Status of Women Committee on Dec. 1st, 2025

[David Morin]

Yes, absolutely. Some exploit others, and they take advantage of one ecosystem to recruit in another. There are indeed links, and unfortunately, they often target the same people. The targets of most of these groups are women, racial minorities, people from LGBTQ+ communities, etc.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Okay. So, in short, we seem to be witnessing a kind of return of the battle of the sexes.

[David Morin]

Yes, it’s true that the data indeed point in that direction, and young women are also part of it. According to our data, they’re more radical when it comes to defending women’s rights and freedoms. I have to tell you that when I ask my many students what social issues might lead them to find it legitimate to resort to violence, many women talk to me about a rollback of women’s rights and freedoms. Obviously, it’s a predominant issue. Furthermore, it’s important to understand that, in this type of debate—

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Very good.

Now we're going to Ms. Cody for five minutes in our second round.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Morin and Mrs. Prockiw, for coming here tonight as witnesses.

It's an interesting topic, so I have a lot of questions. Hopefully, I can get through a few of them in this short time.

Mr. Morin, just here today at this session, I've heard a lot about a request for funding and sustained commitment from this government, but currently, this government has $193 million going to 20 international projects for advancing gender equality and empowering women and girls globally. With the issue of domestic violence towards women described as a national crisis here, would you not feel that this money would be more useful in Canada?

[David Morin]

I believe that the two are complementary and that we can’t give up when we see what’s happening at this time on the international stage, particularly with the American government stepping back from international aid. This has extremely concrete effects on women’s rights, on children’s health, etc. It’s part of Canada’s traditions to also help internationally, especially because Canada is a multicultural country that welcomes many people from those countries.

I would be tempted to say that I understand the budgetary context in which we live today. We’re going through a difficult economic period, but I feel that cutting from one to give to another doesn’t seem like the best strategy to me.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

You also co-authored a report entitled "Constraints and opportunities in evaluating programs for prevention of violent extremism”. In this report, it's stated that stakeholders have little evidence-based data and guidelines to rely on when designing, implementing and funding programs aimed at countering violent extremism.

With this in mind, I was wondering how programs are being introduced without full datasets or clear criteria. How do we measure whether interventions actually reduce anti-feminist attitudes or whether they create more resistance?

As you know, experts disagree, so how can we make recommendations here without clear criteria and definitions?

[David Morin]

That’s an excellent question.

In recent years, the Government of Canada, particularly Public Safety Canada, has funded a number of initiatives focused on the evaluation of prevention programs. I must say that the UNESCO chair had five years of funding, which ended a year and a half ago, to produce data on the evaluation of programs for the prevention of radicalization and violent extremism. Using lists of indicators, we also produced short videos on how to better evaluate programs.

I will tell you that, indeed, many programs are increasingly funded by the federal government and are evaluated. In this case, we should obviously turn to Public Safety Canada and the Community Resilience Fund, as they fund initiatives that, in principle, are obviously evaluated. So, they would be better able to answer you about the programs they have specifically funded with respect to masculinist movements and, of course, online misogyny.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

The report also has the observation that there's a lack of “rigorously defined conceptual and empirical foundations” for most prevention of violent extremism programs. Is this because of the lack of a definition for anti-feminism and in fact the absence of Canadian identity, and does this confusion result in more disagreement and potential violence?

[David Morin]

Currently, we’re concerned by the increase we’re seeing in gender‑based violence. In particular, look at the increase in hate crimes in Canada, which we haven’t discussed yet. Compared to the statistics from the last few decades, today’s data from Statistics Canada shows an increase in hate crimes based on ethnicity, race and gender. Indeed, Statistics Canada is now collecting data from police forces, so the situation is very well documented. An upward trend has really been noted over the past decade.

If we put this in the current context of online discourse and potential social and economic crises, we could indeed expect this violence to either increase or remain at a relatively high level. So I think this is very important.

Now, I was talking about the data we’re lacking because, to date, the rise of anti‑feminist movements has not been documented well enough. For example, the rise of jihadism is quite well known. We continue to enhance our understanding of far‑right movements. However, as for the category—

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

I'm sorry, but I'm running out of time, and I'd really like to ask Ms. Prockiw a question.

Ms. Prockiw, thank you for coming. You've achieved success in a field where women are still under-represented. What were the most meaningful supports or opportunities that helped you get there?

[Keeley Prockiw]

For myself, it goes to what Dr. Morin said. There are males who will advocate for you, but you just have to find them. That's what I did. I found the right person, the right male to advocate for me to move forward, align with me and support me. It was definitely a search to find the right person who was authentically about what I needed as well. It was not about putting me forward so that he could get kudos. It was about genuinely being there for me. I think that was the biggest thing that helped me gain so much success.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Excellent.

Madam Ménard, you have the floor.

[Marie-Gabrielle Ménard, Liberal, Hochelaga—Rosemont-Est, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My colleague asked an excellent question. I was going in the same direction, Ms. Prockiw.

According to your testimony, you were supported by a male colleague, and this clearly changed your trajectory.

Based on what you see today in traditionally male‑dominated workplaces, what’s the biggest practical difference that allows women to have a healthy career path there? What elements should be highlighted?

[Keeley Prockiw]

I think we're seeing more retention when we have those relationships set up and those male advocates in place not only just to advocate for those young women, girls and under-represented genders, but also to discourage the conversations that are negative or that are anti-feminist. It's those conversations.

When we have those strong men in place to advocate, we're seeing more retention, and we're seeing an increase in those girls continuing in the trades.

[Marie-Gabrielle Ménard, Liberal, Hochelaga—Rosemont-Est, QC]

The challenge or fragility that I can see in light of your testimony is that it relies on individuals. Do you believe that companies, through a corporate culture, have a role to play in this respect?

[Keeley Prockiw]

Working for the company I work for now, which is a very big multinational construction company, I'm seeing that there's definitely a disconnect between what people think is happening at the management level and what is actually happening at the boots-on-the-ground level. One of the things I advocate for is how to close that gap. I can tell you over and over until I'm blue in the face that what you think is happening down there is not what's happening down there. Unfortunately, that's where we need to make the changes.

One of my honest recommendations, which I constantly scream from rooftops, is that we need to be advocating in the schools. When these tradespeople are getting an education, they need to be getting additional education. It shouldn't only be trades, math and blueprint reading. We should also have courses on how to just be human and how to get that equity. Some of these kids aren't coming in with that.

As was said here, we're a multicultural nation, and with that come different upbringings for all genders, so we need to be educating at that level also. What is happening is that we're educating them and, yes, we're getting journeymen, journeywomen and journey people out there, but we're not giving them the tools to continue to train apprentices. To retain them, we need to train them.

[Marie-Gabrielle Ménard, Liberal, Hochelaga—Rosemont-Est, QC]

The word “education” should be retained, because we’ve heard it in all the testimonies. What I mean here is “acquisition of interpersonal skills”, ultimately.

Mr. Morin, you’re a specialist in radicalization. Let’s take a moment to focus on behaviour. At the previous committee meeting, we welcomed a very interesting expert, Mr. Jake Stika, to name just one, the executive director of Next Gen Men. During one of his remarks, he mentioned the iconic image of the hockey locker room. In that space, young men often have the rather violent experience of receiving information passively.

On social media, what we’re starting to realize is that engagement may be more active. Influencers on these networks are referred to by some as “agitators”, because users of these platforms are encouraged to comment, speak up and take action.

Does this have an impact on radicalization? Then, once out of cyberspace, what happens when you find yourself on the street after receiving this training?

[David Morin]

Regarding the image of the hockey locker room, I would like to ask where the hockey coaches were while this type of talk was allowed to spread in the locker room. The coach is a male figure, in principle a positive one. We cannot blame young people for messages that have gone unchallenged for decades. That’s the first point.

The second point is this: Indeed, today, with digital social networks, the game is very different, if I can use that expression. It’s clear that the key figures of the masculinist movements are now able to engage in conversation with young people. You know, the business model—that’s the problem with large platforms—is a conflicting and emotional model in which you always have to push your comments further to try to generate clicks, to make sure people watch the entire video, to eventually get donations, etc. This indeed creates a space that is, moreover, similar to an echo chamber, where you’re just—

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

I'm so sorry. I feel like I'm always interrupting. Your information is wonderful, but the time is up.

Ms. Larouche, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I thank our two witnesses once again for being here today. This is an extremely important study.

Mr. Morin, we’re looking for solutions to propose to the federal government with respect to the difficulties arising from this anti‑feminist and misogynistic movement. You spoke about the importance of regulating cyber-violence and the work you did for the previous Bill C‑63 as a consultant. My first question is as follows.

Should we return to that bill?

Furthermore, it was announced today that there would finally be an agreement to end the religious exception regarding hate speech, which is included in the Criminal Code. It will therefore no longer be possible to invoke the religious exception to say whatever one wants. We know that in some cases this can be problematic, even in relation to this anti‑feminist movement. Is this another important solution?

I would also like you to come back to the importance of addressing cyber-violence.

[David Morin]

I agree on both points.

Obviously, with respect to Bill C‑63, there were different types of content. Harmful online content was defined as hate speech, glorification of violence and glorification of terrorism. In these three cases, I think no one is against virtue. There was also child pornography and the sharing of intimate images without consent, but I’ll leave that aside.

As for the first three cases, it seems obvious to me. However, I don’t think we can add disinformation to that because it’s far too broad and there would be a lot of interpretation issues. I’m obviously aware of the importance of freedom of expression, but what that bill ultimately did was ask platforms to take responsibility for removing undesirable content themselves. It also created an ombud position to allow people who felt that their content had been removed unfairly to file a complaint. Afterward, the platforms obviously had to provide answers. There was also, of course, a commissioner.

No bill is perfect, make no mistake. However, I think it was a copy placed on the worktable that held up quite well. Obviously, I think the government added criminal offences which, in my opinion, somewhat sidetracked the debate. That said, I do think that some elements of that bill were very good.

As for the second question, I’m indeed in favour of there being no exceptions. We can’t cite religious texts to threaten people with death.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Now we'll go to Ms. Roberts for five minutes.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to both witnesses.

I want to start with Ms. Prockiw.

First of all, I want to congratulate you. It's amazing to find someone getting into the trades. It's really important that women are represented in the trades.

You mentioned abusive relationships and the relationship you had.

My question will be for both of you, and it's a simple one.

Violence against women is up 76%. Do you think our laws are not strong enough to protect women in this country?

[Keeley Prockiw]

Personally, I don't think they are, having gone through my experiences. I don't think they are on either end, knowing males who have also gone through physically abusive relationships at the hands of females and have not been believed. We have repeat offenders. My ex-partner, who is my kids' dad, went on to abuse the next person he was with also. I think it's perpetuated, and I thank God every day that my son is not like that and that he's a better person. I don't think there's enough protection for women. We're seeing domestic violence increase all over the place.