Status of Women Committee on Feb. 10th, 2026

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 24 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders.

I'd like to make a few statements for the benefit of the witnesses. For interpretation, here in the room you can choose English, French or floor, which gives you both. On Zoom, you will see the same choice at the bottom of your screen. If you want to speak, raise your hand. All comments should be addressed through the chair.

Thanks for your co-operation.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, September 15, 2025, the committee will resume its study of anti-feminist ideology.

Before we welcome our witnesses, I want to provide a trigger warning.

We will be discussing themes and experiences related to anti-feminist ideology. This may be triggering to viewers with similar experiences. If participants feel distressed or need help, please advise the clerk. For all witnesses or members of Parliament, it's important to recognize that these are difficult conversations, so let's try to be compassionate.

Now, I'd like to welcome our witnesses.

As individuals, we have Esli Chan, a doctoral candidate at McGill University.

We also welcome Michel Dorais, professor emeritus at Université Laval.

From Informed Perspectives, we have Shari Graydon, catalyst and chief executive officer.

From the Centre pour l'intelligence émotionnelle en ligne, we have co-founder and executive director Emmanuelle Parent.

Welcome.

We'll begin with opening remarks from our witnesses.

Ms. Chan, you have the floor for the first five minutes.

[Esli Chan, Doctoral Candidate, McGill University, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members, for the invitation to appear before this committee.

At its core, anti-feminism is a belief system that rejects gender equality, positioning women's rights as a threat and normalizing hostility towards women and feminist movements. While this ideology has historical roots, it has found particular prominence in our digital ecosystem.

Today, I want to highlight two dynamics that accelerate this crisis: how social media platforms and AI can amplify harm. I note that my expertise focuses on the social and political dimensions rather than on the technical background.

First, social media platforms are designed to maximize engagement. A 2023 research report by Lucina Di Meco demonstrates that misogynistic content often goes viral precisely due to its inflammatory nature. Algorithmic systems are designed to maximize attention and facilitate widespread distribution. The more controversial content is, the more it provokes reactions, views and shares. This drives profits for platforms while incentivizing users to generate hateful and misogynistic content. The result is a self-reinforcing cycle where platforms profit from controversy, users are rewarded for posting toxic content, and anti-feminism thus becomes pervasive. Controversy drives clicks; the clicks drive revenue, and women and girls pay the price.

Studies show that one in five women experience online harassment in Canada. Beyond social media, UN Women reports how generative AI can facilitate gender abuse. More specifically, I want to address AI chatbot companions. Research from Harvard shows that young boys face early pressures to conform to norms of emotional toughness, limiting emotional literacy and contributing to isolation. AI chatbot companions exploit this vulnerability by simulating human connections and emotional support.

A 2025 survey conducted by the Media Ecosystem Observatory at McGill found that while 67% of Canadians view frequent AI chatbot interaction as harmful to youth development, 32% also believe that these tools can help reduce loneliness. Chatbots can indeed feel responsive and validating, but they are fundamentally frictionless, mirroring back what users want to hear without challenging harmful ideas.

For young boys navigating spaces saturated with anti-feminist messaging and hypermasculine expectations, AI companions can affirm and amplify harmful misogynistic beliefs and even encourage gendered forms of violence. While social media and AI are not inherently harmful, it requires intentional guardrails.

First, there needs to be a clear legal recognition of AI-facilitated gendered violence accompanied with gender-aware enforcement measures. This includes streamlined content removal processes that prioritize victim safety and dedicated training for regulators, law enforcement and social services to recognize and understand the gender dynamics of digital abuse.

Second, online platforms must specifically be required to establish safeguards against gendered harm, including gender impact assessments and examining how their algorithms and platform design features can amplify misogyny. This requires robust oversight through independent bodies staffed with gender experts empowered to issue compliance orders, investigate complaints and review regulatory decisions. However, the challenge extends beyond regulation.

The virality of harmful anti-feminist content online stems from underlying demand. For example, while AI tools such as Grok were used to non-consensually undress people online, the harm originated from the individual user who sought to violate women's dignity.

Fundamentally, we need cultural change. This includes funding mental health programs starting in elementary education, enhancing community support programs for young boys and men and strengthening education on digital literacy that connects digital behaviour to real-world gender-based violence.

Anti-feminism, amplified by platform design and AI tools, is actively shaping young Canadians' beliefs and lives. Now is the time to break this cycle.

Thank you, and I welcome your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you so much.

Mr. Dorais, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Michel Dorais, Professor Emeritus, Laval University, As an individual]

I thank the committee for the invitation.

The committee has heard very good assessments of the situation. Ms. Chan just gave one. It was very well summarized, so I'm going to skip that.

I'll talk to you about prevention. I work a lot in prevention. I also taught prevention for 45 years. I also work a lot with young men, because I believe we need to spread the message of positive masculinity. Currently, anti-feminist propaganda is affecting many young men. It needs to stop. There are concrete solutions. We need to be able to talk about it.

This offensive is almost unchecked. By the way, I apologize to the interpreters, because I'm not reading my text; I'm summarizing it. I believe you received my brief and my presentation notes, which I refer you to. I'll continue. This reaction is somewhat of an attachment to the pre-feminist era. Many young men and immensely popular online male influencers oppose women's rights, and the advancement of women's rights and the rights of sexual and gender minorities. It often goes hand in hand: when some advance, others advance too.

Thus, it's a very alarmist view. Many men feel they're losing their power and privileges. They definitely do not want to share them. In that sense, it could even be described as male supremacism. They even go so far as to blame women, which, as we know very well, leads to violence. Women are blamed for what they experience at the hands of these violent and short-tempered men. Words fail me. Obviously, this return to tradition that many men are calling for involves contempt for women. Respecting traditions that discriminate and ostracize is to have contempt for their victims.

We cannot go back there. Awareness needs to be raised among men. We need to go where the boys are. Where are they? They're in schools, and many are involved in sports. In recent years, I've worked with sports teams. I'll talk about it to conclude my presentation later, and I'll give very concrete examples. We need to reach boys. Yes, they're online, but they're also in schools, in sports and in youth centres. We can therefore convey the message in those settings. Later I'll provide some quite extraordinary examples of initiatives by women and men who engage with these boys to raise their awareness, educate them and, above all, change their behaviour. It's very good to raise awareness and educate, but behaviours and conduct need to be changed, which is much more complicated. It requires being well organized. It's the behaviours, not the people, that are toxic. People can change. I have a background in sociology and social work, so I'm well positioned to know that people can change. In another life, as a social worker, I worked in youth protection for about twelve years. I can therefore say that people change. Even boys who have done very bad things can become very good boys.

There's hope, but it's important to recognize that there's a problem, and that action can and must be taken. Above all, the right tools are needed.

I prepared three examples that I wanted to give you. In Quebec, an organization called Sport'Aide has an agreement with a wide range of sports teams to work with the teams and train not only the youth, but also the coaches. Coaches are role models. We often talk about negative role models when discussing influencers, but coaches are positive role models. There's also an initiative in the French schools in New Brunswick, workshops on positive masculinity for young boys. I have one last example. In Quebec City, I live very close to the YWCA, where there are workshops for boys. There's an online program that's actually funded by the federal government.

In conclusion, I'd say that there are things to do. We can no longer wait; we must act now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Graydon, you now have the floor for five minutes.

[Shari Graydon, Catalyst and Chief Executive Officer, Informed Perspectives]

Thank you.

Immediately after Donald Trump's re-election in 2024, anti-feminist online influencer Nick Fuentes posted on X, “Your body, my choice. Forever.” His boast went viral.

A few months later, the hate-inducing Andrew Tate, accused of human trafficking and rape in Romania, was given sanctuary in the U.S. Why did Tate base his anti-feminist empire in Romania? He did it because it's the worst-performing country for gender equality in Europe. Eighty per cent of Romanians believe the lie that women belong at home. Why did Tate return to America? He knew his misogyny would be welcome.

The U.S. ranks 81st internationally for women's representation in politics. That's a shocking status for a country which until recently was considered a beacon of democracy.

However, Canada, in its representation of women in politics, is only a few points ahead of the U.S. This committee has a chance to help change that. In doing so, you can decisively counter the anti-feminist rhetoric authoritarians are weaponizing. Informed Perspectives has a concrete, low-cost proposal to oppose the trends you've already heard so much about.

As you know, anti-feminist lies claim that advancing women's equality weakens society, that our role is to be subservient and that we deserve to be violated. Those lies threaten our freedom, our economy and our democracy. The best way to combat them is to ensure that women's contributions are equitable, visible, celebrated and recognized as essential. Your very presence in this Parliament helps, but passively permitting men to retain 70% of the power implicitly reinforces the lies being spread.

We're living next door to a terrifying case study, watching the catastrophic impact that normalized misogyny can have on destroying decades of progress seemingly overnight. When the U.S. began rolling back abortion rights, the only option many American women had to end an unwanted pregnancy was to turn to feminist networks in one of the most Catholic countries in the world: Mexico.

How did that happen? A dozen years ago, Mexico required all parties to run as many women as men in their national elections. They achieved gender parity, and women quickly used their political power to make access to abortion better there than it is in the U.S. Ensuring women hold half the seats and are visibly exercising authority makes equality the expected standard. It challenges the myths that misogyny spreads, including the notion that you don't belong here and aren't capable of wielding power.

At the turn of the century, Canada ranked 28th for women in politics. Today, we are 73rd, much closer to the U.S. than to Mexico, which is fifth. We accepted incremental change while Mexico and dozens of other nations said no to the status quo and transformed their systems.

We have studied the measures successful elsewhere, and here's what we know would work here: Require parties to run equal numbers of men and women, including in winnable ridings, and those that fail to comply forfeit their right to compete, period. It's not complicated, and it's not costly. It's not even controversial. Eighty-six per cent of Canadians believe women should hold a balance of power.

All of you, as MPs appointed to this body, could choose to collectively champion this change. In the process, you would challenge anti-feminist ideology, dramatically amplify women's visibility and impact and secure not only gender parity in politics but also your place in history for having done so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you.

Ms. Parent, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Emmanuelle Parent, co-founder and CEO, Centre pour l’intelligence émotionnelle en ligne]

Thank you for having me.

My name is Emmanuelle Parent. I have a Ph.D. in communication, I'm a teacher at Université de Montréal, and I'm the executive director of the Centre pour l'intelligence émotionnelle en ligne, or CIEL.

The mission of CIEL is to raise awareness among young people in elementary and secondary schools about the challenges of the digital world. By June 2026, we will have reached over 100,000 children and adolescents with our message to promote digital well-being and critical thinking regarding the content viewed on screens.

To complement the other evidence you've heard, my remarks will be qualitative in nature. What are we hearing in classrooms? I'll answer four questions for you.

First, why are young people online?

They go online to socialize. Talking with friends is the reason they use Instagram and Snapchat, but not Facebook, why they gather on Discord to play video games. When they socialize, young people are at risk of being exposed to misogyny.

They go online for entertainment, for pleasure; they go online to learn about themselves, to discover who they are. Children are greatly influenced by influencers and YouTubers, and look up to them as role models. When they're having fun online, they're exposed to misogyny.

Ultimately, they go online to build their identity and to express themselves. There are few spaces where the voices of young people are heard. Online, they can have a voice by posting what they want to say about themselves, but when they express themselves, they are exposed to misogyny.

Secondly, what are the health concerns regarding young people?

Not all screen time is inherently bad. As has been well said, in terms of health, we're particularly concerned that the business model of social networks, which is designed to capture and retain our attention, can interfere with young people's healthy habits.

There is also a lot of concern about exposure to inappropriate content, which can affect mood and shape how young people see the world, their peers and themselves. The business model of social networks promotes echo chambers, and recommendation algorithms exacerbate content that provokes reactions.

Thirdly, what does the experience of young people with online anti-feminism look like? I want to mention that most of the content you're hearing about today is produced by adults, on platforms designed by adults, where children are exposed to misogyny through no fault of their own. Here are some concrete testimonies from young people, collected in classrooms.

“I see lots of sexist content, and I don't watch it. For example, they [points to another group in the class] do, and they're annoying.”

“The videos that make me feel good are when I see women getting beaten.”

“If you post, you have to expect to be insulted. It comes with the risk of putting yourself out there.”

“Those who comment insults have no life. You have to ignore them. There's nothing you can do.”

“I've reported a sexist comment and Instagram told me it followed their community guidelines.”

“I'm regularly asked for my Insta and phone when I'm gaming because they hear a girl's voice. I turn off my mike.”

“A girl with a high Snapscore is a slut.”

“Girls just post for attention.”

“How can I see less sexist content? It's annoying.”

“Thanks to Instagram, I'm subscribed to many feminist pages and I learn a lot.”

“Why are these platforms, these guys, so rich if we don't pay?”

Fourthly, how should we intervene?

I will be brief about social media bans. I strongly believe that will not solve the problem before us today.

I will also be brief about education and prevention, although they are at the heart of our mission. This may surprise you. There is no doubt that we are making a difference in young people's lives and in classrooms, but we need more. We need to educate and inform young people, and we must stop putting everything on their shoulders letting them take on all the hate that is circulating right now.

You may have noticed, I am pregnant. I'm six months along. It's a boy. If our solutions do not involve regulating platforms, I am convinced I will have the same conversations with him as I am having now with children, apologizing on behalf of adults who did not have the courage to regulate the platforms. I'll have to apologize that he's being pushed towards misogynistic content because of his gender, content we will then have to discuss.

I don't want to hear that it's unrealistic to regulate the platforms, because there are countries that do it and have real results. I'll be happy to talk about that with you. The United Kingdom and Australia each have their own Online Safety Act. In Europe, there's the Digital Services Act, and in California, there's the Age-Appropriate Design Code Act. These laws have default settings that protect minors and support children. They provide for independent bodies that enforce the laws and hold platforms accountable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you very much and congratulations.

We will begin our first round of questions.

We'll start with six minutes for Ms. Vien.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I thank each of the witnesses for being available today.

So much has been said that it's pretty certain we're going to run out of time.

I'll start right away with you, Ms. Parent, since you just gave us your presentation.

I understand that you've engaged with 100,000 young people as part of your conversations with them. Are they all in Quebec?

[Emmanuelle Parent]

Yes, we've engaged with youth in Quebec, in urban areas and in the regions, in elementary and high schools.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Did you say elementary and high schools?

[Emmanuelle Parent]

Yes, exactly. We're primarily talking about screens, particularly about our well‑being, but the issue of hate content comes up on its own as young people talk, because it's part of their daily experience.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

What do you say when you meet with them? Mr. Dorais will surely be interested in your work because he was talking about initiatives earlier. Specifically, what does this discussion you have with them involve?

[Emmanuelle Parent]

The first step is to put words to emotions. We open the dialogue with them, because young people don't necessarily talk to one another about the content they see. Being critical about this reaffirms that these are unacceptable comments in face-to-face interactions, unlike what they may see online.

Then, they often ask us what they can do to see less of it. At that point, we suggest tools to them, such as hiding content, reporting posts and trying to train their algorithm so that their personalized content is less likely to show hateful content. We also try to provide them with concrete tools to regulate their emotions and have some resilience when they encounter such content, because currently, even if they report hateful content, we've seen that the platforms leave it online.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

It's quite concerning. Earlier, Ms. Chan was saying that the platforms also make money from that. I'm looking for the name, because I don't know anything about it.

[Emmanuelle Parent]

Hatred is very profitable.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

I'm not very knowledgeable about technology, but every click brings them money.

I'll conclude this exchange with one last question. In general, do young people say that you're right and that they hadn't realized?

[Emmanuelle Parent]

They are so ready to have these conversations. When we come in with a moralistic attitude, saying that social media is bad for them, they become defensive and cite the reasons I mentioned to you. That's why I started by listing the reasons why young people go on social media. There are benefits, and especially in recent years, it irritates them to see unmoderated content when they're enjoying these social and entertainment benefits.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

I don't have a lot of time. Thank you.

Hello, Ms. Chan. Thank you for being with us today.

You were telling us earlier that getting clicks is profitable or at least that it generates revenue. Are you worried that the situation will take a turn for the worse?

I'll ask you the question too, Mr. Dorais, if you'd like to think about it.

Are we being alarmist, or could this despicable phenomenon actually lead to violent outbursts, where, for instance, people to take to the streets? In other words, is what we see on social media a prelude? If we don't intervene and we do nothing, could it escalate at some point?

[Esli Chan]

I don't think it's particularly alarmist. There's the recent Grok incident which happened on X, formerly Twitter, where people were able to essentially use AI to undress women, predominantly women, and within a span of just over a week there were more than three million images that were created without the consent of women. I don't believe these things are alarmist in that sense. It's happening, and there are people behind those screens requesting to see these kinds of images online. In that sense, I think it's very real. There's very much a demand for that kind of content online.

In terms of the devolution of political violence, I think it's often quite limiting to conceptualize violence as either off-line or online. I think those worlds are blurring over time. A lot of youth take their online cultures, their online conversations, their socialization, and that bleeds into how they behave in schools as well. I would not want to say that violence is imminent, but....

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you very much. As I told you, I have very little time.

Mr. Dorais, thank you for being with us today. We're very pleased to have you here.

Maybe before addressing this turn for the worse that I'm concerned about—maybe I'm being too negative—you said we need to acknowledge that there's a problem. You said that in prevention, the first step is recognizing that there's a problem. Are you saying that because we don't acknowledge that there's a problem?

[Michel Dorais]

Absolutely. There's a problem in terms of the male condition. There's nothing countering this violent, contemptuous, misogynistic and sexist discourse. The mentors that young people find, especially online, are negative mentors, so there's a need to counter what's out there. Interdepartmental programs are perhaps needed. I don't know. That's your job, not mine.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

I had written a question in my notes: What should the education ministries do? We talked about parents. There's certainly a role to play at home, but there's also certainly a role to play in education.

[Michel Dorais]

Yes, we need to involve parents and youth, because if what happens at home undermines what happens at school, in sports venues or in youth centres, it won't work. It needs to be coordinated.