The committee was studying the rise of anti-feminist ideology and its impacts, hearing from four academic and advocacy witnesses and two Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) officials.
Esli Chan, a doctoral candidate at McGill University, argued that social media algorithms and AI tools amplify anti-feminist content by design, creating a self-reinforcing cycle where platforms profit from controversy. She recommended clear legal recognition of AI-facilitated gendered violence, gender-aware enforcement measures, and mandatory safeguards such as gender impact assessments for platforms, but stressed that cultural change through education and mental health programs is also essential.
Michel Dorais, professor emeritus at Laval University, focused on prevention through positive masculinity, arguing that boys lack positive male role models and are drawn to anti-feminist influencers. He recommended reaching boys in schools and sports settings, citing programs like Sport'Aide and YWCA workshops, and called for coordinated interdepartmental government action and sustained funding, noting that the Sport'Aide program is ending due to a lack of resources.
Shari Graydon, CEO of Informed Perspectives, argued that the best way to counter anti-feminist lies is to ensure women hold half the seats in Parliament, making equality the expected standard. She recommended requiring parties to run equal numbers of men and women in winnable ridings, with non-compliant parties forfeiting their right to compete, noting that Canada ranks 73rd globally for women in politics, far behind Mexico at fifth.
Emmanuelle Parent, co-founder of the Centre pour l’intelligence émotionnelle en ligne, presented qualitative evidence from classrooms, showing that young people are exposed to misogyny while socializing, seeking entertainment, and building identity online. She argued that education alone is insufficient and called for platform regulation, citing the UK's Online Safety Act and Europe's Digital Services Act as models, and urged the revival of former Bill C-36 to give enforcement teeth.
Witness-Témoin 1, Director General of Counter Terrorism at CSIS, explained that CSIS investigates anti-feminist rhetoric only when it meets the national security threshold of intent and capability to use serious violence for societal change. He noted that most anti-feminist activity is criminal but not a national security threat, and that CSIS works with law enforcement and allies like the Five Eyes, adding that more staff resources would help counter the rising threat.
Luc M., Director General of Assessments at the Integrated Threat Assessment Centre, stated that anti-feminist ideology can function as an enabling factor along pathways to violent extremism, particularly when it merges with other ideologies like xenophobia or anti-government beliefs. He emphasized that the vast majority of those holding anti-feminist views will never engage in violence, and that ITAC focuses on assessing indicators of violent intent rather than ideology alone.
The meeting included no procedural debate, motions, or votes.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.