Status of Women Committee on Oct. 26th, 2026

[The Chair, Conservative, Dominique Vien]

I call this meeting to order.

This is meeting number 51 of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, September 21, the committee is meeting to begin its study on the impact of artificial intelligence on women, girls and 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals.

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

To ensure the meeting goes smoothly, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses who are with us today, and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. Your co-operation is appreciated. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. If you are in the room and you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For those on Zoom, please use the raise hand function.

I would like to remind witnesses that committee members may ask questions in either French or English. If you will need interpretation, please take a moment now to select the listening channel required so as not to waste time when it's your turn to speak.

A reminder that all comments from members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair; however, I'm a rather easy-going chair who goes with the flow. In other words, unless it's total chaos, I won't intervene.

Before we welcome our witnesses, I'd like to give a word of warning. As you know, we'll be discussing issues related to gender violence. This can be triggering for those who have had similar experiences. If participants experience distress or need assistance, please don't hesitate to let our clerk, Ms. Miller, know.

It's important for all the witnesses and members to recognize that these are difficult discussions. Since we are accustomed to having such discussions and we're pretty good at it, we welcome all your comments with a lot of compassion, empathy and kindness, like always.

Now, I want to welcome our witnesses.

As an individual, we have Indra Kubicek, chief executive officer, Digital Moment. From the Council of Canadian Innovators, we have Skaidra Puodžiūnas, senior director of policy and advocacy, and Daniel Perry, director, federal affairs. From Women's Health Collective Canada, we have Amy Flood, executive director.

Welcome. We will begin with opening statements.

Ms. Kubicek, the floor is yours for five minutes. Thank you.

[Indra Kubicek, Chief Executive Officer, Digital Moment, As an Individual]

Thank you, everyone.

Madam Chair and honourable members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today.

My name is Indra Kubicek. I am the CEO of Digital Moment, a national bilingual charity that has spent over a decade empowering young people, with a particular focus on girls in under-represented communities, and educators with digital skills and confidence.

We stand at a pivotal moment. Artificial intelligence is fundamentally changing how we work, learn, make decisions and participate in society. While the potential opportunities are extraordinary, we risk the benefits not being evenly distributed unless we act with intention. My concern is that women in historically under-represented communities risk being left behind, not because they lack ability but because we are not creating the conditions for their success.

I want to focus on three challenges.

First, who is shaping the future of AI? Women remain significantly under-represented in AI research, development and leadership roles. This is not simply about equal representation. It is about whose perspectives shape technology and whose needs are being overlooked.

AI is not neutral. It learns from historical data, which reflects existing inequalities. Without safeguards, we risk codifying those biases into systems influencing our lives. We need women from diverse backgrounds and 2SLGBTQI individuals participating in AI design, governance and safety, because diversity isn't just about creating opportunities for women. It's about building better and safer systems for everyone.

Earlier this month, the UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution calling for greater participation of women and girls in digital technologies, mentioning AI 18 times in the document. Canada has an opportunity to be a leader and turn that commitment into action.

Second, who benefits economically and who is most at risk? Women are disproportionately represented in occupations exposed to generative AI, particularly administrative roles.

Also, consider women returning from maternity leave. I've spoken with women, even highly educated senior leaders, frightened by how much their workplaces changed while they were away, and they often return without the necessary training to catch up. Consider women entrepreneurs. AI could transform their productivity, yet women-owned businesses are less likely to adopt emerging technologies.

We need AI literacy, and it cannot be reserved for technology careers. It must become a foundation for economic participation. Women need trusted spaces to learn, ask questions and build confidence without fear or judgment.

Third, how do we ensure the next generation—young girls—have a different experience? If we want women leading AI in a decade from now, we must invest in girls today. We cannot wait until university, when too many have already decided that they don't think this is a career for them. Girls need age-appropriate AI learning opportunities, ideally before 12 years old, when confidence and perceptions of possibility are taking shape. They need mentors, role models and opportunities to create, question and solve problems, and to see themselves not simply as users but as people shaping technology.

This isn't just an education strategy. It's an economic one. Building this pipeline requires sustained investment, not isolated programs or short funding cycles.

What do I propose the federal government do?

First, invest in inclusive AI literacy starting young and continuing throughout women's careers.

Second, support targeted workforce and entrepreneurship programs, particularly for women facing career transitions and barriers.

Third, unite government, industry, educators and not-for-profits around a long-term commitment to inclusive AI with accountability for addressing discrimination and measuring progress.

Let's set a measurable goal for 2035, a Canada where women are significantly better represented in AI leadership, development and economic opportunity. We are not simply witnessing a technological transformation. We are shaping a societal one. The question is not whether AI will change women's lives. It already is. The question is whether we will ensure they have the opportunity to shape that change.

Let's make sure that the future of AI is built with women, not simply for them.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dominique Vien]

You're very disciplined, Ms. Kubicek. Thank you very much. That was great.

Mr. Perry for five minutes.

[Daniel Perry, Director, Federal Affairs, Council of Canadian Innovators]

Good morning, Chair and committee members.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. My name is Daniel Perry. I'm the director of federal affairs at the Council of Canadian Innovators. I'm joined today by my colleague, Skaidra Puodžiūnas, our senior director of policy and advocacy.

The Council of Canadian Innovators is Canada's 21st-century business council. We represent over 180 Canadian-headquartered, high-growth technology companies operating across a number of sectors, including artificial intelligence, big data, defence and digital infrastructure.

Today's committee study comes at an important moment, when building Canadian has never mattered more. The global economy is no longer neutral or rules-based. Leading economies are using industry strategies to secure control over critical infrastructure, value chains and standards. AI sits at the centre of this as a foundational layer not just for economic growth but also for national security.

The government's new AI strategy assumes that adoption follows trust. This is false. According to Statistics Canada, business use of artificial intelligence has tripled since 2024, where during the same time period, trust in AI has stagnated or declined. Canada's challenges are systemic and structural. Canadian firms have been slow to adopt new technology for decades. Trust was never the reason for this.

As the government can make the biggest difference, what is needed is to create conditions that allow companies to succeed while also protecting Canada's most vulnerable people. That is why this committee's focus on regulations is important. Where new rules are introduced, they are needed where they are necessary. They should look to address clear gaps in the current system and examine the current protections. This can be done using standards and setting them here in Canada, as well as by supporting Canadian companies through procurement.

Our recent submission to the AI transparency task force sets out five principles to guide this work.

First, assign responsibility based on who controls what. Developers should explain the systems they have built, while deployers should explain how AI is being used, what data it is handling and when humans are involved. Obligations should also scale with risk. An AI tool that makes payments on behalf of someone requires greater scrutiny than one that is being used to draft internal documents. I look to our membership for this. BorderPass is a great example. This year alone, its AI platform has processed over 12,000 immigration applications. A licensed lawyer oversees the application process, while AI is used for the volume. This ensures that accountability and scale work hand in hand.

Second, the government should help Canadians recognize when AI is being used to deceive them. Firms should disclose their use of AI, and labelling should be focused on content and interactions where a person could be misled or not aware that they're not talking with a human.

Third, requirements should be targeted and able to keep up with the pace of the progression of AI. Using recognized standards such as C2PA for content credentials will serve Canadians better than new binding legislation. These standards are able to keep up with the industry in a way legislation alone cannot. Last week's cabinet directive recognizing national standards and international standards as the default for regulators is a welcome step forward.

Fourth, the government should build on the institutions we currently have. Create new rules that will fill genuine gaps in the system rather than creating duplicate work or adding more to a growing bureaucracy. New AI should genuinely fill this and we have opportunities to do so.

Finally, procurement is one of the most underused tools that this government has at its disposal. Across all levels of government, public purchasing makes up roughly 15% of our GDP. When the government buys Canadian, it validates the technology here and abroad, helps firms scale domestically and also allows Canadian companies to respond to the needs of Canadians.

When Canadian firms own their intellectual property, own their data and their leadership team is based here, they remain accountable not just to their neighbours who are Canadians but also to Canadian law. If Canada is not leading, it will fall behind. AI decisions will be made by other countries and foreign companies that are not keeping the needs of women, girls and 2SLGBTQI+ communities in mind.

Building Canadian means building companies that are owned here and the technology remains here. This is how we ensure AI is safe for all and effective for everyone.

With that, I'd like to thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dominique Vien]

Thank you, Mr. Perry.

Good day, Ms. Flood.

The floor is yours for five minutes.

[Amy Flood, Executive Director, Women's Health Collective Canada]

Thank you very much.

Madame Chair and committee members, my name is Amy Flood. I am the executive director of the Women's Health Collective Canada.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today and to contribute to this important study on the impact of artificial intelligence on women, girls and 2SLGBTQI+ individuals.

Women represent approximately half of Canada's population and nearly 40% of our labour force. By 2030, women are expected to control approximately half of Canada's financial wealth. Women also make up 75% of our health care workforce. Women are not a niche population. They are a critical driver of Canada's health, workforce, economy and prosperity. That is why the decisions we make about artificial intelligence matter.

AI has the potential to transform health care, research, education, employment and economic participation. In health care alone, AI is projected to generate billions of dollars in annual efficiencies and savings, yet if these systems are built using incomplete, biased or unrepresentative data, they risk deepening the very inequities they have the potential to solve.

My remarks today focus on women's health and an area where both the risks and the opportunities of AI are especially significant.

For decades, women have been under-represented in health research, clinical trials, health datasets and innovation investments. This has resulted in persistent gaps in our understanding of conditions that uniquely or disproportionately affect women, including not only reproductive health conditions but also menopause, cardiovascular disease, chronic pain, autoimmune disorders and mental health challenges.

These gaps are not only a health issue. They are an economic issue. Research conducted by our partners at McKinsey & Company found that closing the women's health gap in Canada could contribute $37 billion annually to Canada's GDP by 2040 through improved health outcomes, workforce participation, productivity and reduced health care utilization.

The fact of the matter is that AI is only as good as the data it's built on. When that data is incomplete or biased, AI can reinforce existing inequalities, leading to poorer health outcomes for women and gender-diverse populations.

The implications for 2SLGBTQI+ communities are even more concerning. We already lack sufficient sex- and gender-disaggregated data. Without intentional efforts to collect representative data, design inclusive systems and evaluate outcomes across diverse populations, AI risks making already invisible populations even more invisible.

At the same time, AI represents a very extraordinary opportunity. When developed responsibly, AI can accelerate research, improve diagnosis, personalize care, expand access to trusted health information and empower individuals to better understand and manage their health throughout every stage of life. It has the potential to transform how we address women's health challenges from menstruation and fertility, through pregnancy, postpartum care, perimenopause, menopause and healthy aging. We must ensure AI works for everyone.

Women are not a single group and neither are gender-diverse populations. People's experiences and health care needs differ based on factors such as race, age, income, geography, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity. If AI is built using data that doesn't reflect that diversity, it risks leaving many people behind.

Beyond health care, we must also consider who is building the AI economy. AI is reshaping employment, entrepreneurship, research and innovation, yet women remain under-represented in many technology sectors, leadership positions, investment portfolios and commercialization opportunities. Ensuring equitable participation in the development, governance and commercialization of AI is not only a matter of fairness. It is essential to creating technologies that work for all Canadians.

Canada has the opportunity to become a global leader here in responsible and inclusive AI. However, leadership will require intentional action, investment and accountability.

In closing, artificial intelligence presents both tremendous promise and significant risk. If AI systems are built on incomplete data, they may deepen the inequities that women and gender-diverse populations already face today.

However, if built responsibly—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dominique Vien]

Thank you very much, Ms. Flood.

This concludes the opening remarks for now. We'll begin with questions from members.

Mrs. DeRidder, you have the floor.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Perry, I'm going to ask you a couple of questions.

Skaidra, feel free to chip in as well.

There's a lot of discussion around AI and the risks, including the potential for discrimination. However, AI also has the potential to improve productivity and how decisions are made within companies. Where do you see AI creating the biggest opportunity for workers in Canada?

[Daniel Perry]

Thank you very much for the question. It's a good question to ask, especially as we take a step back to look at this.

AI is transforming how we're interacting, whether that's when we're watching the Olympics and bobsledding—through how it stitches together the camera angles—or how we write and prepare for committee appearances. As we're looking at where it can make the biggest gains, we also need to think about how our companies are adopting it. How are we empowering those inside the companies to use it as well?

That is where we need government to better support our companies, especially Canadian companies, and to provide more opportunities. The best way to do that is to be an anchor customer. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, public procurement makes up roughly 15% of GDP. If we can shed even 1% or 2% of that to companies, think of what that would mean for them. When they get a purchase order from the Government of Canada, it is not just a purchase order from the Government of Canada. It's an indicator to other buyers—here and as they're expanding globally—that the government believes in them. They can also go to the bank and get better bank terms.

Therefore, as the government is looking at productivity, it's important that we have conversations like this with members of our innovator community, especially the ones in your riding, to see how they can best support you.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Skaidra, would you like to add anything?

[Skaidra Puodžiūnas, Senior Director, Policy and Advocacy , Council of Canadian Innovators]

One thing I would add is the potential for AI to support regulated industries. There was actually a really great report, which I will send in follow-up. One of our Prairies-based members, Samdesk, did a report looking at how Canadian-regulated industries are adopting AI and the tremendous gaps in making that shift.

When we think about health care, mining and traditional industries that haven't really thought about the intersection with AI, we see there's such a huge opportunity there. There's such an opportunity to gauge how they're in need of using these productivity gains to bring about more high-value opportunities for Canadian workers. To continue with what Daniel was saying, again, it's bringing that focus on Canadian industries and how that can intersect.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you so much.

I correlate this to the previous industrial revolution. We're in another one, moving into the technological era.

That being said, we need to help businesses adopt. It's just like in the last industrial revolution, where they leaned out processes and people went from making the parts to running the machines that made the parts. There was upskilling that was required in that as well. Businesses have to adopt or else they're not going to remain competitive.

How can the government assist companies with this transition? It is the same as the previous industrial revolution. I just call this one the technological revolution.

[Skaidra Puodžiūnas]

I can start.

First and foremost, I think the more opportunities that domestic innovators have to be part of key dialogues and forums with our own Canadian decision-makers.... This is super important.

I'll offer a concrete example. When I was a public servant, there was this really big contention between delivering on vendor polling or public polling versus user research. I think it's really important that public officials who are developing public legislation or public regulation actually test out these regulations with those who will be impacted by them. What I mean by this is that if you're going to put out a regulation that will impact the building of that within Canada, make sure it's constantly being tested and iterated upon with those who will be impacted by it—the end-users, as they would be called in product cycles.

Really, I think governments are no different. If anything, there is more pressure and obligation to ensure that the end-users understand how that's unfolding and how that's developing. As we're building these regulations or frameworks that would impact innovators, it's really incumbent upon us that forums are done in consultation and collaboration with the Canadian innovators who would be impacted by them.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you so much.

I'm going to focus a little bit on the hiring process and using AI as a tool.

I'm a woman in STEM, and I'm sure people automatically assumed—my name's Kelly—that I was a male because a female engineer in the industry.... Therefore, I would probably get interviews under the assumption that I was a male.

How could AI actually eliminate bias in the hiring process while there's a review of the résumés?

[Skaidra Puodžiūnas]

I think the pertinent framing is that AI is only as good as the people building it. I don't think we'll ever achieve 100% elimination of bias, but I think it's so important to be building the systems and thinking about the people who are engineering them. I think our AI companies will only be as strong as the talent we recruit into them.

I think that's what my colleague was really trying to emphasize in the beginning, that as we build these systems, we're thinking about the Canadian talent that's powering them—the Canadian insights, the Canadian perspectives, the Canadian innovation economy. Really thinking about that at the forefront as we're building them is absolutely integral.

[Daniel Perry]

This is an opportunity where we can develop standards to set the groundwork in that sandbox and the principles around it to be able to shape things when it comes to hiring practices like that. As Canada develops regulations and pieces like that, standards are the way to go.

I'm happy to expand on that in a future question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dominique Vien]

Thank you very much, Mr. Perry.

Ms. Lambropoulos for six minutes.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll be sharing my time with Ms. Gladu.

Thank you to all our witnesses. This is incredibly interesting testimony. It's very new to me. I'm not going to pretend that I know much about this subject yet, but I'm happy to learn about it. Of course, we want to make sure that we include everybody going forward, and that everybody benefits equally from AI. We heard from all our witnesses that this is the goal here and that this is what we should have as a goal. The government plays a key role in that.

You spoke about procurement, Mr. Perry. You obviously work with many Canadian innovators in AI. I'm wondering what you believe the willingness is of these companies to actually work with government to make it safer for all Canadians and to make sure we're moving in the right direction.

[Daniel Perry]

Our members are very eager to work with government, whether that is through the procurement process or through consultation pieces like that. We were members of the minister's AI task force last November to have that conversation to make sure industry is heard. As my colleague Skaidra pointed out, as the government is thinking about AI and how to implement it, it is important to understand the end-user.

I like to point to the Ontario public service and its deal with Microsoft and Copilot. The number of individuals not using Copilot but instead using ChatGPT or other AI bots is 90%. Only 10% of people are actually using what the government has procured, because it doesn't fit their needs. As an Ontario citizen, it's very concerning that my data might be inside of someone's personal chatbot.

As the government is thinking about procuring pieces, they need to understand the end-user, as Skaidra said, but they also need to know where the data is stored and how it is being used. That's where Canadian sovereignty comes into the conversation. In credit to the government, there have been lots of conversations about that. It's something we need to continue to drill down on.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you.

Ms. Kubicek and Ms. Flood, you both spoke about inequities and about the fact that women are often left behind. They need to be part of creating the AI in order to be included, as with, obviously, many diverse groups of people.

What role does the government play in ensuring that all these voices are at the table in order to make sure nobody is excluded and we're not deepening inequity?

[Indra Kubicek]

I can go first.

[Amy Flood]

Sure. Go for it.

[Indra Kubicek]

For us, it really starts with the government ensuring that young people are provided an opportunity to go into these career paths. That's through the education system as well as through interactions, getting to know industry and knowing where they could be of use to solve some of these problems.

To an earlier question, one of the things we've created is an AI learning lab. We actually bring industry members, young people from diverse backgrounds, an AI expert and university students into the same room to solve an AI use-case scenario problem. This is one of the main things missing for a lot of Canadians right now. They don't have responsible AI use cases in their industry available to them. Working with young people through those diverse backgrounds and bringing their ideas into the room can help design and co-design with industry a solution that they could actually implement.

We see that the government can really provide funding and support to programs like that as well as work with industry to encourage them to focus more on the long-term value of their employees through investing in them to know how to adopt these solutions and build them responsibly. Ultimately, the company will be the one to bear the impact if they're not building solutions for all Canadians.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Ms. Flood, would you like to chime in before I pass the floor to Ms. Gladu?

[Amy Flood]

I absolutely would. Thank you for the opportunity.

I would say two things. First, I think the ask of the government would be to invest in a national sex-, gender- and diversity-disaggregated data strategy. We can't build equitable AI systems using data that fails to adequately represent women. Tangibly, if you look at that from an economic perspective, there is a huge commercialization opportunity that stems from it. Currently, we cannot conduct clinical research trials in Canada within women's health because we don't have the infrastructure or the systems. That's a huge opportunity for us to work with major global and Canadian pharmaceutical companies to test their products, services and systems here.

Secondly, there's a huge innovation white space opportunity that comes from being able to study women, sex and gender-diverse populations. Think of the femtech industry as well. It's a $5.6-billion-a-year opportunity for Canada, but we can't develop and support femtech economic strategies and sustainable systems without the data to feed them properly.

I would say invest in women-led AI innovation, research and commercialization. Not only must women be the subjects of AI systems. They also need to be leaders in designing, governing and benefiting from them.