuses of Canadian post-secondary institutions was very strong. The survivors experienced, across the country, a fragmented patchwork of often inaccessible policies and services, so I heard a lot about student movement efforts in every province to tackle campus rape, sexual violence. The federation of students committed a lot of their political capital to advocate on this issue.

At home in Nanaimo, where I’m elected in the riding of Nanaimo–Gabriola Island…. It hosts Vancouver Island University, the student union there, and Nanaimo’s Haven Society, which is a provincially renowned group that provides shelter to women and their families at their very worst time. They activate every year very strongly during the United Nations’ 16 days of activism to end violence against women.

One of the annual actions that they take is what they call the Clothesline Project. We’ll see, on the campus at Vancouver Island University in Nanaimo, art and kind of dirty laundry, in effect. Their goal is to air out and break the silence against the critical issue of violence against women.

The Vancouver Island University Faculty Association women’s and gender equity committee does really groundbreaking work in our community, raising the alarm on sexual violence and harassment on campus.

The British Columbia Federation of Students, again focusing on sexual violence on campus.

The Vancouver Island University Students Union, very clear and strong on this issue. They also were some of the initiators of a really important program that’s available for anybody at a British Columbia post-secondary university or college, Here2Talk, 24-hour access to mental health supports that our government has funded. Very important work.

I’m also really proud of Vancouver Island University and the MBA program, not necessarily where you think that there is going to be a bastion of feminist action. The MBA Games in 2017 made its total focus creating safe spaces and safe places across the country so women and children are free from all forms of violence on post-secondary campuses.

[3:40 p.m.]

The organizing team from Vancouver Island University, the MBA program, raised over $300,000 that year for the Moose Hide Campaign, their charity of choice. You can still see some of their videos and social media and campaigns that they developed from a business administration perspective to raise awareness and to raise funds.

The British Columbia Federation of Students women’s caucus has been a very strong activist on this issue. Student unions across British Columbia under the umbrella of the Federation of Students have been partnering with and amplifying the voice of stolen sisters.

A powerful organization that I tapped on a lot when I was doing federal work was OurTurn. It assesses university campuses across the country. It gave Canadian universities a grade of C-minus for their campus rape and sexual assault policies.

Altogether, why is this so important? My colleague the House Leader, I’m pretty sure, from the Green Party, not the interim leader of the Green Party…. In any case, the West Vancouver–Sea to Sky member named this very well.

This is young people’s, and particularly young women’s, first time away from home. They don’t have their usual support systems. They are singularly vulnerable at this time. Their campus should be a safe place where if they are assaulted, if there is any violence or harassment against them…. They really rely deeply, more than any other time of their life, probably, on having a caring and consistent approach and way to respond to be safe in the moment and then to pursue justice. That vulnerability means that this is our particular responsibility.

Now let’s turn to the British Columbia response, which we are debating here today. I’m so encouraged…. Although I got that real wake-up call from the student movement across the whole country about the failure of many provinces and, certainly, failure of the federal government to adopt a consistent response. I did hear this.

If you’ve got sisters from two different families that go to universities in two different provinces, we really hope that there is an equivalent system of care to catch them if something goes wrong. There is often just that interfamily, or within networks of friends, coaching about who you can turn to.

At that time, we were arguing strongly for a federal framework, which just has not come. So British Columbia has gone ahead and taken the responsible thing. British Columbia continues to lead nationally on supporting efforts to prevent and respond to sexual violence in the post-secondary sector. B.C. was one of the first provinces to pass legislation that requires post-secondary institutions to have a sexual violence policy in place, and that has been achieved by all our post-secs in British Columbia, for which I’m grateful.

I recognize the sector is under a lot of pressure in many ways. They have responded to and adopted this work that was required in legislation. I don’t take that for granted. I’m grateful for that.

Things have evolved since then, and the minister described this quite clearly in her speech at the point of second reading. Both the recognition and the nature of sexual violence has changed. Also, we have learned from the experience of survivors on campus. We have listened as a government to both the barriers that remain for vulnerable people on campus in seeking justice and achieving safety, and we’ve also listened to and learned from the gaps.

I’m speaking in support of Bill 18, which is a proposed Sexual Violence Policy Act that will replace the existing Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act, closing gaps in the current framework and strengthening institutions’ responses to sexual violence.

This comes within a framework of other responses. Since 2017, our government has funded to address sexual violence, and the post-secondary community has funded work to raise awareness on consent and sexual violence. It’s an enhanced institutional system for reporting and disclosing sexual violence.

[3:45 p.m.]

We’ve developed plain-language supports for institutional policies. We’ve developed open-source training resources for institutions. We’ve provided specialized supports for rural and remote campuses, including investigation training for staff. And we’ve continued to carry on outreach to students to better understand their diverse experiences.

All of that work in the moment to enact the 2017 policy and then the extensive consultation that happened with the sector, the ending-violence-against-women sector, and the student movement has added on to the existing framework that we had.

Already post-secs were required to establish and update their own sexual violence policy. They’ve been required by law to provide an annual report to their board on the implementation of the policy, and they’ve been required to review their policy at least once every three years to ensure it remains effective and relevant.

Now with the new legislation that is before us, those requirements that I just described remain in place, and we add on expanding scope beyond students to include faculty, employees, contractors, volunteers and board members. We are making it clear that institutions must pursue in their policies…. To promote prevention of sexual violence, they must include a culture of consent and accountability.

We are strengthening requirements for consultation during policy reviews. The legislation requires more robust annual reporting requirements. It will provide institutions with express authority to share information about interim measures and case outcomes with survivors. The member for Ladysmith-Oceanside described this in more detail, how important that is.

Finally, in the legislation, we are establishing consistent standards provincewide and expanding our regulation-making authority to make sure that sexual violence policies are consistent and they reflect the best practices across all B.C. post-sec institutions.

I’m very encouraged by the culture within our post-secondary partners. They do share experiences. They invite us in sometimes to witness those conversations. I know that, with the increased focus and clarity that this legislation brings, this will just enhance our colleges’ and universities’ abilities to share best practices and encourage each other to do the very best.

None of this, of course, is in isolation. This legislation is focused on the post-secondary world because of the unique vulnerability of students, young women especially. But I do want members of the public to know that additional supports to both prevent and end violence and to protect women and families at the most terrifying and scary time continue and are available to all members.

We have a gender-based violence action plan called Safe and Supported that was adopted, I think, about a year and a half ago. We’ve invested in legal aid expansion for people experiencing family violence, including legal representation through a new family law clinic model and a significant expansion of legal aid eligibility criteria.

I’m particularly grateful for the Centre for Family Equity and Legal Aid B.C. for supporting that work and offering a multitude of ways for people to be able to access help and safety at the most profoundly challenging time.

We’re providing trauma-informed, culturally safe sexual assault services throughout the province, including 70 new sexual assault programs, 18 of which are Indigenous-focused. You’ll remember that when the opposition was in government, those sexual assault centres had been closed for budgetary reasons, I presume.

We’ve also improved access to financial and other benefits available through the crime victim assistance program.

[3:50 p.m.]

We’ve been helping women and children escaping violence, preventing homelessness, through the women’s transition house funding program, which operates over 1,500 units of safe housing with more underway, say in my own community in Nanaimo. I’m very grateful to B.C. Housing and Snuneymuxw First Nation for building that work together.

There is more that we have implemented in partnership into an astonishingly effective, resilient and powerful sector. I raise my hands in particular to the Ending Violence Association of B.C. I thank them in particular for their work shaping this legislation, shaping the action plan that’s attached to it and for their very strong encouragement that this House pass the legislation.

I’ll note also that in the process in this House, already this chamber had passed the Intimate Images Protection Act that the Attorney General had introduced into this House. And then this week we are simultaneously debating an update to that legislation — again, British Columbia leading the country on this particular form of gender-based violence. Collectively, both these investments, these programs delivered in cooperation with the not-for-profit sector and the two pieces of legislation here before us today….

I’ll conclude by saying these are all reflective of our government’s continued focus to support people at their most vulnerable time, to prevent harm, to do that in a trauma-informed way, to do that in partnership with the First Nations Justice Council and other Indigenous leaders.

We acknowledge every day that there is more for us to do, and we remain committed to build on that existing work with our partners, to strengthen sexual violence prevention and response within our post-secondary communities anywhere that vulnerable people live.

With hope that we have another unanimous vote, as we’ve had two already today, on advancing bills forward, I’m grateful to my colleagues in both the Conservative and the Green Party for their fairly positive speeches today.

With thanks for your attention, Mr. Speaker, I’ll end my comments again asserting my support for Bill 18.

Korky Neufeld: I rise to speak to Bill 18, the Sexual Violence Policy Act, 2025, legislation that repeals and replaces the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act passed in 2016.

I just want to thank my fellow colleagues who have addressed this issue already, and they brought up some very, very good points. As the former Post-Secondary critic, I remember — and the member is in the House right now — I brought this topic up in committee stage to the former Minister of Post-Secondary, because student unions, as I criss-crossed the province and talked to institutions and to student unions, have been lobbying this for a very, very long time.

I just want the public to know that this government has been in power for ten years, and those student have been lobbying for something like this for at least that long. I just want to make sure, nine years plus, but ask that the new Minister of Post-Secondary pay close attention to what has happened in her role previously, because there have been repeated…. As I read through the Hansard reports, through the committee stages from years past, there are repeated themes, repeated themes, repeated themes, and this was one of them.

I would like to say I’m glad it’s here, but it should have been here a long time ago. This is a societal issue. This is not just a campus issue. This is something that’s really broad, and it’s impacting vulnerable kids. Like someone has said recently, they are the first time away from home, and their safety nets aren’t there. This is across Canada and British Columbia, and I would say even further than that.

[3:55 p.m.]

At UFV in our beautiful city in the country, Abbotsford, we also have had some of these. I just want to read some of the headlines from newspapers that impacted our community.

“Abbotsford Police Seek Person of Interest in Sexual Touching Incident.” “Man sought in connection with sexual touching of two male students on the Abbotsford campus.” March 28, 2018. “On March 20, police say the suspect allegedly brushed the genitals of a male student in a washroom at the Abbotsford campus. Police say the victim followed the suspect and took a picture of him.”

Our university, because they are so closely tied to our community, has taken action, and I want to quote: “UFV sexualized violence support. UFV has committed to providing support and options to members of our community who have experienced sexualized violence. We encourage you to access the many support programs available both on and off campus. You are not alone. We are here to help.”

It is making a difference because they are so closely tied to our small community. This institution has taken this matter seriously, and I want to thank UFV for their intentional and ongoing action in addressing this pervasive issue across B.C. campuses and especially in our community. It is making a difference on and off our campus.

Speaking to the bill, at its core, this bill seeks to strengthen how our post-secondary institutions — universities, colleges, technical schools — prevent and respond to sexual violence. The stated goal is to foster safe and respectful inclusive learning in working environments. It is a goal that every member in this House can and should support.

We know that campuses should be places of opportunity — places where students, where faculty, where staff can pursue learning, can pursue research and pursue community without fear or intimidation. Yet far too many of these spaces have not always been safe.

This isn’t new. Like I said, this has been known for years. Student unions have brought this forward year after year after year — acts of sexual violence, whether physical, psychological or digital.

I want to make that comment because I’m the new critic for AI. I want to say that just because it’s not a physical violence…. It is just as deeply impactful. I believe there should be something in here to protect sexual violence regarding digital images. They last a lifetime. They damage not only individuals but the trust and safety of the entire campus and the community surrounding.

This bill represents an attempt to modernize, to clarify and to expand the framework for how post-secondary institutions respond to that reality. There is good reason to be cautiously optimistic about how it sets out to do this. Several things I want to bring up.

One, expanded scope and clear definitions. The first notable change is scope. The previous act, passed in 2016, focused almost exclusively on students. Bill 18 expands that coverage to include faculty and staff, acknowledging that sexual violence is not confined to one group or one type of relationship.

This is an important step. It reinforces that every member of the campus community, whether a student, a professor, a researcher or a staff member, deserves the same protection, the same process and the same respect.

The bill also replaces outdated terminology, such as “sexual misconduct” with “sexual violence,” a broader, more precise term that actually captures both the physical and psychological harm. And it recognizes that such harm can occur not only in person but also through technology. In an era of online harassment and image-based abuse, this modernizes the definition and is far too long overdue.

[4:00 p.m.]

These changes send an important signal. Our laws must evolve to reflect the lived realities of its survivors. Structure and accountability — Bill 18 introduces several structural requirements that, if implemented with care, could lead to greater accountability and cultural change on campuses, which is sorely needed. Each post-secondary institution will now be required to establish a sexual violence policy that includes clear procedures for responding to disclosures and former allegations.

Two, create an advisory committee that reflects the diversity of the campus community, including at least one student.

Three, conduct consultations with students, faculty and staff when developing or reviewing their policies. Provide annual reports summarizing their response to incidents and prevention efforts. And lastly, make those reports publicly available.

These are important mechanisms. They not only promote transparency but also help ensure that sexual violence policies are not static documents sitting on a shelf. They become living frameworks, reviewed, refined and informed by the community they serve.

The inclusion of mandatory training for all members of the institutional community is another positive step. Education is essential in preventing harm, fostering consent and building a culture of respect. Cautious optimism; implementation matters. I want to read a few things here, some statistics that I’ve read.

Sexual violence is a persistent and serious issue on British Columbia campuses, affecting students, staff and faculty. It’s a widespread issue. In 2019, Statistics Canada surveyed that 71 percent of post-secondary students in Canada had witnessed or experienced unwanted sexual behaviour. That’s 71 percent under-reported. This is staggering.

Sexual violence on Canadian campuses is known to be under-reported. In 2019, fewer than one in ten women reported incidents in their school. And here’s why. Survivors often cite a lack of faith in the school’s reporting process or feeling the incident was not serious enough.

This shocked me. I never understood this. There are high-risk periods on campus. The first eight weeks of the academic year, often called “red zone,” see a high percentage of on-campus assaults. That is so sad, and the perpetrators are known. The majority of perpetrators are fellow students.

Now, I’m not going to mention the universities or the institutions, because I think it’s so pervasive. It’s everywhere. But stories of sexual violence on British Columbia campuses highlight issues of inadequate responses from universities, significant student experience of misconduct and long-term impact on survivors.

A 2022 survey found that one in five university students experienced sexual assault or misconduct. And cases involving former student athletes and PhD students underscore failures in the university’s handling of complaints. Because these are high-profile people, they’d rather sweep it under the rug than deal with it — shame on them — leading to legal action like human rights complaints by survivors.

In institutions, stories about sexual violence include news reports of specific incidents, such as a 2019 case of inappropriate touching by a cyclist on campus and a 2016 incident of voyeurism involving a student and a mirror.

Additionally, this institution conducted a survey revealing that a significant portion of students perceived sexual violence as common on campus and a proportionate report of feeling completely unsafe on campus.

A social media post from 2021 also referenced multiple incidents of sexual assault and harassment at a campus student event. These are institutions in our province.

While there is much to support in this bill, my optimism is tempered by caution. The effectiveness of this legislation will depend entirely on how it’s implemented, not just what it promises on paper.

The framework is sound, but many of the most consequential details are left to future regulations or to discretion of post-secondary institutions — for example, the composition and authority of the advisory committee, the standard for consultation and reporting, the consistency of training across institutions, the type of data that must be collected and shared.

[4:05 p.m.]

These are not small matters. They are the practical elements that determine whether this legislation becomes a meaningful tool for change or a well-intentioned exercise in administration.

We must ensure that the voices of students, the voices of survivors, the voices of experts are central in developing these regulations, not as an afterthought but as active partners. The consultation process must be inclusive. It must be transparent. It must be trauma-informed.

Four, a broader view of safety and well-being. While Bill 18 focuses on sexual violence, and rightly so, we must also recognize that safety on campus is multidimensional. Financial insecurity, housing shortages and mental health challenges also leave students and staff very vulnerable.

That is why I believe the conversation around campus safety should not stop with this bill. Transparency in tuition costs, textbook expenses and housing fees is also part of building an environment where students can thrive. Exploitation takes many forms, and economic vulnerability can heighten risk.

I want to stop here for a moment. I have to state this publicly. I did it in committee, and I feel I have to do it here as well. Kwantlen Student Association financial scandals in the amount of millions of dollars — student fee dollars, mostly student loan financial mismanagement.

Langara College, November 18, 2015, the current Premier said: “I’m very concerned about the information you’ve presented about what is happening at Langara as an advocate for open government and transparency at all levels.” As an MLA opposition at that time, is he still very concerned for the students today as he was when he first made that comment?

The Times Colonist of August 22, 2024, in an article entitled “B.C. Student Societies in Urgent Need of Law Reform,” said: “Fiscal electoral scandals have plagued B.C. student societies for decades. It’s past time for an overhaul.”

It’s broader than just sexual. People can be taken advantage of in many, many forms. While this bill addresses one critical piece of the safety puzzle, it is not the whole picture. We can and should widen the scope to ensure our post-secondary institutions are accountable for the full experience of those who learn and work there.

Five, transparency, data and trust. The bill requires institutions to publish annual reports on their efforts to prevent and respond to sexual violence. That’s an important step toward transparency, but again, the value lies in the details. Reports must go beyond statistics. They must show whether policies are working, whether survivors feel supported and whether real change is taking place on the ground.

The minister also has the power to direct institutions to conduct surveys on the effectiveness of this policy. That’s encouraging, but we should ensure that the results of those surveys are publicly released. Transparency is not only about compliance. It’s about accountability and trust.

Six, supporting institutions to succeed. Implementing this act will not be simple. It will require resources. It’ll require expertise and cultural change. Post-secondary institutions will need to invest in staff training, trauma-informed supports and safe reporting systems. Advisory committees will need time and capacity to do their work effectively, and the ministry will need to provide oversight, coordination and clear guidance.

If we truly expect meaningful progress, then institutions cannot be left to absorb these new responsibilities without adequate support. Legislative intent must be matched with operational capacity.

In conclusion, hope and vigilance. Yes, I’m cautiously optimistic about Bill 18. It takes meaningful steps towards making our post-secondary institutions safer and more inclusive. It reflects years of advocacy by students, faculty and survivors who have called for clearer processes and stronger protections.

[4:10 p.m.]

Optimism must come with vigilance. Passing this bill cannot be the end of the conversation. It must be the beginning of a new commitment to prevention, a new commitment to transparency, a new commitment for survivor-centred reform.

If the government follows through and it consults broadly, regulates wisely, funds adequately and supports honestly, then Bill 18 can make a difference. It can move us closer to the culture of consent and accountability that every campus deserves. That is something we can all hope for and something we must all work to ensure.

We look forward to the committee stage where we will refine this bill to ensure a positive outcome.

Amna Shah: I rise today in full support of the Sexual Violence Policy Act. I want to begin by acknowledging the survivors, the students, the advocates, the Indigenous leaders whose voices, experiences and relentless advocacy have brought us to this important moment.

Sexual violence is never acceptable. It causes deep and lasting harm. It robs individuals of their safety, their dignity, their well-being. It undermines the very values that our post-secondary institutions are meant to uphold — values like respect, equality, inclusion and truth.

This affects an entire community, not just individuals. As we know, post-secondary institutions are communities, and they’re seen as such by students. That’s why this act is so important.

What we’re doing here today is more than just updating legislation. We’re reaffirming our collective responsibility to ensure that every person, whether a student, a staff member, faculty or community member, has the right to feel safe, heard and supported in their learning and working environments.

The current legislation, the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act, was introduced in 2016. At the time, it was a landmark step, making B.C. one of the first provinces in Canada to mandate that post-secondary institutions have policies in place to address sexual violence.

Since then, we’ve actually learned a great deal. We’ve heard directly from students and from survivors who have courageously come forward to share their stories not just of violence but of being ignored, dismissed and re-traumatized by institutional processes or even of being left without the support that they need just to get through the day, to get through their life, to prosper, to flourish.

We also heard from Indigenous communities who rightfully pointed out that many institutional responses to sexual violence are not grounded in cultural safety. They don’t reflect Indigenous ways of knowing, and they often fail to acknowledge the impacts of colonialization and intergenerational trauma.

We heard from international students and graduate students, who face unique challenges, barriers that are related to language, immigration status, power imbalances and fear of retaliation or academic consequences. That’s pretty scary. And we’ve heard from institutions themselves, many of whom want to do better. They want more guidance, better tools, a stronger framework, so that they can meet their obligations effectively and consistently. They’re partners in this.

The Sexual Violence Policy Act responds to those concerns. It builds on what we’ve learned, and it moves us towards a more accountable, trauma-informed and survivor-centred approach.

Let me speak to some of the key elements of this legislation. This new act is going to strengthen consultation requirements by requiring institutions to establish advisory committees that include student representation.

[4:15 p.m.]

Sometimes students are left out of decision-making processes, and these processes and those outcomes directly impact their safety and their well-being. I think it’s about time that they be an integral part of that process that determines what happens to their life in a post-secondary institution. These consultation requirements will ensure that their voices are not just heard but embedded in institutional decision-making.

This act is also going to expand the scope of institutional policies so that they apply not just to students but to faculty, staff, contractors, volunteers and other community members. This is crucial. Survivors must be able to come forward regardless of who has harmed them.

Institutions must be equipped to respond. No more of this bureaucratic “oh well, this doesn’t really qualify because there’s a different accountability mechanism for this, and you’ll have to go somewhere else.” That’s unacceptable, especially for somebody who is already going through so much after being harmed in a place that was meant to be safe for them.

This act will improve transparency and accountability by requiring institutions to make their annual sexual violence reports publicly available. These reports will need to include details on prevention and response activities, not just policy updates, because it’s the details that actually matter. This helps communities hold institutions accountable and ensures that survivors know their voices matter.

Every community is different. Every post-secondary institution is different. But what should be the same for every post-secondary institution is the way in which they respond and the time in which they respond to topical issues or to the issues of the month, the year or the changing dynamics of what is happening in our post-secondary institutions.

This act will establish the authority for institutions to disclose case outcomes to survivors. This is a long-overdue change. Survivors deserve to know the outcomes of investigations that they initiated, and this amendment removes the ambiguity that has prevented institutions from providing that information.

This act will update language and terminology throughout the act to reflect best practices, such as using “sexual violence” instead of “sexual misconduct.” To ensure the law aligns with a trauma-informed and survivor-centred approach, this is exceptionally important.

This act will also provide expanded regulation-making authority so that in the future, government can establish consistent standards across the sector, ensuring that no matter where a student is studying, they can expect the same level of protection, transparency and care.

I also want to speak to the post-secondary sexual violence action plan, which accompanies this legislation. It’s one thing to change laws, but we also need the tools, training. There needs to be a culture change that makes those laws real in people’s lives, where they have an on-the-ground impact, a positive impact, on people’s lives every single day.

This action plan includes 12 targeted actions which are grouped under five priorities. These five priorities include lifting up Indigenous approaches, increasing prevention through awareness and training, improving institutional responses, enhancing data collection and reporting and strengthening privacy and confidentiality.

Three of these actions have already been completed, including a toolkit for institutions and new intersectional training materials that address the needs of Indigenous students, graduate students and international students. Several other actions are directly supported by this new legislation — for example, improving institutional responses, setting clearer standards and requiring stronger consultation and reporting.

[4:20 p.m.]

Others will be advanced through continued work with sector partners, including developing trauma-informed investigation guidelines, establishing a roster of trained investigators and improving clarity around confidentiality and the use of non-disclosure agreements.

Now, this action plan didn’t magically appear. It reflects years of engagement with students, with First Nations and Métis partners, faculty, community service organizations and advocacy groups. Their wisdom and their experience have been embedded into this framework. Again, I want to acknowledge and thank them for their contributions.

We know that laws alone will not end sexual violence, but they do set the standard for how we respond. They give institutions the tools that they need. They give survivors a path to justice and support. They give survivors hope. They give survivors confidence that when harmed, justice will prevail. Those who harm will be held accountable. And they give us, as legislators, a responsibility — a responsibility to keep listening, keep improving and keep holding institutions accountable.

This legislation is a message to every student in British Columbia, a message that says that your safety matters. Your voice matters. Your future matters. It gives institutions a stronger, clearer and more consistent framework to do the right thing, and it gives communities the tools to hold those institutions accountable.

Lastly, it sends a signal to survivors, to staff, to families and to future generations that we are committed to building campuses and communities that are truly safe, inclusive and respectful.

For these reasons, I am so pleased to support the Sexual Violence Policy Act, and I urge all members of this House to do the same.

Rosalyn Bird: I rise today to speak in support of the intent of Bill 18, the Sexual Violence Policy Act, 2025. This legislation addresses an issue that touches every community, every campus and every family in British Columbia — the need to ensure that our post-secondary institutions are places of safety, dignity and respect.

Sexual violence has no place in our lecture halls, our staff rooms or our student residences. When it occurs, it leaves deep and lasting harm, not only for survivors but for entire campus communities that struggle to rebuild trust.

This bill seeks to strengthen the framework that governs how post-secondary institutions prevent and respond to sexual violence. It replaces the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act of 2016, expanding its reach beyond students to include faculty, employers and contractors. It introduces new requirements for training, consultation and reporting, and it gives the ministry authority to order reviews and surveys to assess effectiveness.

Those are positive steps, and on behalf of the Conservative caucus, I want to be clear. We support the principle of this legislation. But good policy must translate into practice, and practice must be backed by resources, clarity and accountability. At committee stage, we intend to examine whether Bill 18 delivers on those tests.

Our post-secondary campuses are not immune to the same societal challenges that exist elsewhere. Studies consistently show that young women, gender-diverse students and those in their first years of study are at higher risk of experiencing sexual assault. However, I’d like to acknowledge that sexual assault and violence is not gender- or relationship type–specific.

When the 2016 act was first passed, it represented a major cultural shift, requiring universities and colleges to acknowledge the problem and to develop policies for responding to it. But nearly a decade later, evaluations by student groups and faculty associations show uneven implementation.

[4:25 p.m.]

Some institutions have robust prevention programs and survivor supports. Others have little more than a document posted on their website. Bill 18 is an attempt to modernize and strengthen that framework. It defines sexual violence more broadly, covering physical and psychological forms and acts committed through technology. It requires institutions to make their policies public, to establish advisory committees and to review those policies at least every three years.

These are welcome changes. They recognize that safety is an ongoing responsibility and not a one-time exercise in compliance.

We agree with the government that policies must be transparent and accessible. Every student and staff member should know where to turn if something happens, and every institution should have clear procedures for responding.

We also support the expansion of coverage to include faculty and staff. In too many past cases, institutional policies focused solely on students, leaving employees in a grey zone. No one student, instructor or janitor should ever feel unsafe at work or at school.

We support the new requirement that institutions provide training on sexual violence. Awareness and prevention begin with education. We support the mandate for annual reports to governing bodies. Public reporting builds trust, and it keeps the issue from being buried.

In broad terms, we are aligned with the objectives of the bill. However, we also believe that details matter, and that it is where our role as the official opposition becomes important.

First, there is the question of implementation. The bill imposes new requirements on every post-secondary institution, from large research universities to small regional colleges and Indigenous learning centres.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Many smaller institutions do not have the same administrative or financial capacity as a university with full-time legal departments and campus security divisions. Requiring each of them to maintain advisory committees, conduct surveys, publish reports and provide ongoing training will require resources. Yet nowhere in this bill is there a mention of dedicated funding or provincial support to meet those new obligations.

At committee, we will be asking whether the government plans to assist institutions with standardized templates, data tools or grants to ensure consistency and compliance. If these policies are implemented unevenly, we risk repeating the very gaps this bill is meant to close.

Bill 18 requires annual reports, but it does not specify what happens if an institution fails to meet its obligations or if its report shows systemic problems. Will there be follow-up? Will there be public release of those reports or only internal submission to a board? Will the minister have the power and the duty to act if a school fails to comply?

We cannot rely on moral persuasion alone. Accountability must be built into the system. A survivor who reads that their institution is out of compliance should not have to wait three years for a policy review. There must be timely oversight and consequences for negligence or inaction.

Clause 3 of the bill outlines procedures for disclosures and formal allegations. While our focus must rightly be on protecting and supporting survivors, we must also ensure that disciplinary processes are fair and transparent for everyone involved.

False or mistaken allegations are rare, but they can happen, and when they do, they can destroy reputations and careers. A sound policy must protect the rights of both the complainants and respondents while remaining survivor-centred.

Recently in my riding, there actually was a faculty member who was accused of something that did not turn out to be true. That entire process was extremely frustrating. It drew a lot of stress. It drew a lot of questions that were uncomfortable to answer. Although that faculty member stayed on and continued to teach, it was not a process that they would want to repeat.

We will examine whether the bill’s framework sufficiently protects privacy, presumption of innocence and the right to appeal decisions. Justice is not served when one person’s pain is met with another’s silence. It is served when truth and fairness prevail together.

[4:30 p.m.]

Clause 10 permits an institution to share information with a complainant about interim measures and the outcome of a formal allegation. That is a positive step. Survivors deserve to know the results of their case. But there must also be clarity about what information can be shared and how privacy will be safeguarded, particularly when an employee or faculty member is involved and employment law protections apply. Transparency and privacy are not opposites. They must be balanced.

Clause 6 requires each institution to establish an advisory committee that reflects the diversity of British Columbia. We support this requirement. However, we will seek assurance that these committees will include representation from survivors and those with lived experience, not just administrators or consultants. Real consultation means listening to the people most affected.

Clause 7 further requires consultation with students, faculty, staff and trade unions before a policy is adopted or reviewed. Again, this is a positive step, but the bill should specify that those consultations must be meaningful, not apathetic. Too often consultation becomes a check box exercise. Survivors and students deserve more than token input.

Clause 8 gives the ministry authority to direct a post-secondary institution to conduct a survey on the effectiveness of its policy. The minister may decide who is surveyed, what questions are asked and when results are submitted. While these powers may help ensure consistent data collection, they must also be transparent. We will ask that the survey results be made public. Students and parents should be able to compare institutions to see where progress is being made and where it is not. A culture of safety, dignity and respect from openness, not secrecy.

Clause 11 requires institutions to make training available to members of the campus community. That’s a start, but simply making training available does not mean it will be effective or completed. We believe the bill should establish minimum standards for training content, frequency and participation. Orientation programs for new students and mandatory sessions for faculty could be one model. Online modules might be another. The key is consistency. If we expect meaningful cultural change, training must be more than a PowerPoint or a poster campaign. It must be a sustained conversation about respect, consent and responsibility.

Sexual violence cannot be addressed by legislation alone. Culture matters. Institutions must move beyond compliance to commitment — commitment to believing survivors, to educating bystanders and to creating environments where everyone feels safe, reporting concerns without fear or reprisal. Bill 18 lays the groundwork, but the real work happens on campus, in classrooms, dormitories, labs and staff meetings. While government oversight is important, real progress will depend on the collaboration between institutions, students, unions and community organizations with front-line expertise.

We should also learn from the shortcomings of the 2016 act. Reviews at the time revealed confusion over definitions, uneven training standards and a lack of follow-through on policy commitments. Bill 18 addresses some of these gaps, but it still relies heavily on regulation, meaning that much of the practical detail will be written later behind closed doors. At committee, we will ask that the regulations be published in draft form and subject to consultation with institutions, survivor advocates and the public before they take effect. Transparency in the rule-making process builds trust in the system.

In order to understand why Bill 18 is not only timely but essential, we must place it in the broader context of gender-based violence, legislative reform and evolving norms about dignity, privacy and power. The urgency of this bill is underlined by the sobering realities in British Columbia.

[4:35 p.m.]

According to the provincial government, each year some 20,000 women in B.C. experience relationship violence. In addition, Statistics Canada indicates that 29.8 percent of women in B.C. report experiencing physical or sexual assault by an intimate partner since the age of 15.

Advocacy groups and coalitions note that nearly one in two women in B.C., 48 percent, have experienced some form of intimate-partner violence over their lifetime and that nearly 30 percent have experienced physical or sexual violence specifically. These are not abstract numbers. They reflect a culture of power imbalances, silence, trauma and broken trust.

Many cases go unreported. As one independent review recently highlighted, 80 percent of those who have experienced intimate-partner violence do not report it. Women reported 22 percent and men only 14, and 94 percent of sexual assault survivors do not report to the police at all. We must let those figures sink in. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people in this province live daily with the weight of violence unseen by the public eye.

By linking Bill 18 to these realities, we affirm that the violence we seek to prevent is not limited to campuses. The environments, relationships and power dynamics that underlie intimate-partner violence are mirrored, sometimes magnified, in universities and college settings. A culture that allows abuse in the home, the dating relationship or an intimate partnership often bleeds into how we treat consent, boundaries and respect in academic institutions.

This week this House is also considering Bill 17, the Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025. Bill 17 seeks to strengthen protections for individuals whose private, intimate images have been shared without consent, raising compensation limits, increasing privacy safeguards and expanding the tools available to victims.

It may be a coincidence that Bill 17 and Bill 18 are being debated in tandem. However, they both address different manifestations of gender-based harm, one dealing with non-consensual digital exposure, the other with broader misconduct and sexual violence, but they are deeply connected in principle. Both laws affirm a culture of consent, privacy, dignity and accountability. We should ensure the regimes do not operate in silos.

For victims whose experience spans both non-consensual image sharing and in-person misconduct, there must be clarity in how institutional policies, privacy law and criminal and civil remedies interact. At committee, we will explore whether Bill 18’s disciplinary and procedural framework properly aligns with the evolving protections of Bill 17.

One of the strengths of Bill 18 is that it explicitly extends coverage to faculty, employees and contractors, not just students. That is significant. In the campus environment, faculty often occupy formal and informal positions of power through grading, mentorship, references, research supervision and authority over funding or opportunities. When misconduct occurs in that context, the disproportion of power is sharp. A student may feel unable to refuse, to challenge or to speak up. A faculty member may use institutional leverage, whether consciously or unconsciously, in ways that compromise consent or fairness.

Thus, by including faculty and staff, Bill 18 acknowledges that campus culture is not only amongst peers but is defined in hierarchical relationships. In enforcing this law, policy must recognize those power dynamics, and safeguards must ensure that complaints against faculty are handled with transparency, fairness and sensitivity. Survivors must feel safe. Respondents must receive due process.

Another area to examine further is follow-up. The bill allows institutions to submit annual reports, but it does not require the minister to publish a provincewide summary or to table results in the Legislature. If we are serious about accountability, there should be an annual public report showing progress, identifying trends and highlighting best practices across campuses. That transparency would also help institutions learn from one another.

[4:40 p.m.]

I want to close this section by acknowledging survivors. For many, the decision to come forward is incredibly difficult. The trauma of sexual violence can be compounded by stigma, disbelief or bureaucratic indifference.

Front-line training, compassion intake and access to counselling services are essential to complement this bill. We will be seeking clarification at committee on whether the ministry plans to track support counselling and crisis response capacity at institutions, not just policy paperwork.

Legislation alone cannot solve a crisis of culture. Even the most robust policy is only as effective as the environment in which it operates. That is why prevention and cultural change must be central to our approach.

We must push universities and colleges beyond mere compliance. A bland checklist is inadequate. What we need is a culture of dignity and respect in every relationship — student to student, faculty to student, staff to staff and administration to front-line employees.

A campus where sexual violence is rare is not simply one with enforcement. It is one where every classroom, lab, dormitory, meeting space and hallway reinforces consent, listening and respect. To build that, institutions need sustained training; curriculum integration, not just add-on workshops; bystander education; open dialogue on power and consent; and the mechanisms for students and staff to engage in cultural reflection.

Robust prevention means empowering bystanders and building peer-led programs. Students often see early warning signs — isolation, coercion, controlling behaviour and harassment — while trained bystanders can intervene safely and send clear messages to peers.

Institutions should partner with community organizations, survivor advocacy groups, Indigenous healing circles and mental health networks. By bringing in outside expertise and lived experiences, campuses avoid intolerance and they gain credibility.

Training should not only be for new students but repeated over time, adapted to campus context and tailored to a diversity of communities — Indigenous, gender-diverse, international and differently abled. It should also include faculty and staff, not just students, because everyone helps to shape the culture.

Preventing misconduct means teaching about consent in its full complexity, not just yes or no but capacity, coercion, power, influence and relationship dynamics. Many harmful acts occur in grey zones where hierarchical dynamics complicate voluntariness. Because faculty and staff are part of the extended reach of this bill, training must address how power imbalances affect consent. A student may feel unable to refuse or feel pressure even in a non-violent interaction. We must not let prestige, authority or dependency distort boundary lines.

Post-secondary institutions value their autonomy and rightly so. Academic freedom and institutional self-governance are vital to higher education. But autonomy cannot be the excuse for inaction. When it comes to safety, government has the responsibility to set clear expectations and monitor the outcomes.

Bill 18 attempts to strike that balance. Our task at committee will be to ensure that it succeeds, that oversight strengthens rather than undermines the ability of institutions to respond effectively.

Conservatives believe that institutions must bear responsibility, not just regulators. The best campus policies will be those that integrate safety into mission, governance and everyday operations not as a compliance burden but as a core institutional value. At the same time, when systemic failures occur, as they have in the past, the Legislature and the minister must have the real power to intervene.

That intervention must not be punitive for its own sake but corrective, transparent and proportionate. We must guard civil liberties, procedural fairness and the rule of law, even as we centre survivor dignity.

[4:45 p.m.]

The bill must strike the right balance. Survivors deserve compassion, speed, confidentiality and rigorous investigations. Respondents deserve presumption of innocence, clear standards of proof, full opportunity to respond and appeal mechanisms. We will press at committee to sharpen those protections, particularly in the cases involving faculty or staff where employment and academic freedoms are implicated.

Conservatives respect institutional autonomy. Universities and colleges must retain the flexibility to adapt policies to their context while meeting baseline standards. That said, autonomy is not an excuse for evasion. In matters of safety, minimum expectations must apply: transparency, accountability and enforcement.

We will defend against micromanagement, but we will also demand that the line between oversight and coercion be clear, with the appropriate checks and consultation.

At the heart of our approach is respect for human dignity. All policy must centre the needs, voices and rights of individuals. As we support Bill 18 at second reading, our aim is to improve, to fortify, its capacity to deliver safety, fairness and legitimacy, not merely to oppose for political effect.

This is one of those rare issues that transcends party lines. Preventing sexual violence should never be reduced to partisan point scoring. Students, parents, faculty and staff expect us to get this right.

Our caucus approach to the committee stage will be in good faith, offering constructive suggestions and asking tough but necessary questions. We hope the government will show the same openness to improvements that it asks of others.

In conclusion, Bill 18 represents progress but not perfection. It updates the language, broadens coverage and establishes stronger reporting and consultation requirements. Those are genuine improvements.

Yet the test of any law is not how it reads on paper but how it works in practice. Does it create real safety for students and staff? Does it empower institutions to act swiftly and fairly? Does it provide transparency and accountability to the public? Does it ensure that survivors are treated with dignity and compassion? Those are the questions we will bring to committee stage.

For now, we will support this bill’s passage at second reading, recognizing the shared goal that unites us across the aisle to end sexual violence in our campuses and workplaces and to foster a culture everywhere in British Columbia where we can learn, teach and work without fear.

Policies matter, but people matter more. Our job as legislators is to ensure the rules we pass actually protect those people.

With that, those will be our guiding principles as this bill moves forward.

Sunita Dhir: I rise today in full support of Bill 18, the Sexual Violence Policy Act, as it proceeds to third reading.

This is not just a legislative moment; it’s a moral one. It’s a moment that calls on each of us as elected representatives, as community leaders and as human beings to affirm our commitment to safety, dignity and justice in British Columbia’s post-secondary institutions.

We are here today because we have listened. We have heard the voices of survivors, students, staff members and faculty who have shared their stories with courage and vulnerability. We have heard from Indigenous partners, community organizations and advocacy groups who have long called for stronger protections, clearer policies and more compassionate responses, and we have heard from institutions themselves, those who are doing the hard work of creating safer campuses but who need better tools, clearer standards and stronger support to do so.

[4:50 p.m.]

This legislation is our answer, it’s our promise, and it’s our responsibility. Sexual violence is a pervasive issue. It does not discriminate. It affects people of all genders, all backgrounds and all walks of life, and our post-secondary institutions, despite their role as places of learning and growth, are not immune.

Since the introduction of the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act in 2016, we have made progress. Every public post-secondary institution in B.C. now has a sexual violence policy. Awareness has increased. Supportive services have expanded. Conversations that were once whispered are now being spoken aloud, but we know that gaps remain.

We know that survivors still face barriers when trying to report incidents. We know that policies vary widely across institutions, creating inconsistency and confusion. And we know that survivors often feel left out of the process, uninformed, unsupported and unheard. This is not acceptable.

The Sexual Violence Policy Act is designed to address these gaps. It’s designed to ensure that every member of a post-secondary community, whether student, professor, administrator or volunteer, is protected. It is designed to ensure that institutions are held accountable, that survivors are supported and that our collective response is rooted in trauma-informed, survivor-centred principles.

Allow me to outline the key provisions of this act and why they matter so deeply. This bill expands the scope of protection. Under the previous legislation, sexual violence policies were primarily focused on students. This act expands that scope to include all members of the institutional community, faculty, staff, contractors, volunteers and board members.

This is a critical change. Sexual violence does not only affect students. It can occur between any individuals within a campus community. By broadening the scope, we are acknowledging the lived realities of all those who work, study and serve in our institutions.

This bill strengthens consultation requirements. Institutions will now be required to consult meaningfully within their communities when reviewing and updating sexual violence policies. This ensures that policies are not developed in isolation. They must reflect the voices of those most affected. They must be responsive to diverse experiences, including those of Indigenous students, international students and graduate students.

This bill enhances transparency and accountability. Annual reports on sexual violence policy implementation must now be made publicly available. These reports must include information on prevention, awareness and response initiatives.

[4:55 p.m.]

Transparency builds trust. It allows students and staff to see what their institutions are doing to keep them safe, it allows government and the public to hold institutions accountable, and it ensures that progress is measured, not just promised.

This bill reduces barriers for survivors. The act provides institutions with express authority to share information about interim measures and case outcomes with survivors. This addresses long-standing concerns about privacy and the desire of many survivors to know the progress and outcome of their case.

Survivors deserve to know what is happening in their cases. They deserve clarity. They deserve closure. They deserve to be informed in a way that is respectful, compassionate and legally sound.

This bill establishes consistent standards provincewide. The act expands the government’s regulation-making authority, allowing for the development of consistent standards across all public post-secondary institutions. This ensures that no matter where students study, whether in a large urban university or a small rural college, they are protected by policies that meet the same high standards.

This legislation is only one part of the solution. That’s why the government is also launching the post-secondary sexual violence action plan, a comprehensive roadmap with 12 actions under five strategic priorities. These priorities are:

One, lifting up Indigenous approaches and working with Indigenous partners to develop training resources and policy standards that reflect Indigenous knowledge systems and support reconciliation.

Two, increasing prevention through awareness and training by providing intersectional training resources tailored to diverse student populations and addressing technology-facilitated sexual violence.

Third, improving institutional responses by developing trauma-informed investigation guidelines, creating a roster of trained investigators and setting standards for accountability measures.

Four, improving data collection and reporting by releasing a toolkit for annual reports, creating a schedule for future surveys and committing to publishing results.

Five, strengthening privacy and confidentiality by developing standards for confidentiality and guidance on the use of non-disclosure agreements.

Three of these actions have already been completed. The legislation supports the implementation of several others, and the remaining actions will be pursued with urgency and resolve. This action plan is not just a policy document. It’s a commitment to change, it’s a promise to survivors, and it’s a blueprint for safer campuses.

The impact of this legislation and action plan will be felt in real lives. It will be felt by the student who finally feels safe enough to report an incident, knowing they will be supported. It will be felt by the faculty member who sees their institution take a stand against harassment and abuse.

[5:00 p.m.]

It will be felt by the survivor who receives clear information about the outcome of their case and who begins to heal. It will be felt by the entire community, who will continue to know that this government will not tolerate acts of sexual violence, and it will be felt by every member of our post-secondary communities who wants to learn, teach and grow in an environment that is safe, respectful and inclusive.

British Columbia has long been a leader in addressing sexual violence in post-secondary institutions. We were one of the first provinces to pass legislation requiring sexual violence policies. We have invested over $2 million in prevention and response efforts since 2017. We have developed open-source training resources, we have supported rural and remote campuses, we have enhanced reporting systems, and we have reached out to students to understand their diverse experiences better.

The results are encouraging. In our most recent survey, 88 percent of students said they feel safe from sexualized violence in their post-secondary communities, up from 78 percent in 2022, but we know there is more to be done. This legislation and action plan built on that foundation. They take us from good intentions to concrete actions. They ensure that our institutions are not just places of learning but places of safety.

The support of this legislation is broad and deep. Ninu Kang, executive director of the Ending Violence Association of B.C., said: “We are thrilled to see that the feedback from our community-based anti-violence sector is reflected in the proposed Sexual Violence Policy Act. We are encouraged to see that the post-secondary sexual violence action plan will assist institutions with the tools and resources they need to better support survivors.”

Ophelia Kehila, manager of the AMS Sexual Assault Support Centre at UBC, said: “We recognize the ministry’s efforts to strengthen policies, enhance consultation and increase accountability as critical steps towards meeting survivors’ needs.”

CJ Rowe, director of the sexual violence support and prevention office at Simon Fraser University, said: “Ending sexual violence on campus takes concrete, sustainable action from all levels of government, institutions and community partners. The proposed new act and actions outlined in the province’s action plan will go a long way to support students, staff and faculty.”

Leah Shumka, director of institutional capacity-building at the University of Victoria, said: “The proposed action plan demonstrates that the ministry is committed to addressing sexualized violence in post-secondary institutions in a more robust manner and is responsive to the voices of students and institutional partners.”

These voices matter. They reflect the lived experiences of those on the front lines, and they affirm the importance of this legislation. Passing this legislation is not the end; it’s just the beginning.

[5:05 p.m.]

We must ensure that institutions have the support they need to implement these changes. We must monitor compliance. We must continue to consult, to listen and to adapt.

We must ensure that survivors are not just protected by policy but supported in practice. We must ensure that our post-secondary institutions are not just places of academic excellence but places of human dignity. And we must ensure that this legislation is not just words on a page but a living, breathing commitment to safety and justice.

Today we have an opportunity to do something meaningful. We have an opportunity to stand together and say that we believe survivors, we support safe campuses and we are committed to change. The Sexual Violence Policy Act is a strong, thoughtful and necessary piece of legislation. It reflects years of consultation, collaboration and courage. It reflects the best of what government can be — responsive, compassionate and committed to justice.

I urge all members of this House to support this act as it moves to third reading. Let us send a clear message to every student, every staff member, every faculty member and every survivor: “You are seen, you are heard, and you are protected.”

Together we are building a safer future.

Heather Maahs: This is one of those rare debates where every single member of this House is likely united by the same ultimate goal — to make British Columbia’s campuses safer, fairer and more respectful places to learn and to work. There may be differences in approach but not in purpose. Sexual violence leaves wounds that reach far beyond the immediate act. It destroys trust. It undermines confidence. It isolates victims and damages the sense of community that our post-secondary institutions should foster.

I want to begin by acknowledging survivors, students, staff, faculty and families who have spoken up and pressed for change. Without their courage, there would be no legislation before us today.

This bill repeals and replaces the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act of 2016. It broadens coverage to include faculty and staff, modernizes language, adds training requirements, mandates advisory committees and introduces regular reviews and surveys to measure effectiveness. These are positive steps.

Our caucus supports the spirit and intent of Bill 18, but as is so often the case in legislation, the intent is only as strong as the details that follow it. And this is where I hope to focus my remarks today — on questions of implementation, clarity, fairness and accountability.

Post-secondary institutions are microcosms of our society. They bring together young people far from home, employees in positions of trust and cultures of intense social interaction. That combination can foster creativity and growth, but it can also create risks.

Statistics Canada reports that more than 70 percent of incidents of sexual assault on campuses go unreported. That means most victims suffer in silence. Some fear retaliation. Others distrust the process, and many simply don’t believe that anything will change.

[5:10 p.m.]

Our job as lawmakers is to ensure that they have reason to believe otherwise, that coming forward will be met with dignity, competence and action. Bill 18 tries to modernize the framework so that policies are not just written once and forgotten but reviewed regularly and kept alive as living documents. Still, we have to make sure these changes are practical, workable and backed by resources.

At its core, this bill does several good things. It updates outdated terminology, replacing “sexual misconduct” with “sexual violence,” a phrase that better reflects the severity of these acts. It requires every institution to maintain a public policy on sexual violence and review it at least once every three years. It compels consultation with students, faculty and staff when policies are developed or amended. It creates advisory committees to advise institutions on prevention and awareness. It authorizes the minister to request surveys and reports to measure effectiveness.

These are constructive steps, and I commend the government for bringing them forward. However, support in principle does not mean silence on details. In fact, good laws depend on vigorous debate at committee stage. I’d like to highlight several clauses that deserve a closer look.

Clause 7, consultation with prescribed persons or classes of persons. Clause 7 states that before a post-secondary institution establishes or reviews its sexual violence policy, it must consult students, the advisory committee and “prescribed persons or prescribed classes of persons.” That phrase caught my attention. I’m not sure what that actually means.

Who are prescribed persons, and who are the classes of persons? Will they be defined in regulation by cabinet, or are they community advocates, victim services, professionals, legal experts, Indigenous leaders or perhaps none of the above?

Leaving this undefined creates ambiguity. If consultation is to be meaningful, we need clarity on who must be consulted and why. Otherwise, it becomes easy for an institution to check a box and say “we consulted” without including the voices that actually matter. I would ask the minister to consider adding examples or criteria for who qualifies as a prescribed person. That transparency would help prevent confusion and build trust in the process.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Clause 8 allows the minister to direct institutions to conduct surveys about sexual violence policies and their effectiveness. I understand the intention. You can’t improve what you don’t measure, but I also know that surveys on such a sensitive topic must be handled with extreme care.

How does one assess a sexual violence survey? How do you design questions that invite honesty without causing harm? For some victims, even being asked to recall an incident can trigger trauma. Will participation be voluntary and anonymous? Will trauma-informed supports be available for respondents who may be distressed?

Will survey results be made public in a transparent way that still protects privacy? If we want to measure progress, we must also measure how our methods affect the very people we are trying to help.

Clause 10 permits an institution to share information with a complainant about interim measures taken and the outcome of formal allegation. That is a good addition. Survivors have a right to know what happened as a result of their report.

However, we also have to balance that against privacy and due process. Especially when the respondent is a faculty member or employee, employment law and collective agreements come into play. Institutions need clear guidance to avoid legal liability while still supporting victims. I hope the regulations will set that balance out clearly.

Clause 11 requires institutions to make training on sexual violence available to “members of the institutional community.” That’s an admirable goal, but who exactly is the institutional community? Does this include students, faculty, staff, contractors, perhaps even visiting scholars and volunteers? The language could use some precision.

[5:15 p.m.]

What will this training look like in practice? Is it a primer on what is and isn’t appropriate behaviour? Is it about how to recognize warning signs and support peers? Is it a one-hour online module or a comprehensive in-person program? If we’re serious about changing culture, this training can’t be token or perfunctory. It should be interactive, evidence-based and accessible to all members of the community.

I’d like to see the ministry work with experts to develop a core curriculum that every institution can adapt to its own context. Here’s a practical point: many smaller colleges don’t have in-house training teams. They’ll need resources and guidance to do this well. Otherwise, we’ll see a patchwork of approaches, some robust and others barely functional.

That brings me to the larger issue of implementation. The bill requires advisory committees, annual reports, surveys, training programs and policy reviews. All of that takes time, money and expertise. Large universities can absorb that burden; smaller regional colleges, particularly those serving remote or Indigenous communities, cannot.

I would ask the minister whether there will be dedicated funding or standardized tools to help those institutions meet those requirements, because if resources are uneven, so will be the protection. An unfunded mandate is not a solution.

The bill requires annual reports to be submitted to the institution’s governing body. That is a step in the right direction, but it does not say what happens if an institution fails to submit a report or if the report reveals serious deficiencies. Will there be a follow-up from the minister’s office? Will there be public disclosure of non-compliance? Will there be consequences? Without enforcement, even the best policies risk becoming paper exercises. We must ensure that institutions are held accountable for both their policies and their actions.

I want to briefly speak about fairness. Supporting victims and preventing sexual violence must be our priority, but we also must ensure that allegations are handled with due process. False accusations are rare, but they do happen. When they do, the impact can be devastating — careers lost, reputations destroyed, relationships shattered.

I would ask the minister how this legislation or its regulations will ensure that malicious or frivolous claims are dissuaded and reasonably punished. We need a system that encourages truth, not fear; that protects victims from being ignored and the innocent from being unjustly condemned. That is the balance we should be aiming for. Transparency of process, trained investigators and clear appeals rights are essential to achieve that balance.

Bill 18 contains an updated set of definitions, from “sexual violence” to “formal allegation,” “disclosure” and “member of the institutional community.” Those definitions must align with other provincial and federal laws, the human rights code, the Workers Compensation Act and federal occupational health rules. Otherwise, we risk a maze of conflicting standards.

I hope the committee stage will include testimony from legal experts and victim services organizations to ensure that alignment. Laws create framework, but culture creates outcomes. If we want to end sexual violence, we must foster cultures of respect and consent. That means educating students before incidents happen, not just responding afterwards. Peer mentorship programs, bystander training and student-led initiatives can be powerful tools. The bill does not mandate these, but I encourage the ministry to support them.

We must recognize that sexual violence disproportionately affects women. Advisory committees of those most at risk should be included. Transparency is key to trust. Every annual report required by this bill should be publicly available in an easy-to-read format. Institutions should not bury them in board minutes or internal intranets.

[5:20 p.m.]

The minister should also consider publishing an annual provincial summary comparing institutions and identifying best practices. Public accountability motivates improvement far better than quiet memos.

Returning briefly to surveys, I’d like to know how their results will be used. Will the ministry track year-over-year progress and share those findings with the public, or will they be kept internal? If we are to restore faith in these systems, we need open data and honest reporting. A problem acknowledged is a problem half-solved. A problem hidden is one guaranteed to persist.

Clause 6 requires the institutions to establish advisory committees that reflect B.C.’s diversity. That’s important, but we should also ensure these committees have a real influence, not just ceremonial status. They should be empowered to make recommendations, review incidents anonymously and suggest improvements. Their membership should include students, survivors and front-line counsellors, not just administrators. Without the genuine inclusion of these groups, committees risk becoming another layer of bureaucracy.

Bill 18 grants the minister authority to order surveys, reviews and additional regulations. That oversight is necessary, but it must also be transparent. I would ask the minister to commit to publishing all regulations issued under this act, along with timelines and results. The public deserves to see not only what institutions are doing but also what the government is requiring of them.

This legislation overlaps with responsibilities in other areas, particularly the Ministries of Education, Post-Secondary Education, and Children and Family Development. Coordination between ministries will be vital to avoid duplication and ensure consistent messaging. For example, if the government is already funding trauma-informed training through another department, institutions should be able to access that instead of reinventing the wheel.

Post-secondary institutions have a degree of autonomy and rightly so. They govern themselves through senates and boards, but autonomy cannot mean immunity from oversight. This bill tries to strike that balance by setting provincial standards while letting institutions adapt them to their own contexts. That’s the right approach. The key will be ensuring that flexibility does not turn into inconsistency.

At its heart, this bill is about respect, respect for personal boundaries. These values are not partisan. They are universal. Creating safe learning environments requires all of us — legislators, educators, students and parents — to take responsibility. Government can set the framework, but culture is built one person, one classroom, one conversation at a time.

Language matters. The term “sexual violence” is strong, as it should be. It reminds us that these are not minor transgressions or misunderstandings. These are acts of harm. But while our words must be strong, our tone must remain constructive. We must build systems that encourage reporting, not silence; that offer healing, not hostility.

We can clarify the meaning of “prescribed persons.” We can ensure surveys are ethical and trauma-informed. We can define “institutional community” more precisely. We can safeguard fairness, including deterrence for false claims. And we can ensure every campus, big or small, has the tools and support it needs to comply.

This is not about politics. It’s about people.

Brennan Day: I’d like to reserve my time for the next session, and I would move to adjourn the debate.

Brennan Day moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Happy Thanksgiving.

Hon. Adrian Dix moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until ten o’clock Monday, October 20.

The House adjourned at 5:24 p.m.