THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, October 20, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met with videoconference this day at 4:01 p.m. [ET] to examine and report on anti-Semitism in Canada.
Senator Paulette Senior (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good afternoon, honourable senators.
I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is on the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation.
I am Paulette Senior, a senator from Ontario and chair of the committee. I would invite my honourable colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator McPhedran: Marilou McPhedran, an independent senator for Manitoba.
Senator Bernard: Wanda Thomas Bernard, deputy chair of the committee, from Mi’kmaq territory, Nova Scotia.
Senator Karetak-Lindell: Nancy Karetak-Lindell, from Nunavut.
Senator Robinson: Mary Robinson, from Prince Edward Island.
Senator K. Wells: Kristopher Wells, Treaty 6 territory in Edmonton.
Senator Arnot: David Arnot. I am a senator from Saskatchewan.
The Chair: Thank you very much, senators.
I welcome all of you, particularly those who are following our deliberations online. We welcome you as well.
Before we welcome our witnesses, I would like to provide a content warning for this meeting. The sensitive topics covered today may be triggering for people in the room with us as well as for those watching and listening to the broadcast. Mental health support for all Canadians is available by phone and text at 988. Senators and parliamentary employees are also reminded that the Senate’s Employee and Family Assistance Program is available to them and offers short-term counselling for personal and work-related concerns, as well as crisis counselling.
Today, our committee will be meeting under its order of reference to examine and report on anti-Semitism in Canada. This afternoon, we will have four panels, so we have a very packed afternoon. In each panel, we will hear from the witnesses, and then the senators around this table will have a question-and-answer session.
I will now introduce our first witness. Our witnesses have been asked to make a five — underlined — five-minute opening statement each. Appearing by video conference, from the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, please welcome Michael Levitt, President and Chief Executive Officer. In person at the table with us, from the Jewish Federation of Edmonton, we have Stacey Leavitt-Wright, Chief Executive Officer. Appearing by video conference, from B’nai Brith Canada, please welcome Richard Robertson, Director, Research and Advocacy.
I now invite Mr. Levitt to make his presentation, to be followed by Ms. Leavitt-Wright and Mr. Robertson.
Michael Levitt, President and Chief Executive Officer, Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Honourable senators, thank you for the opportunity to address this committee on an issue of profound concern — the alarming rise of anti-Semitism across Canada and what it means for the safety, security and values of our nation.
On a personal level, it’s an honour to be back in the other place and see a number of members I had the privilege of working with during my time in Canada’s Parliament.
In recent years, anti-Semitism — the world’s oldest hatred — has re-emerged with disturbing force. Jewish Canadians, who make up less than 1% of the population, are consistently the most targeted group for hate crimes in our country. We have seen Jewish schools shot at, synagogues and Holocaust memorials vandalized, Jewish students intimidated on campuses and Jewish businesses and community members harassed and threatened simply for being who they are, to say nothing of the vile anti-Semitic rhetoric and incitement on the streets of our cities. What we are witnessing is not only a Jewish problem — it is a Canadian problem. When hate against one community goes unchecked, it threatens the safety and social cohesion of all Canadians.
At the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, we believe that education is the most powerful antidote to hate. Each year, our organization provides educational workshops and programming to more than 40,000 schoolchildren across Canada, teaching them about the Holocaust, human rights and the consequences of indifference. We also deliver training to tens of thousands of professionals, including teachers, public sector workers and police officers, equipping them with the knowledge and tools to recognize and respond to anti-Semitism and other forms of hate in their communities.
These efforts are making a difference, but the challenge is growing faster than our collective response. As online platforms amplify hate speech and widely disseminate misinformation, and as global anti-Semitic movements find footholds here at home, we need greater investment in education and awareness. Holocaust and anti-Semitism education must not be an optional enrichment; it must be a national priority. Our young people need to understand where hate can lead when it’s left unchallenged and unchecked.
But education alone is not enough. We need stronger government action to deter and address hate crimes and hold perpetrators accountable. Far too often, those who target Jewish Canadians with violence act with impunity. Law enforcement and judicial systems must have the resources, training and resolve to investigate and prosecute hate crimes effectively. Governments must ensure that laws protecting vulnerable communities are not only written but enforced vigorously.
We also need robust strategies to ensure the safety of Jewish schools, community centres and places of worship. Jewish Canadians should never have to think twice about their safety when sending their children to school or attending synagogue. Sadly, today they do, with good reason.
At its core, this is about defending the values that define Canada — equality, freedom and respect for diversity. Standing up to anti-Semitism is not just about protecting one community; it’s about safeguarding the moral foundation of our democracy.
Honourable senators, our nation has a proud, noble tradition of tolerance and inclusion, but these ideals are not self-sustaining. They require constant vigilance and commitment. We have a shared responsibility to ensure that “Never Again” is not simply a phrase from history but a living pledge that governs our actions today and every day.
Thank you for your attention and for your leadership in confronting hate and protecting all Canadians.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Levitt.
Stacey Leavitt-Wright, Chief Executive Officer, Jewish Federation of Edmonton: Good afternoon, Madam Chair and honourable senators, and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the experience of anti-Semitism of the Jewish community in Edmonton. For context, our community is approximately 5,700 Jews in a population of 1 million. We have contributed to the development of the city and its social fabric for over 125 years.
Over the course of the last two years, my daily life is consumed with countering anti-Semitism and community safety, which prior to October 7 was about 10% of my role. Anti-Semitism has morphed from the occasional shocking event to becoming normalized, pervasive and casual, even fashionable. It is a daily reality that affects how we gather, how we educate our children, how we practise our faith and how we show up in society. The result is fear and exhaustion, a community forced to divert resources from education, culture and social services toward basic physical protection in the face of growing hate and extremism.
Police-reported anti-Semitic incidents in Edmonton have increased significantly in recent years, particularly following major geopolitical events. For comparison, in 2022, there were 10 police-reported anti-Semitic incidents. In 2023, that number nearly doubled to 18. Since October 7, 2023, our community has documented over 440 unique anti-Semitic incidents, including 177 since January 1 of this year alone. The volume and severity are unprecedented.
These numbers, however, tell only part of the story. What is not reflected is the consequences of anti-Semitism, where being visibly Jewish becomes unsafe or unwelcome and where Jewish people are made to feel that their beliefs, heritage or affiliations are unacceptable. The psychological effects are taking their toll on our youth.
Behind every statistic is a story: a student who feels compelled to remove a Star of David necklace, a teen whose peers send death threats over social media, a synagogue that must lock its doors during services and is subject to vandalism, and a Jewish seniors’ centre targeted with anti-Semitic graffiti. Truth be told, many Canadian Jews have a safety plan in place, looking to what country, including Israel, can be a safe harbour should Canada become even more unrecognizable.
When protestors holding signs about Israel chant, “Throw them off of buildings, kill the Jews” on Whyte Avenue, this is no longer about one’s right to protest the activities of the Israeli government. This is not protected speech. It is hate speech, intimidation and incitement. And this area of the city is no longer accessible to me on a weekend afternoon. When incidents like this happen, Edmonton is no longer a safe city for Jews.
Let me recall recent incidents from our community. At a multicultural festival this August, our children and volunteers were subject to harassment and intimidation, were being spat on and shouted at, despite the police presence and the evident security team we needed to employ to ensure our safety.
During an announcement and outdoor gathering for our new Jewish community centre this past month, we were subjected to sustained harassment, undeterred even by police presence. While free speech is protected, targeted intimidation is not.
The proliferation of online hate is localized. The mere announcement of this new community building triggered a torrent of anti-Semitic tropes, including those about Jewish financial influence and media control and denial of our community’s right to exist in Edmonton, let alone multiple calls for arson.
We must not allow hate to masquerade as free expression. Blocking roads, targeting Jewish institutions and calling for violence are criminal acts. I urge this committee to recognize the evolving nature of anti-Semitism and take decisive action to protect Canadian Jews and uphold the values of inclusion, safety and respect.
I would like to conclude with some recommendations:
Ease the financial burden of security by enhancing programs like the CCSP and streamlining access. In Edmonton, the community spends hundreds of thousands annually on security personnel, surveillance systems and threat assessments. This is a fraction of what my sister communities across the country are spending, and combined we are approximately $40 million.
Enforce existing hate crime laws more rigorously, ensuring police have the resources and training to respond swiftly to anti-Semitic acts.
Adopt new legislation to protect vulnerable communities, such as “bubble zone” laws that make it an offence to obstruct or intimidate people entering a place of worship, school or community centre.
Ban the glorification of terrorism and enforce the ban.
Strengthen laws to deregister or sanction organizations linked to listed terrorist entities.
Provide enhanced funding for CSIS and the RCMP to detect and disrupt extremist activity before it escalates into violence.
Finally, improve hate crime data collection. Consistent national standards are critical to understanding the true scope of anti-Semitism and crafting effective policy responses.
Anti-Semitism in Canada is not confined to history books. It is here in our schools, on our streets and over social media feeds. Indeed, it has found fertile ground across the country, and we appeal to our government to put the brakes on Jew hatred.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Leavitt-Wright.
Richard Robertson, Director, Research and Advocacy, B’Nai Brith Canada: Honourable senators, I am here on behalf of B’nai Brith Canada, Canada’s oldest human rights organization and the voice of Canada’s grassroots Jewish community. Our organization, which was established in 1875, is dedicated to eradicating racism, anti-Semitism and hatred in all its forms, and championing the rights of the marginalized.
B’nai Brith Canada’s submission to this honourable committee comes at a time when Canada is in suffering through a crisis of anti-Semitism. Since 2022, the occurrence of anti-Semitic incidents in Canada has increased by over 124%. In 2024, B’nai Brith Canada recorded 6,219 incidents of anti-Semitism in our Annual Audit of Antisemitic Incidents, an average of 17 incidents per day.
Please let that resonate for just a moment. Last year in this country, Jewish persons — your friends, colleagues, neighbours and fellow Canadians — were the victims of 17 incidents of hate a day. Why? Because of their religion. The current situation being faced by Canadian Jewry is patently unacceptable and an affront to Canadian morals and values that necessitates urgent redress.
This committee, through its present study, has the opportunity to meaningfully contribute to the federal government’s response to the deteriorating crisis of anti-Semitism. The purpose of B’nai Brith Canada’s submission is to assist the committee in the development of its recommendations.
Our first recommendation is that the committee act now. Increasingly, Jewish Canadians do not feel safe in their own country. Some have begun to question their future as Canadians. We appreciate the immense workload undertaken by members of this committee, but waiting until December 2026 to allocate the production of a report will only allow the crisis to further devolve. We do not have another year to spare. The hate is manifesting, and the threats are compounding. Therefore, tangible solutions must be developed and implemented posthaste.
Our second recommendation is that the committee, in its report, formally recognize the crisis of anti-Semitism afflicting our society and encourage the Senate and the House of Commons to do the same. Doing so will demonstrate to Jewish Canadians, and all Canadians, in fact, that Canada’s leaders recognize the worsening crisis of anti-Jewish hatred and the dangers of allowing it to continue to foment in this country.
The recognition of a crisis must not be merely symbolic. It must be used to necessitate further action. Once acknowledged, it must spur the appropriate reaction. B’nai Brith Canada recommends that the recognition of a crisis be used by this committee to encourage the federal government to facilitate a response sufficient to combat a national crisis. There is precedent for the vigorous confrontation of national crises. The committee can help to prompt such a response by recommending the federal government undertake a whole-of-government approach initiated by the development of a task force or the holding of “four corners” meetings.
Our third recommendation is that the committee endorse B’nai Brith Canada’s proposal for the creation of a program to enhance the IHRA literacy of Canadian youth. The rationale for this recommendation is simple. We cannot expect the next generation of Canadians to fight what they do not understand. The federal government adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism in 2019 and has included it in subsequent national anti-racism strategies. Why? Because as a working definition with illustrative examples, the IHRA definition has been chosen by the majority of Jewish people as the tool most capable of identifying the various forms of contemporary anti-Semitism they encounter.
Yet, despite its adoption and its inclusion in the anti-racism strategy, B’nai Brith Canada regularly hears from youth across the country who have no conception of what defines contemporary anti-Semitism. If we are going to rid the odious scourge of anti-Semitism from Canadian society, we must invest in and implement programs that instill in the next generation of Canadians an understanding of what exactly it means to be an anti-Semite in a modern context.
The federal government, in its 2024 statement on preserving Holocaust remembrance and combatting anti-Semitism, indicated that it:
. . . strongly supports and encourages the wide adoption and implementation of the IHRA’s non-legally binding working definition on antisemitism . . . and illustrative examples . . .
It is the submission of B’nai Brith that efforts to ensure the wide application of the IHRA definition and its illustrative examples require the federal government to invest in ensuring that Canada’s future leaders are familiar with the nuances of the definition and how its examples can function as a tool and guide for identifying and confronting contemporary anti-Semitism.
The Chair: Mr. Robertson, I’m sorry to do this, but you have exceeded your five minutes, and I did give a few extra seconds. Hopefully, you’ll be able to address the rest of your statement in the Q&A session that’s to come.
Mr. Robertson: I appreciate that, Madam Chair. I was able to complete my recommendation, so thank you very much.
The Chair: You’re quite welcome, and thank you all for your presentations.
We will now proceed to questions from senators. Dear colleagues, I remind you to please identify the person to whom you are directing your question and to please ask questions one at a time. You have five minutes for your question, and that also includes the answer that you receive.
Our deputy chair, Senator Bernard, will take the first question.
Senator Bernard: Thank you all for being here and for the testimony you’ve provided to us today. I appreciate it.
I have a lot of questions, but my first question will be to Mr. Levitt, online. You talked about education being the antidote to hate, and yet I think all three of the witnesses have highlighted the significant increase in anti-Semitism in Canada over the last few years. What are we missing? What are we missing with the education that has been offered, and are there some suggestions or recommendations specifically around education that you would offer to this committee?
Mr. Levitt: Thank you very much for the question, Madam Senator.
As an organization rooted in education, Holocaust, human rights, anti-Semitism and racism, we spend a lot of time thinking about that. There is no doubt that society writ large, and Canada is no exception, is facing challenges in the education of our students — the most precious asset we have in this country.
A lot of that challenge comes from what’s available and what is impacting our kids online — social media, misinformation, attempts to peddle hate sometimes to kids as young as Grades 2 and 3 on online platforms. Social media literacy is something that I think is incredibly important. It’s one of the courses that we offer both to students, so they can understand what they’re seeing online, but also to parents and to educators to understand how these maligned forces are impacting youth and students in today’s society. It’s an uphill climb, and we hear it.
We do a lot of teacher training. When we talk about education, it’s not just the classroom education, the front-line education with the students. Certainly, we’ve seen a number of provinces across the country increase the availability and the demand for Holocaust education, something Ontario — I’m sitting here in Toronto today — has done. I take my hat off to former education minister Steven Lecce and the current provincial government because they expanded Grade 10 Holocaust education and also brought in Holocaust education for Grade 6. Understanding the past is a very significant force in being able to change attitudes of students.
I know you have other speakers that are going to talk about the importance of Holocaust education this afternoon, and I think it’s absolutely key, but we also have to ensure that the educators are educated. One of the things that we’re doing more and more across the country is providing anti-Semitism professional development training, as I mentioned during my remarks. We’re doing that work especially with Boards of Education and in schools, not just with students but with teachers. It’s incredibly important that educators are aware, because in many cases it can be ignorance and not hate that fuels what we’re seeing on the front lines.
That would be my response. We need to double down in our outreach and in pushing to educate the students of today.
Senator Bernard: Thank you. Is there a specific recommendation? What you’re suggesting is quite broad, actually.
Mr. Levitt: It is.
The Chair: Just under a minute for your response, please.
Mr. Levitt: I would suggest the continued expansion of Holocaust education across the country. This is something that we believe the federal government can work with education ministers on in a whole-of-country approach, because we do have vast differentials in what type of education is available province-to-province, with some doing much more in depth, and it’s very important that anti-Semitism is part of that discussion. As we need to understand hate in all its forms, we need to be able to ensure that students have that awareness.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
Senator K. Wells: My question is for all three witnesses. You’ve all talked about the need for action and immediate action to address hate targeting the Jewish community, among other communities. Can you give me your perspective on Bill C-9 that was recently introduced by the government to change the Criminal Code to provide more tools for police and prosecution of hate? Maybe we’ll start with our first speaker.
Mr. Levitt: Certainly. We’ve been working with the federal government and, obviously, we’re continuing to look at Bill C-9. There are some very important elements there that address how these charges are going to be brought and how hate is going to be elevated under the Criminal Code. In particular, I think the glorification of terror, which is addressed in this new legislation, is something that’s incredibly important and addresses really what we’ve been seeing on the front lines on our city streets and across the country.
I think other elements need to be looked at, and as I say, this is going to be going to committee. I think the hearings are starting very, very soon. I believe ourselves, and I know my colleague from B’Nai Brith and also colleagues from CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, are active on this file, as are many others. We’ll have recommendations that we will bring during the committee phase of this. There’s quite a bit of talk about the elimination of AG consent, something which we are favourable towards, but also there needs to be some guardrails there in certain situations to ensure that that process is one that goes smoothly.
Ms. Leavitt-Wright: At a local level, I would echo some of the same considerations and concerns and certainly welcome acts like banning glorification of terrorism. We’re seeing entities within Canada, like Samidoun, and glorification of them at rallies and events on the street.
I’m not as familiar with the legislation, so I’m looking forward to hearing more about that as things move forward.
Mr. Robertson: Similar to Mr. Levitt, we look forward to appearing at committee to address some of the nuances of the legislation; however, we are wholly supportive of the spirit of the legislation.
The legislation contains amendments to the Criminal Code that have been, quite frankly, long overdue. The banning of terror symbols, the banning of the display of Nazi iconography to willfully promote hate, the added amendments for criminalizing intimidation and obstruction related to vulnerable infrastructure, such as houses of worship — these are all things that B’Nai Brith Canada and other organizations have been advocating for. We’re grateful to see that the federal government has taken the opportunity to amend our legislation to, dare I say, catch up with some of the forms of hate that have been so odiously impacting our community over the last several years.
The legislation requires some revision, but, in general, we think that it’s strong in that we hope the government will take the opportunity to work with stakeholders in committee to perfect the legislation so that, as expeditiously as possible, we can have amendments made to the Criminal Code that will help strengthen our ability to protect our communities at a time when they truly need it.
Mr. Levitt: I would add, Senator Arnot, that Bill C-9 is a piece of the puzzle, and it’s the piece dealing with the Criminal Code, but it also comes down to the way these things are actioned, both a policing level and also at a prosecution level. It is so incredibly important that there is training and understanding and a commitment to use not just the new tools that Bill C-9 might bring to the equation but the existing tools too, because there is a lot of concern that they are not applied frequently enough and with the number of cases actually being followed through compared to incidents on the ground. You heard my colleague Rich Robertson talk about their annual audit. The numbers that are actually brought through the courts are shockingly — I dare say appallingly — low. We need to see Bill C-9, but we also need to see the training of prosecutors and police to be able to use the tools that are available and will be made available in future.
Senator Arnot: Thank you to the witnesses here today. This question is primarily for Mr. Levitt, but I have other questions for the other witness in second round.
Mr. Levitt, thank you for your testimony here today, particularly about the power of education. You have talked about the power of education and what it can do to ensure that citizens in Canada have a full understanding of the rights of citizenship but also the responsibilities that come with those rights and how all citizens should be respected. I would like you to augment some of the things you said. I want you in particular to focus on the Concentus citizenship education materials, which I know you’re aware of.
Mr. Levitt: Absolutely.
Senator Arnot: It is Grades K-12 education, being very intentional, sequential and purposeful in addressing rights, responsibility and respect and basic democratic values and the need to educate teachers about that. There is professional development that can occur, but also, would you agree that there is a specific role for Heritage Canada and that this committee should think about making specific recommendations for its use in the K-12 education systems in every province and territory in Canada? I would be interested in you amplifying what you have already said.
Mr. Levitt: Thank you very much. As you well know, senator, our paths have crossed in relation to Concentus and that important program you were part of in your prior life, bringing literacy to students of Canada’s democracy, of our governance and of all these elements of our country.
Again, I come back to my comments about the power of social media and misinformation and the ability to ground students in what it means to be Canadian, to build that pride and identity and that comfort level of them interacting with our institutions of government, giving them that voice, something that friends of Simon Weisenthal Center, which through a number of our programs, focus on. It’s absolutely pivotal.
You raise very good questions about the role of Heritage Canada. We’re always aware that, on issues of provincial jurisdiction — I suppose this relates to my former role as well — we have to be careful and mindful, because each of the provinces has very unique issues that come up in terms of their education systems, but I absolutely concur with your comments on the importance of both Concentus as a program and, writ, large teaching Canadian students about Canada, building that pride at a young age and countering the narratives that are coming through TikTok and some of the other social media channels which whittle away that sense of Canadian identity. Yes, I absolutely think that’s incredibly important.
Senator McPhedran: My question is primarily for Ms. Leavitt-Wright but, before I ask my question, I want to say to Michael how nice it is to see you on screen.
Mr. Levitt: It is good to see you, senator.
Senator McPhedran: And how much I appreciated working with you when you were a parliamentarian.
Mr. Levitt: Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: My question is related to the intersection between sexism and anti-Semitism. I realize it’s likely anecdotal, but I’m wondering if you could enlighten us about what you think, if there is a strong intersection there. Could you also help us to understand where you might see some very specific remedies, including legislation that we have discussed so far?
Ms. Leavitt-Wright: I can tell you anecdotally and from personal experience, having been trolled on social media and the language I will not bring to this committee about being a woman who is a female leader of the Jewish community. That’s proof positive right there about some of that.
The denial of sexual violence to Israeli women on October 7 was something that became a very heated and public issue as well, and it was a great concern to the community that other organizations did not step forward and join us in calling that out. That’s where we see that intersection happening.
I have not given thought to a policy that would deal with all of this and would have to gather my thoughts for a moment about that, but I think education about anti-Semitism and the various forms it can manifest is certainly a starting point. My colleagues were talking about the implementation of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, and further education being brought to all levels, not only school-aged children but to those who teach them and to people who are at the head of unions, at the head of universities, to be able to understand and identify where all of this manifests, would be very important.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you. I don’t want to restrict my question only to Ms. Leavitt-Wright because she is female. I would like to open it up, please, if anyone — oh, hi, Belle. I guess you’re our next panel?
Mr. Levitt: Next panel.
Senator McPhedran: We’ll keep that for next panel, if you wish to respond to it, Belle.
To the others on this panel, in particular, building on the question from Senator Wells about Bill C-9, do you see potential also with Bill C-216, the private member’s bill by MP Michelle Rempel Garner, that looks at youth and digital threats to youth, and also Bill C-8, the larger question of public cybersecurity? Is there potential there as well?
Mr. Robertson: I’m happy to take that question, senator.
Five Eyes, the RCMP and CSIS have all noted in their report that the radicalization of youth specifically online requires a whole-of-society approach. We are seeing almost weekly in this country youth are being involved in our criminal justice system because of threats that are resulting from their radicalization online. More needs to be done to protect our youth proactively. We are investing, as we should, in security infrastructure to stop extremist events at the eleventh hour, once they are occurring, but we need to continue to invest so that we are able to proactively confront radicalization and stop it at its roots. This is something that we at B’Nai Brith Canada have been calling for. We have been calling for studies on youth radicalization online within the House of Commons. We would welcome a similar study within the Senate. We need to examine as a society a gaping hole we presently have which makes us vulnerable, which is the exposure of our youth to radicalization online.
One particular example, senator, is there is a game presently available in Canada online through the Steam/Valve online streaming network where you cosplay as a terrorist and you murder individuals. We are working — and we have implored the federal government about this — to have this game removed online. These are some of the real-world ways in which we can prevent online radicalization from further indoctrinating our youth.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you. If there is any time left, I would welcome other answers.
Mr. Levitt: If there is a second, I’ll just add a few things.
Back to the issue of digital literacy and educating our youth to be able to understand the pitfalls of social media, you mentioned my former colleague in the House, MP Rempel Garner, and what she and so many female MPs were subjected to. We have seen Catherine McKenna write about it recently and so many others. We know that we need to get that information, because the social media world can be full of hate that is directed at young women at a time when they can be most vulnerable, which is to say as students, children and youth. It is incredibly important that we are educating parents, teachers and everybody who comes into contact with them —
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Levitt.
Mr. Levitt: — to be empowered. Thank you.
The Chair: There is some time left for a second round, if you would like to go then, Senator McPhedran. For now, we must move on.
Senator Robinson: I’m looking for examples. I know there are regions of Canada that have the highest rates of anti-Semitic incidents, and I would hope we have some that have the lowest, too. I will ask each of you to bring forward an example, whether it’s positive or negative, so we might learn from what is going horribly wrong or maybe something that is going well that we should learn from. I will start with Mr. Robertson, then Mr. Levitt, followed by Ms. Leavitt-Wright.
Mr. Robertson: In our annual audit, unfortunately, B’Nai Brith noted increases in anti-Semitism in every province but Ontario, yet Ontario still saw the lion’s share of anti-Semitism in this country. Unfortunately, the numbers are painting a stark picture — one that shows that anti-Semitism is out of control from coast to coast to coast. That is why B’Nai Brith Canada has been advocating for the formal recognition of anti-Semitism as a crisis. The piecemeal response thus far to anti-Semitism has been insufficient to tackle its systemic nature and the way it has been engrained into our society over the last two years.
I wish that I could be more positive, but what I think can be positive is the precedent that we have seen at other times of national crises when our government has responded with a whole-of-government approach and utilized all the mechanisms available to it to confront past crises. We at B’Nai Brith Canada believe that is the solution to the national crisis we are presently facing. We cannot afford to let the numbers continue to climb. It is having a detrimental impact on the vitality of the Jewish community. We need a whole-of-government approach that starts with formally recognizing what we are truly facing so that we can fight it.
Mr. Levitt: I want to try and find a glimmer of light in much of this darkness. I think that glimmer of light is going to be allyship, because while we have gone through an awful period of rising anti-Semitism, as we have talked at length about so far during this panel, one of the bright spots has been that we have seen allies, whether interfaith allies from other communities or non-Jews stepping up to show their support and to speak out against hate. We know that, in Canada and everywhere, hate against any one of us is hate against us all.
At FSWC, allyship is a major pillar of the work we undertake. We recently had an interfaith event. We have done them on the West Coast, in Toronto and across the country. We have seen so many leaders from other religious communities and so many other individuals come out, whether Indigenous leaders, Black leaders, Muslim leaders, Hindu leaders — I can’t list them all, and I don’t want to exclude anyone. They have come out because this impacts them too. We can’t be silent at a time like this. If there is a bright spot to all of this, it’s that we have continued to see people standing up and saying, “This is not the Canada we know and love.” It’s all our responsibility, not just the Jewish communities, to push back against it.
Senator Robinson: Thank you.
Ms. Leavitt-Wright: Specific examples I would point to, which I have already alluded to, are death threats that students have received, as well as vandalism. What saddens me most is people who are being more and more marginalized and the erasure of them from civic life and from their schools. They are just pulling back and retreating.
The glimmer of hope that I have is that while there are extremist elements pushing out into the mainstream of society, there are more and more mainstream or grassroots people around Edmonton who are coming forward and saying, “This does not represent who and what we are.” They are seeking us out. We have had, for instance, members of the Iranian community show up at our offices. Many people have come out to commemorations, ceremonies and events, saying, “I want to stand with your community, and I’m here to support you.” That’s the glimmer of hope that we take.
Senator Robinson: Thank you.
The Chair: We are now going to a second round. For this second round, you will have three minutes for question and answers.
Senator Bernard: Ms. Leavitt-Wright, I would like you to talk a bit about the psychological, social and economic impacts of anti-Semitism on Jewish communities in Canada. What are the impacts?
Ms. Leavitt-Wright: Psychologically, I would start with the fear that people are walking around with — the daily reality of wondering if they are safe when they step into an Uber or a grocery store and see stickers that promote hate or BDS. I see youth wanting to scrub their social media, maybe change their name or remove the Star of David. That is really concerning to me, and I wonder, especially longer term, what that is going to look like.
Economically, we are spending considerable sums of money on security and security training right now. That’s taking resources out of the community that could be used for far more productive means.
Senator Bernard: Would either of the other speakers like to address that question?
The Chair: I will just narrow in on something Ms. Levitt-Wright said. Can you speak more specifically about the security you are referring to is?
Ms. Leavitt-Wright: In order to hold an event or a program, we require security guards at the door and new infrastructure of cameras, different locking systems, et cetera. In the last month, I have spent more on security than I did in a full year three years ago in order to ensure the safety and security — very real — of our community and for people to feel safe enough to want to come to an event or program.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Levitt: To follow up on that, I would say that Canada is behind the eight ball in terms of national federal support for Jewish communities. The Canada Community Security Program has certainly gone up over the years but not at pace with the increased threats being faced and the increased expenses that Jewish community organizations have to spend. We’re lucky that in many of the major cities — I can speak to Toronto, as can Rich — we have seen police step up patrols and have emergency vehicles in primarily Jewish neighbourhoods. However, for the most part, it’s the Jewish community that has to be responsible for its own security efforts.
In jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, we have seen a much more comprehensive and robust effort at funding the security needs of their Jewish communities. We just saw what happened in Manchester a few weeks ago. In part, the minimizing of the situation on the ground there, tragic as it was, would have been much worse if it had not been for the investment of national dollars in Jewish community security and safety.
Senator Arnot: This question is directed mainly to Mr. Robertson and Ms. Leavitt-Wright. Both of you talked about the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism and the need to increase literacy on that issue. Would you agree the committee here should be focusing on the hope education provides and encouraging Canadian Heritage and Public Safety Canada to get behind education efforts, to continually educate through professional development the teachers in the K-12 system who influence the next generation of Canadian citizens?
Mr. Robertson: You’re absolutely correct, senator. We have spoken about the importance of education throughout the course of this panel. That education must come with IHRA literacy, whether it’s being taught through professional development to teachers who can then impart it to their students or to Canadian youth directly. It’s imperative that all Canadians understand what constitutes contemporary anti-Semitism. We have adopted the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, and we have created resources surrounding it, yet Canadians still do not know what its main component is. It has illustrative examples that are meant to guide and be used as tools. We’re depriving Canadians of those tools and resources if we don’t ensure that they are literate in it.
Ms. Leavitt-Wright: I would echo that. I would also add that we are talking about educators, but children are accessing other spaces as well, such as libraries and civic spaces. It’s important that that fluency is brought to all levels of interaction with kids to make them safe spaces for them.
Mr. Levitt: I would like to speak about the former Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism, Deborah Lyons, and the work she did in preparation of the IHRA handbook, which is a guide to assist institutions, public sector and private sector, on the implementation of IHRA into various entities to be able to bring about that knowledge and how to use it and be able to learn the lessons. It’s a practical publication that that office put out six months ago and something that needs to — starting with the public sector, quite honestly, senator. There is an opportunity to have that learning done in the public sector. It is not happening enough.
Senator K. Wells: My question is for Ms. Leavitt-Wright.
First, thank you for highlighting the Edmonton experience. You talked about the community I know well coming together to stand in solidarity against hate. Hopefully, we’ll continue to see those strong bonds across communities.
On the ground, can you talk about things that are working, not working or need to be improved in terms of Edmonton? It has had a hate crimes specialized unit for 20 years which was started with a federal government grant as a pilot project. In your work with the hate crimes unit, what is working, what needs to be improved, and what do you think of a recommendation if that’s something that should be scaled up to be seen in other communities across Canada? Your thoughts and impressions, please.
Ms. Leavitt-Wright: We do enjoy a strong relationship with the hate crimes unit. They have a fulsome understanding of what constitutes anti-Semitism. The challenge we are experiencing is that hate-motivated incidents being charged as crimes is a strong challenge right now. There is a reluctance many times because they know, when they bring it to the Crown, that it will sit. It doesn’t move very far after that. One of the strongest recommendations I have is to work Bill C-9 with the Attorneys General and, as my colleague stated, with some guardrails in place, but being able to see more of those come through, because it translates into a reluctance with the police force.
Senator K. Wells: If I’m hearing you correctly, it’s not just the importance of having the specialized units and police on the ground, but also investing in training, education and creating specialized Crown prosecutors who have a strong understanding of hate to see more successful prosecutions?
Ms. Leavitt-Wright: Absolutely, and seeing them trained to be able to do so to understand the issues fulsomely.
That being said, more resources for our hate crimes units, I’m sure, would be appreciated across the board, because we are not the only community experiencing hate. We’re only 11% of the hate that is being brought their way, for a population of 0.005%. There are many communities who would also benefit from that.
Senator Karetak-Lindell: As I listen to you, I see some parallels between what happens to Indigenous communities.
You step forward two steps and go back one, and I’m really trying to understand Holocaust denial. I find that very hard to digest because it is documented. Everyone knows it happened. How do you deal with that when you’re doing education and public awareness? How much of that denial interferes with the work you do for awareness and teaching the public about what has happened and anti-Semitism? Does that play a big role in setting you back in the work you do?
Ms. Leavitt-Wright: That’s one of the psychological effects that we are experiencing. It’s almost the erasure of the Jewish experience. Being able to bring voice to that is a big part of the work we are doing. We do engage high school students in Holocaust education. In the one-to-one setting, when they are hearing directly from survivors and next-generation survivors, we are able to counter that somewhat. The online space is where we’re seeing that as the largest issue.
Mr. Levitt: If I can add, senator, in our work, we deal with the intergenerational trauma of survivors, first- and second-generation survivors, because we’re in schools every day, often with Holocaust survivors, teaching Holocaust education. Although their number is fewer, one of the groups that has been most impacted and traumatized by events in Canada over the last number of years as this virulent wave of anti-Semitism has taken hold is Holocaust survivors, many of them in their eighties and nineties, who are looking and seeing so many things occurring again: vandalism, swastikas on buildings, marches calling for Jews to be thrown out of the country, et cetera. The impact on them, their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren is incredibly profound, something that I think speaks to that common cause you mentioned in relation to the Indigenous community.
Mr. Robertson: We are also losing the battle against Holocaust denial. Statistics are demonstrating that, amongst Canadian youth, the rates of Holocaust denial and disinformation are increasing. That goes back to the education component. We must ensure that our youth are taught to respect everyone and the history of our civilization so the mistakes of our past are not repeated.
The Chair: We are at the end of our first panel. Thank you, all, for appearing and participating in this important study. Your assistance in our study is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time.
Mr. Levitt: Thank you very much.
Mr. Robertson: Thank you.
The Chair: I will now introduce our second panel. Our witnesses have been asked to make an opening statement lasting five minutes each. This will be followed by questions from the senators.
In person at our table is Rivka Campbell, Executive Director of Beth Tikvah Synagogue and Co-Founder of Jews of Colour Canada, and appearing by video conference is Belle Jarniewski, Executive Director, Manitoba Institute to Combat Antisemitism. Welcome to you both. I invite Ms. Campbell to make her presentation, followed by Ms. Jarniewski.
Rivka Campbell, Executive Director of Beth Tikvah Synagogue and Co-Founder of Jews of Colour Canada, Beth Tikvah Synagogue and Jews of Colour Canada: Thank you, honourable senators, for having me here today.
I share this testimony as both an individual and a representative of a broader community deeply impacted by the rising anti-Semitism. This is not what belonging should feel like in Canada.
My own synagogue, Beth Tikvah, has been targeted repeatedly since October 7, 2023 — the second-highest target in Toronto. Incidents have included vandalism, signs outside of the building being set on fire and an alarming encounter with an interloper carrying a list of Jewish institutions. Notably, synagogues and other Jewish institutions were listed as part of a larger plot. These incidents leave a lasting fear. Congregants are traumatized, and some will not attend synagogue because of that fear. A synagogue is not just a building, it’s a spiritual home, and when that home becomes a target, it shakes the foundation of our community.
I navigate the community, Canada, as a Black Jewish woman, carrying a complex duality. I am what I call “an undercover Jew,” privy to anti-Semitic comments because they don’t realize that I’m Jewish. I will wear my symbols of Judaism, but I’m caught between a rock and a rock. I either don’t wear them and am subjected to anti-Semitic comments, or I wear the symbols and am still subjected to anti-Semitic comments.
For example, one time I called a car to take me home, and the driver, unaware of my identity, began speaking aloud about “the Jews,” using slurs and stereotypes. I sat there, vulnerable, shocked and increasingly afraid. Finally, I asked him to stop the car, looked at him and said, “I am Jewish.” I got out, angry and feeling dehumanized.
I am caught between a rock and a hard place. The persistent framing of Jews as White also erases “Jews of Colour” and minimizes the racialized nature of the anti-Semitic hate itself. Jewish identity is not a monolith. It is a global, multicultural and multi-ethnic identity. Canada’s response to anti-Semitism often feels reactive, not preventative, waiting for a front-page crisis before acting instead of stopping hate at its source through education, enforcement and leadership.
Symbolic gestures such as tweets on International Holocaust Remembrance Day and vague statements about standing against hate are insufficient responses to acts of anti-Semitism, and using the words, “we condemn all hate,” or “we condemn anti-Semitism and —” are not enough. Condemnation of anti-Semitism stands alone.
What we need is a sustained national strategy with measurable outcomes and accountability. If Canada is serious about combatting anti-Semitism, we must move beyond words to action. I recommend robust education on anti-Semitism that reflects the diversity of the Jewish people and our experience; stronger legislation and consistent enforcement of hate crimes, with training for law enforcement to recognize anti-Semitic motivation; accountability for online hate, ensuring that digital platforms cannot amplify hate and conspiracy; and sustainable funding for security of religious and cultural institutions.
Beyond policy, we need strong and true allyship — a willingness to stand with Jewish Canadians, to call out anti-Semitism even when it’s inconvenient, and to recognize that fighting anti-Semitism strengthens the fight against all forms of hate. Just as it’s not the responsibility of Black people to eradicate anti-Black racism, it’s not the responsibility of Jews to eradicate anti-Semitism. Again, we need strong and true allyship.
Canada’s values of inclusion, respect and justice are being tested. The measure of our commitment will not be found in the statements we issue but in the actions we take to prevent it. I don’t ask for sympathy. I ask for partnership for a Canada where no one feels unsafe because of who they are and how they pray.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Belle Jarniewski, Executive Director, Manitoba Institute to Combat Antisemitism: Madam Chair and honourable senators, for Canadian Jews, there’s a “before” October 7, 2023, and an “after.” Anti-Semitism in Canada today is more aggressive and pervasive than ever before. Anti-Jewish hate and the politicization of anti-Semitism have become normalized in Canadian society and around the world. The latest Statistics Canada report on hate crimes reveals that almost 19% — or 920 of the nearly 4,900 reported hate crimes — and almost 70% of religion-motivated hate crimes were committed against Jews, even though we make up less than 1% of the population.
Incidents of online anti-Semitism have skyrocketed and are rife with historical tropes. While the word “Jew” is often replaced by “Zionist,” the ideas and imagery are the same as they were decades ago. We are seeing tropes of blood libel, conspiracy theories and religious anti-Semitism. Other examples include Holocaust denial and inversion, Nazi imagery, depictions of Jews as vermin and holding Jews responsible for everything that goes wrong. The attacks come as much from the political left as from the political right extremes of our Canadian society.
Let me be clear: Canadian Jews no longer feel safe. We have witnessed attacks on Jewish institutions and on individuals. The recent report on anti-Semitism in Ontario schools has illustrated the extent of the problem, with nearly one in six anti-Semitic incidents having been initiated or approved by a teacher or having involved a school-sanctioned activity. Many Jewish parents have moved their children to another school, often out of the public school system, in an effort to protect them. It is important to note that some 40% of the reported incidents in the Ontario report were not anti-Israel in nature; rather, they included Holocaust denial, assertions of excessive Jewish wealth or power, or blanket condemnation of Jews. A year ago, a six-year-old in Ottawa was informed by her teacher that she is only half human because one of her parents is Jewish.
Anti-Israel protests in our streets have openly vilified Canadian Jews and have called for the destruction of the only Jewish state. A Winnipeg leader of these rallies referred to Zionism as a disease that must be destroyed. Open threats have been made such as this one at a multicultural festival: Hamas is coming for you. That’s just one example. So many of us have been targeted. I personally have received serious threats and have been told I deserve to die because I’m a Jew.
Anti-Semitism has infected our universities, and hate speech by academics has been allowed under the guise of freedom of speech. An English professor in Winnipeg posting on X wished the following on Israel: May it die soon and miserably, and may its criminal enablers and executioners suffer indescribable tragedies in their lives and families. Just imagine being a Jewish student in his class.
Many students and academics have also publicly celebrated the October 7 attacks. A poster advertising a recent rally at Concordia University featured an illustration glorifying Hamas and the 2023 attacks. On October 10, a few days later, a group of Jewish students leaving Shabbat services at Concordia were confronted by an individual with a megaphone demanding to know if they had family in the Israel Defense Forces, known as IDF or at the Nova festival. He was boasting that he enjoyed watching the videos of IDF soldiers dying.
Jews have also been excluded from DEI initiatives. We are viewed, as you heard, as white and privileged, even though the Jewish community is very diverse. This has meant we have neither a voice nor a place at the table in these important discussions.
Time after time, our national broadcaster has prioritized anti-Zionist voices, with even the most egregious statements left unchallenged.
We look forward to the implementation of stronger hate laws, such as the proposed combatting hate act. However, in the past two years, we have rarely seen laws enforced when it comes to acts of anti-Jewish hate, and laws are useless unless they are enforced.
The reality of life for Jews in Canada today is something we never imagined, but anti-Jewish hate endangers us all. It is toxic to Canadian society. It threatens democracy. And, I repeat, it threatens us all.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you both for your presentations.
Before we continue, I welcome Senator Coyle, who has joined us.
We will now proceed to questions from senators. Colleagues, I remind you to please identify the person to whom you are directing your question, and please ask questions one at a time. You have five minutes for both your question and the answer.
Senator Bernard: Thank you both for your testimony and for being with us today.
I want to direct my first question to Ms. Campbell, and I want to thank you for highlighting the diversity and also for helping us to better understand that intersectionality. I’d like to hear more about that, about the reality of the intersection between anti-Semitism, anti-Black racism and gender. Senator McPhedran asked about it earlier. You’re embodying those intersections and maybe more that we don’t see. I’d like to hear a bit more about that reality. I’d like to ask how those issues get taken up in the educational programs that we heard a lot about on the last panel.
Ms. Campbell: Thank you for the question.
I’ll preface it by saying, growing up, my mother always said, “You have three strikes against you so you have to be three times better than everybody else. You’re Black. You’re Jewish. You’re female.”
I used to do presentations to Jewish and non-Jewish schools about Jewish diversity because there is that narrative that Jews only look a certain way and only come from a certain place. I think it also seeks to kind of ground the experience. When someone who looks like me is speaking to someone who looks like me and understands that, yes, I am Jewish, it also kind of changes the dynamics in the room, if that makes any sense. It makes it a little bit more real.
When I work in that arena of diversity work, I do say that both parts of me are actually natural allies. Both are persecuted peoples and continue to be so. Both are branches of the same tree of hate and make natural allies. Especially in the Black community, when we continue to frame Jews as being of a certain hue, we’re missing that opportunity to show how we walk in the same path and how we can actually hold hands and walk together to combat hate in general.
Senator Bernard: How does the organization Jews of Colour Canada work? What are they doing to address the invisibility of the diversity of the Jewish population?
Ms. Campbell: Interestingly enough, it actually came as an organization for Jews of colour within the community, to say, “You’re here. I’m here. We’re here together. Let’s see what we can do about our experiences in talking about the diversity in general.” It’s more framed as not just Jews who look like me but Jews who don’t necessarily fit the narrative of being from Eastern Europe. It could be Ethiopian Jews, Jews from India or Jews from Asia. That’s how it started, as education within our community, and then it broadened to education outside of our community, especially to young people, and really understanding the richness of the Jewish community and that it isn’t just one type.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
Could Ms. Jarniewski also speak about that diversity and why it is invisible? What can we do about it? Is there a recommendation that this committee could make around that?
Ms. Jarniewski: The Manitoba Insititute to Combat Antisemitism provides education and training on anti-Semitism, not just for students and teachers but for professional groups, non-profits, business leaders, et cetera. This has always been part of the presentation that I do. There’s a wonderful slide that shows Jews of various backgrounds. I have myself heard even teachers responding, just sort of blurting out, “But I thought all Jews were from Europe; I thought all Jews were White.” It is a very important part of education.
In Ontario, there was a wonderful film made by Facing History & Ourselves and a Jewish federation called Being Jewish in Ontario that shows Jews from many different backgrounds and of many different hues talking about their culture, their traditions, et cetera.
I really believe that education is very important and that this has to be a part of the curriculum. In Manitoba, we are finalizing a mandated Holocaust education curriculum for Grades 6, 9 and 12, and this too will be a part of that curriculum.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
Ms. Campbell: I think context is also important because what you will hear a lot is the connection of Jews to Europe, and you will hear the trope of “Jews in the Middle East, go back to Europe where you come from.” I think there needs to be a huge piece about the education of Jews in the Middle East who are Indigenous to the Middle East and who have suffered persecution for hundreds and hundreds of years. Their stories aren’t that well known. The story of the Holocaust is more well known than the stories of the persecution that the Jews in the Middle East have had, and that well predates the Holocaust, and continues. The number of Jews left in some of those countries is one, two. The forced exile and the annihilation of the Jews in the Middle East is also part of that education to broaden it —
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Campbell. Perhaps there will be an opportunity for you to finish that thought.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you both for being with us today. Coming from Manitoba, I can certainly acknowledge the years and years of very deep community work that you’ve done, if I may say, Belle, and I thank you both for the presentations you’ve made to us.
I want to invite you — I think you heard the earlier questions — to respond to us on the matter of additional legal protections, along with additional legal penalties. You’ll recall that I referenced the private member’s bill by MP Rempel Garner. I also referenced Bill C-9, the larger public safety bill, and my colleague Senator Wells referenced Bill C-8. Please feel welcome to add anything on that question.
Ms. Jarniewski: I’m very much in favour of the new bill, and I think it will help strengthen the legislation. As I said, it has to be enforced. As some of my colleagues said in the earlier presentation, we need training for Crown attorneys. As it happens, I’m the mother and mother-in-law of two Crown criminal prosecutors, and they are very much asking for training. That would also mean that in law school, as we form new defence lawyers and new prosecutors, that they will be trained in hate law.
Ms. Campbell: I concur. The fact that this is coming forward is fantastic. It is long overdue. But again, it’s about the enforcement piece. In Toronto and Richmond Hill, for example, there has been new legislation in place to combat protests and so on and so forth, but we’re finding the challenge is around enforcing it. I think really the piece is the education — as my colleagues have mentioned, the education of attorneys and education of law enforcement to be able to recognize it. That education should definitely include members of the Jewish community, because there are some nuances that we would recognize that they may not necessarily recognize. I think that’s really key. So a “not about us without us” sort of thing.
Ms. Jarniewski: If I could add one small thing, with my other hat as a member of Canada’s delegation to the IHRA since 2013, it’s not just teaching about what this definition is, but combatting the ongoing mischaracterization of the definition. It is legally non-binding. It’s meant to be a tool. Whereas there are more than 200 universities in the United Kingdom that have adopted or endorsed the definition, I don’t know that we have any in Canada, and that is not a good thing.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
This is a rather envisioning question: If we reach the point where there is actually a sustainable peace in Gaza, between Israel and Gaza, do you think that there will be a likely reduction of what is now being experienced by Jews in Canada, or do you think we’ve reached the point of entrenchment?
Ms. Campbell: At the risk of sounding blunt, I don’t think it will matter. The hatred of Jews predates Gaza. Anti-Semitism has always been around. It has always actually been going up. Anecdotally, it has been going up. We have what I call “polite anti-Semitism.” All that has really changed is that it has become more bold. People have been emboldened to set things on fire and to use words that shouldn’t be used. So I think that ship has sailed. It doesn’t matter what happens there.
Ms. Jarniewski: I agree. The genie is out of the bottle. Whereas it wasn’t socially acceptable to say these things, it is now, and it has been normalized, and that is compounded exponentially with social media. I know that Michal Cotler-Wunsh referred to it as an “eighth front.” This is going to be a big problem ongoing. I don’t think it’s going to disappear with what I hope will be peace in the Middle East. We have a big mountain to climb.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much to both of our witnesses today. This is a very important conversation we’re having, and your advice to us as well as your descriptions of your realities is invaluable, so I appreciate it.
My first question is for you, Ms. Campbell. I didn’t write down the exact words, but you spoke about the inadequacy of Canada’s response and it being more reactive. Am I right in what you were saying? And then you laid out a number of items that you would like to see in a sustained strategy, which I think was very clear, and I did get those points. I’m always looking at positive deviance. Is there anything you’ve seen that has worked well in the past that we can learn from and amplify? I’m just curious whether you’ve seen anything.
Ms. Campbell: That’s a tough question, because we’re so entrenched in it that it’s really hard to see.
In terms of things that have been done at a government level that have been helpful and given us some security — I also work for a synagogue, so a lot of my day is spent not managing membership but managing security. One of the positive things that made us feel like we mattered was access to funds. It’s sad that we have to have it, but it also gave us a measure of, okay, we matter and we’re not in it completely alone.
Senator Coyle: So resources for security.
Ms. Campbell: Resources, for sure, because, as someone previously mentioned, that cost has multiplied, and it’s sad.
Senator Coyle: We heard a little bit about universities in the U.K., but in other countries, for instance, are there models that have worked better, that have been more proactive than reactive, that you know of and that Canada could learn from?
Ms. Campbell: I’ll have to think about that, but thank you.
Senator Coyle: No problem. If there’s anything that you want to send us in writing, that would be great.
Ms. Campbell: I’ll have to reflect on that.
Senator Coyle: Ms. Jarniewski, thank you for your testimony. That report on anti-Semitism in Ontario schools is a frightening document. When you see that level of what is going on, not just student to student but also teacher to student, that trust and that safety that should be there that isn’t there is a real indication of the breakdown that both of you are expressing to us today.
I believe you also said something about our national broadcaster, which I consider — I call it the CBC. Could you talk a little bit more about what you were referring to there in terms of either a negative role played by our national broadcaster and/or a positive role and what you think we could require or request or support our national broadcaster to do more of?
Ms. Jarniewski: Many of us are seeing on local radio all across Canada and local CBC shows where interviewers are choosing to interview anti-Zionist speakers. Often, when they do pick a Jewish person, they will be someone who is really on the fringe of our community as far as what their beliefs and thoughts are about Zionism, et cetera, and they are saying rather egregious things without being challenged. We have also seen the few times when sometimes a representative from the mainstream Jewish community is interviewed, and they will be challenged on what they are saying.
A friend of mine in the Indigenous community was being interviewed, and in the prep, she was asked, “Is there anything you would like to ask?” She said, “Yes. I have many friends in the Jewish community. I’m just wondering, why are you always going to this person and this person and not inviting people from the mainstream Jewish community to speak?”
The Chair: I’m sorry to interrupt. Maybe we can complete that thought and then go on. If you want to go the second round, Senator Coyle, we can do that.
Ms. Jarniewski: That’s pretty much it. We’re not really given much of an opportunity, we feel, to present the other side of the story.
Senator K. Wells: 2025 is the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Supreme Court of Canada. Recently, some of the media pundits and legal experts have ranked the most significant cases in the history of the Supreme Court. The Delwin Vriend case that brought sexual orientation into the Charter, into section 15, was ranked as one of the eight most influential cases in the history of the Supreme Court. In that story of Delwin Vriend, one of the most powerful moments comes when the Canadian Jewish Congress acts as an intervenor and gives a statement before the Supreme Court comparing, in terms of intersectional allyship, the experiences of the Jewish community and the experiences of the gay and lesbian community. Lyle Kanee, who was representing the Congress at the time, said that we must hold hands together as we walk through the gates of equality. I keep thinking about how many young people don’t know the history of our movements and the solidarity.
My question comes back to Ms. Campbell about the importance of intersectional allyship that you have talked about, really sometimes what I call the differences that make a difference in our daily life, and those differences many people don’t see until we feel safe enough, as examples you have given, to share that vulnerability with other people. Could you could speak more about the importance of intersectional allyship and how we go about educating those differences that make a difference, that build the richness and the diversity of our community and the intersections with hate?
Ms. Campbell: I loved what you said about holding hands and walking together. I don’t even know how I can improve on that. It really is a matter of sharing our stories, and feeling safe and comfortable enough to share our stories. Right now, it is challenging to be Jewish, period, let alone bringing in all the other identities we may hold. That’s a lot. It’s exhausting. But by the same token, it’s important to share those stories, to have those personal stories told at school, not in a clinical manner, but really so that people can see and feel and hear that we share these things, that we aren’t this, this and this. There are those of us who are all and there are those of us who aren’t. But we share the same thing, and we’re walking the same path, and we need to fight together because we are all marginalized. It’s got to change.
Senator McPhedran: Just as a quick point of clarification from you, Ms. Jarniewski, when you used the term “fringe” or maybe the equivalent of that, are you including organizations like Independent Jewish Voices in that category?
Ms. Jarniewski: Yes. There was a recent survey done in Canada, and 94% of Canadian Jews self-identify as Zionist, which only means that we believe that Israel has the right to exist, that it is our ancestral homeland, that we are indigenous to Israel and that’s it. So that means that only 6% have differing opinions, and that includes Independent Jewish Voices, but those voices are often prioritized by the media.
Senator McPhedran: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Coyle: I want to pick up on that last question with Ms. Jarniewski. We have spoken about our public broadcaster. I’m curious, are you seeing the same sort of treatment in the private sector?
Ms. Jarniewski: I’m not, actually. I have found immense differences, whether it’s radio or TV, in other words, CTV as opposed to CBC, in the way that they report on the same story. There will be a more balanced attitude and a more balanced reporting from the private sector, yes.
Senator Coyle: Okay. Do either of you know of any interventions that are being made by Jewish organizations with Canada’s national broadcaster on these issues?
Ms. Jarniewski: Absolutely.
Ms. Campbell: One of the top organizations is HonestReporting Canada. They are constantly holding them to task, sending corrections, demanding corrections, even though you know it’s hard to unring that bell. They consistently hold them accountable.
Senator Coyle: Okay. Did our other witness want to add anything to that?
Ms. Jarniewski: I completely agree, but also at times there is an apology that is made, but it’s like a retraction in a newspaper that is on page 20. Nobody really hears it or sees it. But yes, HonestReporting has done tremendous work in this area.
Senator Coyle: Thank you. That’s helpful to know.
I’m so curious. There are so many aspects to what we’re talking about here. Both of you have talked about the importance of education, and I think that’s essential. We have talked about intersectionality and the importance of that. We have talked about the importance of children in particular learning all the stories. The “big story” we always hear about — that all kids, I imagine, hear about — is the Holocaust. One big annual thing that all schools do is Remembrance Day. What was the grandfather or great-grandfather doing? Why are we wearing poppies, and why do we have these art contests at school? Do you think more could be done in tandem with Remembrance Day, for example, in terms of education? That’s a big focus for all the schools, as far as I know. A lot of attention is put on that. Is there anything that you know to be happening relating to making those connections, or do you think it’s helpful to do more around that?
Ms. Campbell: Absolutely, but I would even take it a step further. We have this habit or tradition of allocating certain periods of time to talk about certain things. We have Black History Month, for instance. I always say that it should be more consistent. It should not just be on Remembrance Day when we talk about the experiences of war veterans and what happened during the Holocaust or whatever. It should be part of a year-long curriculum, whether it is the history of Black Canadians or Indigenous peoples. It needs to be constant and not just at particular times. We do it, do it, do it, all, and then it just peters away.
Ms. Jarniewski: I would agree. We also have to look at intersectionality even in that story. We need to teach about the contributions of Jews in the armed forces during World War II and World War I, and their contributions overall to Canada. They are immense. We cannot just do it, as you say, during Jewish Heritage Month but all year long. We need to have a cross-curricular approach to this.
Senator Coyle: Thank you both.
Senator Bernard: I would like to follow up on a question that Senator Coyle was asking about the comments you made about our national broadcaster and what I would frame as anti-Semitism playing out in the media. Is there a role for education with regard to that, and is there a specific recommendation that either of you would make to this committee around that?
Ms. Jarniewski: Actually, just today, I discovered and added to our website of the Manitoba Institute to Combat Antisemitism a document by UNESCO about anti-Semitism in journalism and how to avoid it. It’s an excellent document. It’s not meant just for Canadians, of course, but for people from all different countries.
I think we need to educate students in schools of journalism, too. Education has to happen everywhere. I don’t think that anti-Semitism is really understood. Like the definition, anti-Semitism itself is mischaracterized as well as misunderstood.
Ms. Campbell: This might be a bit harsh, but I think we also have to appreciate that, sometimes, it isn’t about education; sometimes it’s just willful anti-Semitism. If it is, there needs to be consequences, because we’re talking about journalists, presumably educated people who research. It can beg the question whether it’s not willful. We have to sometimes think of that as the reason and move from there.
Ms. Jarniewski: To quickly add, we would never allow, I think, some of the comments that are directed at Jews to be directed at any other minority. It would be immediately criticized, and there would be consequences for the journalist. Somehow, though, when it comes to us, it just doesn’t matter.
The Chair: We have come to the end of our second panel. Thank you so much for your testimony and for being here today, in person as well as online.
Our third panel of witnesses has been asked to make an opening statement of five minutes each. With us at the table and in person today is Ms. Carrie Silverberg. Appearing by video conference, from the Holocaust & Antisemitism Educators Association is Mr. Eyal Daniel, president of the association. Thank you both for being here.
Carrie Silverberg, as an individual: Madam Chair and honourable senators, thank you for inviting me to speak at a critical time in our history.
I am not here as a member of an organization, as many are today. I am here as a member of CUPE, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, which is the biggest public sector union in the country. I am not somebody who has ever been political. I have never wanted to speak publicly, but I have no choice. I have become politically involved. I have become very involved because I have had to deal with the anti-Semitism in my union, the organization I’m forced to be a member of and pay dues to.
Before October 7, for many years, I’d been trying to make change and have conversations and educate within the union. I have met with Fred Hahn and Mark Hancock, the president of CUPE Ontario and the national president. I met with my local executive. I met with other committees and people within CUPE. All these conversations sort of went the same way at the end, with people smiling and saying, “Oh, we’ll try to do better.” Better has never come; if anything, it’s gotten worse. It’s difficult.
Over the years, I have gone to national and provincial conventions. I have gone to the microphone and spoken out about the one-sided hate and resolutions that are untruths. They are not even one-sided. They are not based in fact. They also always start with talking about discrimination and hate. I have to go up and say, “You have listed every single type of hate and discrimination. Where is anti-Semitism?” It’s never there. I have asked over and over again. It doesn’t typically get added until somebody goes to the mic and asks for it to be added.
When I was at a convention not too long ago, I was yelled at and booed while I was speaking at the microphone. This is not something that ever happens in a union or on a union floor. I had the national and provincial presidents chairing the meeting. Nobody stopped them. I had to turn around and stop them. It was actually terrifying, to be honest, because nobody seemed to care. It was okay to treat me that way. They would never stand for that with any other group but, for some reason, it was okay to target the Jews. It was demoralizing to be in that atmosphere, knowing these are supposed to be the people standing up for me, fighting for my rights, and they are the first ones to scream at me and want me to go away just because I’m a Jew and standing up for my people.
On October 8, 2023, the day after the biggest massacre of the Jews since the Holocaust — and while Israel was still counting the victims and those kidnapped — Fred Hahn, president of CUPE Ontario, tweeted the most hateful thing he could. To paraphrase, he said he was grateful for the power of resistance, meaning he was grateful for this massacre. He did not call for the return of the hostages or show any concern for any of the innocent men, women or children who had been murdered. This was absolutely devastating to not only me but many of my friends and people I didn’t know who reached out to me. In the weeks and months following October 7, Fred Hahn attended anti-Israel rallies with a megaphone in hand, always introducing himself as the president of CUPE — in other words, representing me — and yelling about all of his perceived evils of Israel.
There is not only a lack of concern for the Jews; there is a disdain and hate for us. My involvement with CUPE, and dealing with the constant hate and discrimination, is truly exhausting, often making me want to literally quit my job so I no longer have to be affiliated with CUPE, be a member and pay my dues to them because they are hateful and anti-Semitic.
The only option I could find to try to stop my union from using my dues to fund their geopolitical interests and support terrorists who want Jews erased from the face of the earth was to file a discrimination complaint in a Human Rights Tribunal against Fred Hahn and CUPE Ontario. I was lucky enough to find Kathryn Marshall, a lawyer willing to do this work pro bono. But adding another layer to my unbearable hurt, the defence of Fred Hahn and CUPE Ontario is funded using my union dues. I had to find a lawyer willing to represent us for free while paying for the lawyer being used by Fred and CUPE.
CUPE constantly refers to its equality statement and mandate for ensuring all people are treated equally, but they themselves continuously and relentlessly target Jews and Israelis, causing much trauma for myself and many others. As you know, in terms of hate crimes, Jews — we’ve heard it many times tonight — are the most targeted group, and it feels like my union is very happy to just add to those statistics. If Canadians are forced to be a part of a union, there must be a fair way to hold leadership accountable to its members for both their actions and their use of funds.
I see some solutions. I’d like to see changes to the Rand Formula, allowing members to opt out of paying dues for anything other than collective bargaining and enforcing a collective agreement — I think this was the original intent of the Rand Formula — so that members do not have to continue to fund the political ideology of the leaders. Laws preventing union leaders from using their platform to promote their political or ideological agenda are needed. Transparency and accountability from union leadership needs to be a legal requirement. They need to be reminded that they’re not a political party. They’re a union representing people from across every party.
The Chair: Ms. Silverberg, I know you have more to say. Perhaps a senator can ask a question about other solutions and recommendations that you’re coming forward with. Thank you so much.
Eyal Daniel, President, Holocaust and Antisemitism Educators Association: Thank you to the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights for this opportunity to speak today. I’m Eyal Daniel, a secondary school social studies teacher from British Columbia and the president of the Holocaust and Antisemitism Educators Association, or HAEA.
Our organization was founded in 2024, following the B.C. premier’s announcement that Holocaust education would be a mandatory topic in the Grade 10 social studies curriculum in response to a growing need for comprehensive educational materials and professional development opportunities for teachers about the Holocaust and anti-Semitism. To be clear, the need for such an organization had likely been due long before the October 7 Hamas massacre, as anti-Semitism has been increasing in Canada, with recent statistics showing a 670% increase in the last two years. As educators, we realized we had to take action to stop the hate we were starting to witness in our schools and classrooms.
In B.C. teaching tools are created and professional development opportunities are organized by groups called Provincial Specialist Associations, or PSAs. They are endorsed and funded by the BC Teachers’ Federation, or BCTF, the union that all public school teachers are required to join. Some have argued that the BCTF could be part of the problem when it comes to anti-Semitism in schools. Let me share some examples of this.
For a long time, the BCTF shared with teachers, on their online teachers’ resources section “Teach BC,” highly problematic teaching material about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict called “Searching for a Just Peace,” despite the BCTF being told repeatedly by experts that it is a biased, ahistorical and harmful document. That was the only available resource. There was nothing on the Holocaust, nothing on anti-Semitism and nothing of quality on the conflict.
This brings us back to the group I lead. As a group of both Jewish and non-Jewish educators, our aim is to use our expertise to ensure that B.C. teachers and students are provided with accountable and quality resources in these trying times. We have the goal of becoming a BCTF-approved-and-funded Provincial Specialist Association, just like other existing specialist associations in math, culinary arts, digital learning and many other subjects. The BCTF provides these PSAs the exposure and ability to communicate with 50,000 member teachers in B.C. via their website, magazine, online social media and local teachers’ associations newsletters. To pursue this goal, we applied and met all the criteria: number of members, a constitution, an annual general meeting, or AGM, et cetera. I would like to add that no one has ever heard of an application for a PSA being rejected in B.C. However, ours was, with little explanation and no recourse.
There were various arguments advanced as to why this happened. Assertions included that there was no need for a dedicated PSA because the topic of the Holocaust could be covered by the Social Studies PSA. However, the Social Studies PSA stated that they cannot offer the necessary resources in this complex area. Funding different PSAs with overlapping areas of focus is a common practice for the BCTF. There is a dance teachers PSA, separately from the drama teachers PSA, separately again from the art teachers PSA.
There was also a suggestion that the topic of anti-Semitism could be handled by a PSA that was regularly sharing anti-Semitic material, including promoting events hosted by Samidoun, an organization listed as a terrorist group under the Canadian Criminal Code in 2024. This same PSA continues to refuse to meet with our representatives to discuss problematic and biased posts and resources.
I know that criticizing one’s union can lead to challenges, so I want to be clear that I am not suggesting exactly why the BCTF chose to do what it did. I will leave you to draw your own conclusions.
Regardless of the decision the BCTF made, our dedicated volunteers pushed on. We are now registered in B.C. as a not-for-profit society. The B.C. Ministry of Education and Child Care has included us in the planning process of the new Holocaust education curriculum. We have established an interactive, state-of-the-art website, and we have held numerous professional development sessions for teachers. This week, we are about to launch our extensive, made-in-B.C., new teaching tools focused on the complex topics of the Holocaust and anti-Semitism. We are grateful to groups already working in this area who have helped us along the way, including the Vancouver Holocaust Education Centre and the Azrieli Foundation.
Finally, through collaboration and advocacy, the Holocaust and Antisemitism Educators Association seeks to create a more inclusive and informed society, ensuring that the lessons of history resonate with future generations, which is critical for our students and Canadian society.
Thank you for allowing me the time to address you today.
The Chair: Thank you both for your testimonies. We will now move into questions from senators.
Colleagues, I would remind you to please identify the person to whom you are directing your question. Please ask questions one at a time. You will have five minutes for your question, and that includes the answer. We do have the luxury of extra time, so I will be flexible on that.
Senator Bernard: I’d like to start by inviting Ms. Silverberg to complete the solutions she was giving to us.
Ms. Silverberg: I finished about the Rand Formula.
We need a straightforward mechanism for rank-and-file members to be able to file a complaint or address an issue of policy that doesn’t go through the labour board the way it is right now, which is set up in favour of the unions.
Every dues-paying member should have the democratic right to vote for leadership and union initiatives and policies. In the CUPE National Convention that was held just a couple weeks ago, there were fewer than 2,200 delegates there, representing 800,000 members. That’s 0.3% of the voices of the members. This isn’t necessarily because people didn’t want to go. I wanted to go, but we’re not all allowed to go. It’s decided at a local level who gets to go. It’s typically the people who are like-minded, which just perpetuates the situation. It’s very difficult to make change when the change-makers aren’t allowed to have a voice on the floor. I would just like to see more structure and more rules around what unions are allowed to do with their members’ money and their members’ time.
Again, at that convention two weeks ago, about 5% of the time for resolutions was spent on core labour issues, 35% was spent on geopolitical and ideological debates over resolutions, 20% was on domestic and social activism, and 40% was on “other” and procedural issues. If they’re spending 5% of their time on core labour issues, that means they’re not doing many of the things they’re really there to be doing — what the union mandate is. We need to find a way to bring them back to follow the mandate of the labour movement.
The Chair: You have another two and a half minutes, senator.
Senator Bernard: I’ll stay with Ms. Silverberg for the moment. You mentioned you currently have a case before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, so I assume that means you’re not able to talk about it, but I wonder if you can give us a time frame in terms of —
Ms. Silverberg: I wish I could. We’re still waiting for dates, so I don’t know. We’ve been waiting quite a while. That’s another one of our systems that is clogged up and takes a fair amount of time.
Senator Bernard: My next question would be to both of our witnesses.
Ms. Silverberg, you mentioned social media and hate speech on social media. What steps can be taken by the federal government? Do you have other recommendations? What steps can the federal government take to combat anti-Semitism in those online spaces, which are just so public and available to the general population?
Ms. Silverberg: A lot of that goes back to hate speech or free speech, and we need to start following the actual true guidelines and the intent of what hate speech is. When your free speech starts making other people unsafe, I don’t think it’s “free” anymore; it’s more hate. We need to be looking at that more seriously and making some changes. I don’t know, necessarily, if there are a lot of changes needed, but we need to implement the rules and laws that are already in place.
Mr. Daniel: First, you need to find out the boundaries before you decide how to fight the problem. When a fact becomes an opinion and an opinion becomes a fact, there’s a lot of confusion. We need to be clear what constitutes freedom of speech and when freedom of speech is violated, and then we’re able to approach websites and social media.
Part of the problem is that there are some quite “acceptable institutions,” so to speak — I’m not talking about unknown websites but some recognized ones. They also promote anti-Semitism material and propaganda. I would start with them first.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
Senator Arnot: This question is for Ms. Silverberg, and I will have a second question in the next round for the other witness.
Ms. Silverberg, it’s fair to say that members of the Jewish community in Canada are very vulnerable now and are in justifiable fear. Thank you for being a champion for human rights and really carrying this issue the way you have. You have a compelling story and experience. You feel that you’re standing alone, as do many Jewish Canadians, that there aren’t voices coming to the rescue to promote Canadian values. I’d like to know how that feeling of standing alone or this whole issue that you’ve been fighting impacts you personally.
Ms. Silverberg: It’s had a huge impact emotionally, psychologically and even on my physical health, because when I get home from those conventions, it usually takes me a week to get over them. They can be just so exhausting and draining to constantly feel the hate.
I do have to say that, since October 7 and since our human rights case, I don’t stand as alone as I did, because we’ve come together as a Jewish community with some allies and started the Canadian Jewish Labour Committee, where we’ve started to support each other. I do feel I have more support now than I had before, but I feel like there’s more hate than there was before so it’s still very overwhelming.
Again, I spent a long time saying that I need to find another job. I started looking for another job, and what was my one requirement? I just wanted it to be a non-union job. CUPE is bad. I have friends and contacts in other public sector unions, and I think they’re fairly similar. However, I think CUPE might be the most vocal.
It’s very draining wanting to leave your job, not because of your employer but because of your union. It’s having to fight that over and over again, constantly feeling like you’re the target. I’ve gone to conventions where I’ve literally been looking over my shoulder as I left the convention hall going back to my hotel room. I was honestly scared for my physical safety as well as my emotional well-being.
Senator Arnot: You’ve worked in public education, and I have a strong belief in the power of education. I’m just wondering how you see education, particularly the K-to-12 systems in the provinces and territories in Canada, as being a place of hope where students would be taught their rights and responsibilities, fundamentally the responsibility to respect their fellow citizens. What are your thoughts about the hope that education might provide?
Ms. Silverberg: Education needs to start with the educators, because so many of them just don’t seem to understand. For some of them, I think there is hate in their hearts, but I think a lot of them just are not educated and just don’t know. Then it also goes back to the union. There are a lot of CUPE members who work in the public school sector, and they’re being indoctrinated and fed all of this propaganda. Then they’re going back into the schools and teaching this — or having these views. So education is really needed at so many different levels, but it needs to start with the educators.
Senator Arnot: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to both of our witnesses. You’ve been through a lot, and you’re still going through a lot, Ms. Silverberg.
I’ll probably demonstrate some ignorance here. I’ve had a fair amount of dealings in my past life with the CAW — now Unifor — and steel workers, so private-sector unions and their social justice work. In fact, I have worked hand in hand with them on HIV/AIDS in Africa and things like that. It was not problematic. However, one of the things I know from some of those unions is that they had labour education programming for their union members. You’ve talked about the importance of educating the educators. Does CUPE have a labour education program for its members?
Ms. Silverberg: It does. Sadly, that was one of the first ways I got involved. When I first became involved in my executive, I went to a labour history course. You think it would be pretty benign. The Jews were completely erased from that course. We didn’t exist in any of the labour movement in Canada, which is not at all the reality. That was actually my very first meeting with Fred Hahn. I brought somebody from Federation CJA with me to help educate. I was promised — this was almost ten years ago, I think — that the course was going to be revamped because he agreed it was missing something. To the best of my knowledge, it has not been.
Many of us signed up for a webinar. I can’t remember what it was called. It was basically propaganda for all the reasons the Jews shouldn’t be in Israel and the land is not ours. It had nothing to do with labour here. It was a constant bombardment of propaganda that is on this video screen.
I kept thinking this is how our young people are being indoctrinated. Imagine if you’re 21, 22 or 24. You just graduated. This is your first job. You want to learn about international solidarity, so you go to your union webinar. It’s presented as fact. There was no room for any other side of this story. These young kids are thinking, oh, these Jews and Israel, they’re awful. How can that be? There’s never any positive side of it. It’s all a negative bombardment.
Yes, there is a lot of education in the unions; unfortunately, it’s not helping us, it’s hurting us.
Senator Coyle: Thank you for that. I was curious about that aspect of the work.
I believe you said that when the union is clearly identifying all the issues with discrimination and what the union stands for in terms of being against discrimination of different groups, that anti-Semitism either doesn’t come up, or it only comes up if you or somebody else raise it. Is that new, or was that there two years ago? What was the reality?
Ms. Silverberg: It has been there. That was the first time I ever spoke at convention, and I was very nervous. It was a room of probably 2,200 people. I went up to the mic and literally said, “You’ve just listed all these forms of hate; why is anti-Semitism not in there?” That’s all I said. I couldn’t wait to have the camera off of me. On my way back to my seat, I had three different people walk up to me and say, “I’m so glad you said that.” I would say to them, “Come with me next time.” “Oh, no. You’re very brave for doing that. I couldn’t do it.” There are people who know that there’s a problem. Most of them are afraid to speak up.
The Chair: On second round, we’ll start with Senator Arnot.
Senator Arnot: This question is for Mr. Daniel. Sir, you’re a teacher, I understand, of Grade 10 in British Columbia high schools. There’s been recent polling in Canada that’s shown that students, especially younger students, have no understanding whatsoever of the Holocaust. There’s just a lack of knowledge and understanding, which seems to me to be shocking. Generally speaking, are you aware of the Concentus Citizenship Education Foundation and the work that it has done in the K-12 system with materials for Ontario, customized to the Ontario curriculum, and materials customized to the Saskatchewan curriculum, on the idea of teaching all students from grades K to 12 in a sequential way — right from the beginning in grade K — about the rights of Canadian citizenship, the responsibility that comes with those rights and the fundamental responsibility to respect your fellow citizen? I’m wondering, sir, if we need more resources on Holocaust education and to fit it into the larger rubric of fundamental Canadian values. Do you have any comment on that?
Mr. Daniel: This is an excellent question.
As a matter of fact, I taught Holocaust studies from grade 4 — grade 4, 5, 6 and 7 — and I’m also teaching genocide studies in grade 12. I’m teaching grades 4 to 12. What I noticed in the last two years, and it surprised me, is that the level of the grade 10 students — this is where they’re exposed to this topic first — was low. They were totally ignorant. There was no knowledge base. There was not much they knew compared to the other groups a decade ago. I agree with you. I suspect the reason for that is, to be blunt, that nobody is teaching about the Holocaust up to grade 10. That would be my explanation. The reasons? We can look at various reasons. Maybe it’s this kind of intimidation of the subject, maybe not much interest, or let’s hope it’s not because of some anti-Semitic reasons.
The bottom line is that we need to get the clear message from the federal government that will go to the provincial governments and then into the local levels. The statement should be that the Holocaust and anti-Semitism are something that is as important as other topics that are basic today, such as the lessons of truth and reconciliation and Indigenous education. This message is not there. There’s one province that will say this, and another province will say that. What does the federal government say? I believe and agree with you. This is part of Canada’s values. It should be declared loud and clear.
Grade 10 should not be the only grade to be exposed to Holocaust studies. You are right, and it can be in elementary school, of course, in a different type of teaching style. It can be in almost every class and grade. You modify it and make it appropriate. Of course it’s possible. They need to let us do it. We need to get the okay, and then we will finish.
Senator Arnot: As a follow-up question, there are two departments of the federal government that could be involved. One is Canadian Heritage and the other is Public Safety, because a lot of this is interlinked. Would you support this committee looking into a recommendation about motivating those two departments of the federal government to support teaching these issues in the school system, and certainly by way of supporting professional development of teachers? That’s one area that is in their purview and wouldn’t offend provincial jurisdiction. Would you support the idea that this committee make a recommendation about involving those two departments in this kind of education you’re promoting?
Mr. Daniel: I fully support that. We’re missing professional development training for teachers. We are missing many resources. There are resources, but they’re not put out as a package for teachers. We created — you will notice it in B.C., and it’s going to be used all over Canada, hopefully — material where teachers can get the material and start teaching quickly. Every support that can be provided would be welcomed.
Senator Bernard: I’d like to come back to Ms. Silverberg and follow up on Senator Arnot’s question about feeling alone. I can relate to that. I know one of the ways to not feel alone is to have allies. I was first introduced to CUPE’s work on anti-racism through the late Rocky Jones. I know they have done a lot of work [Technical difficulties] We’ll start over. Did you hear anything I said?
Ms. Silverberg: I heard some of it.
Senator Bernard: I’ll try to remember what I said. I wanted to come back to you to talk about being alone. Can you hear me now? I’ll use my grandma voice.
An Hon. Senator: Or your professor voice.
Senator Bernard: One of the strategies that I have used to address that sense of being alone is to work with allies. As I have listened to you speak about the challenges you have been dealing with, largely alone, at CUPE, I was reminded of the work of the late Rocky Jones, one of my mentors and certainly an ally. I think Rocky might have been the first person to introduce me to that whole notion of intersectionality and the importance of being intentional around allyship. I want to ask: Do you have allies? If not, is there a strategy that may be useful to get some allies as you move forward?
Ms. Silverberg: We do have some allies. We have some fantastic allies within CUPE who have come forward, slowly, many quietly. Some are willing to speak up a little more. Unfortunately, I thought I had allies. Last year, we had a local executive change, and I thought they were allies. They were very good talkers until they were elected, and now myself and a few other Jewish members have spent the last year trying to convince them that it would be helpful for them to have some education around anti-Semitism. I think they finally committed to doing it. I’m not sure if they have actually done it yet. People, if they are educated, are more likely to be allies. We have some that have just come forward and are allies. People are still afraid, unfortunately.
Senator Bernard: Afraid to speak up?
Ms. Silverberg: Yes.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: So many questions are swirling in my mind here.
I will ask this one to both witnesses, and maybe I’ll start with you, Ms. Silverberg. We know that there is a whole lot of misinformation out there. There are conspiracy theories, there is Holocaust denial, and all of this is amplified through social media. Do you feel that is a big factor in terms of the population of your fellow CUPE members? Do you feel that they are just not getting the whole picture and in fact are being led down another pathway because of misinformation?
Ms. Silverberg: Yes. I do feel very strongly about that. Again, it starts at the top with people like Mark Hancock and Fred Hahn, the National President and the President of CUPE Ontario. I can’t speak to other provinces. They are the leaders, so if they are forcing the genocide down people’s throats and the misinformation and the half-truths and the flat-out lies, then it’s very hard to get anyone to listen who doesn’t have an understanding of it on their own. So yes, all of that, the social media posts, and the flat-out talking at conventions even. The misinformation and the propaganda that is put out there makes it a very difficult battle to win.
Senator Coyle: Often in these situations where there is such polarization, there is very little room for nuance on that whole range. Right? Do you feel that some of the hesitation that you’re sensing from other people — I mean, standing up against anti-Semitism, everybody should be able to do that in Canada. Do you think that some people are hesitant because they feel that they may be perceived to be supporters of what the Israeli state is doing and therefore not supporting the civilians who have been killed or injured or are not receiving the supports that they need? Do you think that kind of lack of nuance and the polarization that exists are getting in the way of actually getting people to the table and saying, “We may see things differently here, but anti-Semitism is this”?
Ms. Silverberg: I think that is a huge part of it. I also think that people somehow feel like if they are supporting us, then they are —
Senator Coyle: That’s what I mean.
Ms. Silverberg: That they are not supporting another group. I have said to my local executive that I want them to learn about all sorts of forms of racism. I can only give them the resources for anti-Semitism. That’s my thing. But I wouldn’t be at all upset if they went and learned about other issues and other groups of people that have concerns. I’m speaking for myself. I don’t have a problem when people want to learn about all sorts of things. Just because you learn about anti-Semitism doesn’t mean you can’t learn about something else. But I do think there is a lot of that going on.
Senator Coyle: Yes. It seems like there is this issue with “yes and” versus “yes but.” It should be “yes and.” Yes, this is bad, and this is also bad.
Ms. Silverberg: Right.
Senator Coyle: I think that “yes but” is a problem.
Ms. Silverberg: It’s being taken as either-or.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
Mr. Daniel: I would like to add, if possible.
Senator Coyle: Thank you. I wanted to ask you as well.
Mr. Daniel: I look at it from a different perspective, maybe. What I notice is that the Holocaust became politicized and controversial, something that I never imagined could happen. There are attempts to separate anti-Semitism as the core reason for the Holocaust from the Holocaust. So it’s okay to mention the Holocaust, but don’t mention anti-Semitism, which doesn’t work really.
What I also noticed is that because of the last two years, because of what is happening in Israel and Gaza, somehow the Holocaust was impacted too, because when you talk about anti-Semitism, people say, “Wait, it’s not anti-Semitism really. Anti-Israel and anti-Zionism is not part of it.” “Oh, you are going to teach about the Holocaust; well, maybe you should talk about anti-Semitism.” Doesn’t work.
I think that you have to be alert to that because when we mentioned in the education system, when we try to bring materials about the Holocaust, people do not really automatically accept that. They want to see exactly what we are going to teach, what we’re going to cover — something that never happened in the past.
Senator Coyle: Thank you. Mr. Daniel, with that issue around misinformation around the Holocaust, Holocaust denialism, et cetera, Jewish tropes, those sorts of things, we know that in some cases there is also foreign interference that is involved in promoting this kind of misinformation in order to destabilize our community and to pit one group against another, which is bad for our society. Are you noticing in your fellow educators that there are influences from these kinds of sources and/or your students whom you’re dealing with?
Mr. Daniel: Again, this is an excellent question. Because of so much involvement and research, I’m also developing a lot of units, and I’m actually surprised to see the level of professional material that has been part of this propaganda of anti-Israel/anti-Semitism. I suspect there is foreign involvement. It’s just too costly to make these kinds of programs and have this professional ability to reach so many places. So I would say there is a bigger agenda here. It’s hard to know exactly where it’s going, but it does really impact Canadian society. I think we’re all being taken by surprise as to what is taking place in our country, Canada, and the way some of the demonstrations are going and the language, violence and threats — so I would say that you’re right: There is something bigger than just the levels of provinces or schools.
The Chair: I see no other questions, so we have come to the end this panel. I just want to express appreciation to our witnesses for being here. Thank you for taking the time. Mr. Daniel. You had a bit of an indication earlier that someone wants your attention, so thank you for spending your time with us. Thank you, Ms. Silverberg, for being here and sharing your experiences with us.
Ms. Silverberg: Thank you for taking an interest in this topic.
Mr. Daniel: Thank you very much for giving us the time.
The Chair: Continuing with our fourth panel, our witnesses have been asked to make an opening statement of five minutes each. We will hear from the witnesses and then turn to questions from senators.
With us by video conference, we have Ginaya Peters, Teacher, BC Teachers Against Antisemitism. We also have by video conference Justin Hebert. With us in person at the table, live and direct, please welcome Pe’er Krut, President, Canadian Union of Jewish Students.
We will now invite Ms. Peters to make a presentation, followed by Mr. Hebert and Ms. Krut.
Ginaya Peters, Teacher, BC Teachers Against Antisemitism: Thank you very much to the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights for this opportunity to talk to you about the rising hatred that Jews are facing in the education system in British Columbia.
I am proud to be an educator and to work in B.C.’s public school system. I am a member of BC Teachers Against Antisemitism. Our group is grassroots, ad hoc and volunteer driven. Sadly, there has been a significant increase in the need for us and our work over the past two years.
The number of teachers who are actively involved in combatting Jew hatred has also increased greatly. There is a very long list of things that keep our volunteer group busy. We are actively challenging hate speech, misinformation and disinformation and discriminatory practices within union spaces and our classrooms. We support teachers, parents and students and help them address anti-Semitic incidents through appropriate advocacy and support.
Immediately after October 7, reports of anti-Semitic incidents in classrooms increased alarmingly. The two years since have been traumatic for teachers, students and family. I include myself personally in that. Let me give you some examples. This is by no means exhaustive.
A teacher asked Jewish students to identify themselves, and two were made to explain to the class why Israel was attacking Palestine. Elementary students were made to do an art project on “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” When the school administrator took it down, the teacher marched students around the school and into classrooms, chanting the slogan and frightening students. In a science class, a teacher called Jews genocidal murderers. An elementary teacher made derogatory comments about Israel and Jews, and when a Jewish student spoke up, the student was forced to leave the classroom.
These all happened and continue to happen to children in a place that is supposed to be safe for them — a place where parents trust their kids will be protected. Instead, what we have seen is educators blaming and harassing Jewish children for a far-away conflict.
My colleagues and I are truly exhausted, and our volunteer work is relentless and never-ending. Please trust me when I say it is a second full-time job. We have been doing this work while feeling a complete lack of support from those who should have our backs — our brothers and sisters in our unions. Instead, some union members have used union email lists to invite teachers to anti-Israel rallies.
When teachers have complained about anti-Semitic incidents in union spaces, their concerns have been dismissed. Anti-Semitic rhetoric has become regular and normalized in union spaces. We are not being listened to by the very people who talk about social justice and who claim to stand against hatred in all of its forms. I could spend a lot more time detailing horrific incidents. They are numerous and inconsistent with a civil society that claims to promote tolerance and inclusivity.
While anti-Semitism in our union is as bad as ever, our employers are starting to take this seriously. We have seen a reduction in teacher-driven incidents in classrooms. We are seeing, generally, immediate and appropriate responses from those in charge.
I have three lessons from the past two years that can be applied to combatting hate in general. First, there needs to be leadership from the top. Whatever the organization or level of government, leaders must be unequivocal and have moral clarity or hate will thrive. We are finally starting to see this from school districts in B.C. We are not seeing this from the same leadership from our union, where the incidents continue. You may have heard of some teachers who have filed a human rights complaint against our union. I invite you to speak to the lawyer involved in that complaint if you want more information.
Second, we need to start from curiosity and lean into education. Not every incident of Jew hate is intentional. Some are ignorance. Education must be focused on everyone, not just those who are being hateful. We need to help those impacted by hate by helping them be their own best advocate. For example, we put together a toolkit for Jewish parents to help them understand what to do in the face of incidents, and we hold sessions to answer questions. We support them with advice and advocacy. We have helped them become empowered and find their voice.
The third and final lesson is perhaps the most important. We can’t always choose who leads us, and there are many leaders right now in Canada whose moral compass appears demagnetized. We can’t always expect perpetrators of hate to want to learn. We can’t always expect those impacted by hate to have the emotional strength to fight back. We need Canadians to be Canadian. We need those who share Canadian values of peace, tolerance and good governance to stand up. We need allies to speak with us and speak out against an ancient hatred, the oldest hatred that can and has destroyed entire societies.
Thank you for inviting me, for listening and for your good work. I ask that you do a bit more — act, support us and support the civil society that we hold dear. For our part, we will continue to raise our voices against anti-Semitism in our union and in our schools. We do this because it is the right thing to do. I invite you and all Canadians to join us in this good work. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Peters.
Justin Hebert, as an individual: Honourable senators, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this evening. My name is Justin Hebert. I speak today as a private citizen and as the former president of the Jewish Law Students Association at the University of Windsor in the Faculty of Law.
Today, I’d like to begin by sharing with you one moment from my time at Windsor Law that still sits very close to me. On the seventy-ninth anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, I had been invited to speak on the campus radio station about the importance of Holocaust education in Canada. This discussion was meant to shed light on the generational trauma Jewish people still struggle with and the challenges of promoting Holocaust education to young people today. Yet, despite there being no mention of the conflict whatsoever, the interview was nonetheless pulled from the air because anti-Israel students and volunteers deemed discussions of the Holocaust, absent mention of Gaza, to be too offensive.
Now, the reason incidents like this still sit with me is twofold: first, because of the ongoing and unresolved trauma that Jewish students continue to feel since October 7, and second, because complaints of anti-Semitism on campus often go unresolved, leaving those affected without any sort of closure. There were countless incidents just like this, but this one in particular stands out because I feel it perfectly illustrates the frustration and indignity that Jewish students have been forced to internalize for years now.
Before I continue, I feel it’s important to note that, for most of my life, at least, Israel was not central to my Jewish identity. Even as an undergrad at Concordia, where students praising Hamas was a common occurrence long before it became popular elsewhere, I would hear the rhetoric, and I would think surely these people are not talking about me.
Then October 7 happened, where 1,200 Israelis were brutalized and murdered in cold blood, of whom 8 were Canadian citizens. While I sat in my apartment numb as the horror unfolded in real time, several of my peers and even my professors were posting about it in celebration. Something became painfully clear to me in that moment, which is that when they shout “Death to Zionists,” they are, in fact, talking about me. The young people butchered at the Nova festival were no different than me. Their only crime was being a Jew in the wrong place at the wrong time. Since that day, my advocacy has had a single, unwavering purpose, which is to reject the idea that there is ever a wrong place or a wrong time to be a Jew in this world, whether in Israel or on a Canadian campus.
After October 7, universities were simply not prepared for what was to come. Jewish students were suddenly being singled out, whether in hallways or in classrooms, and labelled colonizers and genocide supporters. Reports of sexual violence against Israeli women were openly mocked or belittled. When these issues were raised, the de facto response was often that universities exist to foster “uncomfortable conversations.” But I ask: How can I be expected to have a meaningful conversation with the student who told me the murder of Israelis is always justified while Israeli students are actively enrolled at the school, or that rape is a legitimate form of resistance, or that babies can be taken hostage if their parents are colonizers?
I believe that what makes the Jewish people a people and not just a religion is our shared connection to the land of Israel, and that’s what Zionism means: the belief in our right to safety and self-determination in our ancestral homeland so that we may never again suffer a fate like the Holocaust. To deny that is to deny a fundamental part of who we are as a community.
What we are witnessing on campuses today is, in fact, the attempted erasure of Jewish culture, tradition and history. This is not just a matter of political disagreement. This is an assault on the Jewish community by a global movement that is motivated by a distinctly anti-Jewish animus, and universities have opened their doors to it. Consequently, they now face the enormous task of relocating the baseline for what is acceptable speech on campus.
It must be noted that the legal threshold for free expression is not the same as the ethical standard for free speech within an academic community, because I’m sure all of you can agree that there are things you can legally say in the street that would not be acceptable to say in a classroom. The whole purpose of universities being able to enforce their own codes of conduct is that they retain the right to make that distinction, yet far too many schools claim to be neutral arbiters in order to avoid taking sides on political issues. In doing so, they fail to act when hate or discrimination occurs, which is not neutrality; it is negligence. The resulting lenience does not reinforce principles of academic freedom or integrity; it rewards the creativity of hateful individuals who are skilled at navigating the modern nuances of anti-Semitism.
One such example might be asking a Jew to renounce Zionism in order to belong or to feel safe. This is not discourse. It is discrimination. Expressing support or justification for the kidnapping, massacre, torture and sexual assault of Jewish Israeli civilians on campus cannot be allowed with impunity, not just because it is inherently anti-Semitic but because it would be unconscionable for this type of speech to be normalized if it were directed at virtually any other group. To allow for that sort of disparate treatment is, again, discrimination.
As my colleagues have already noted, it stands to reason that the only sustainable path forward is through education, not just about who the Jewish people are but our history and how to reconcile our differences without dehumanization. That begins with representation, ensuring Jewish students have a seat at the table wherever decisions are made that affect us. It also means holding professors accountable when they use their platforms to spread hate. It means recognizing that promoting violence or terrorism is not protected speech but is, in fact, incitement. It also means treating anti-Semitic incidents as human rights violations, not PR crises. Rather than empty words, perhaps our schools should be required to report transparently on how they are protecting Jewish students. Outside the walls of our schools, it means prompting Canadian parents to ask how their children are treating Jewish students.
I have often wondered why Jewish students talking about their experiences are met with so much skepticism or hesitation from schools, and I think the unfortunate truth is that believing us would mean acknowledging how dangerous and unsustainable they have allowed the status quo to become. I can only imagine how much better our situation would be today if, at any point, university administrators had the courage to say publicly what was said to me behind closed doors.
As a short closing remark, I want to clarify that I nor any other Jewish student asked for this, nor has it ever been my intention to cast my university or students in a negative light. This is my alma mater, and for years this was my home, just as it’s currently home to dozens of Jewish students. When people ask me where I went to school, I want to be proud to say I went to Windsor Law, and it’s my sincere hope that I’ll one day have the chance to do that, but first we have to have courage to call hate by its name, to protect Jewish students without condition or apology, and above all, to restore moral clarity to our campuses.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hebert.
Pe’er Krut, President, Canadian Union of Jewish Students: I’ve always been really proud of my name: Pe’er. It’s unique, it sparks curiosity, and it carries my Jewish identity openly. But in recent years, even that small act of saying my own name feels heavy. Before I speak, I honestly pause and consider: Will this make me unsafe? Will it change how I’m seen? Canada used to be a place where the names of my friends, each from different backgrounds, were how we connected and how we learned about each other’s families, cultures and stories. Now, too often, my name feels like a test. I suppose this public proclamation to you, senators, might be me finally acing that test and fully owning my identity and my story, a story I share not just for myself but on behalf of the thousands of Jewish students who, like me, are simply trying to live our lives authentically and safely on campuses.
Let me properly introduce myself. My name is Pe’er Krut, and I am the president of the Canadian Union of Jewish Students. We are the democratically elected representative body for Jewish students across Canada. We work to empower their voices, advocate for their safety and ensure they can participate fully in campus life while proudly embracing their Jewish identities.
Being Jewish never used to be the most salient part of my personality. It was simply one piece of me, like any other. But now, Jewish students face a choice: Do I openly identify as Jewish and risk the backlash that comes with it, or do I stay quiet, hide that part of myself and watch as others freely celebrate their cultures without fear? For those who do speak, it becomes a full-time job. Suddenly, you’re not just a student who happens to be Jewish. You’re the Jewish student, expected to justify, defend and respond for an entire people.
Senators, do you remember why you chose your university? Was it a scholarship, a beautiful campus or maybe just the right program? For Jewish students, these questions have been replaced by new ones, and I wish I were making this up. These are examples: Where can I wear my kippah without fear? In which residence will my mezuzah not be torn down from my doorframe? In which classroom can I put my real name down on a paper without worrying how it’ll be received?
Just last week at Concordia, a professor wrote, “Kill them all,” referring to her Zionist colleagues. I’ll let you connect the dots on what and who that really means. While the war between Israel and Hamas may be winding down, it has exposed painful fractures in our society, wounds that haven’t even begun to heal and that we all know will leave deep scars.
Having spoken about our shared pain, I want to turn to something more constructive, because it is deeply Jewish to believe in healing, in repair, in what we call tikkun olam, the repair of the world. The world might be too big a job for me to tackle, so maybe I’ll just start with campus for now.
First, universities are meant to be places where dialogue is valued, where students can challenge one another’s ideas and learn through disagreement. That’s why I strongly recommend that all universities implement anonymous grading systems. This would allow students to speak freely in classes, knowing that they won’t be penalized for their opinions when they submit coursework. I study at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, where anonymous grading is already in place, and I feel it has made a world of difference in fostering open dialogue. The Canadian Union of Jewish Students and the Canadian Jewish Law Students’ Association is currently launching a study to look into which programs and campuses already implement this system and how students perceive it. I would be happy to share those findings with you when they are complete.
Second, universities cannot continue to claim they champion equity, diversity and inclusion while they refuse to include Jews in that commitment. It is a disgrace that so many institutions publicly celebrate those values while failing to make their campuses truly accessible to Jewish students. That would mean ensuring kosher food options are available. That would mean respecting religious holidays when scheduling exams. If universities want to talk about inclusion, they need to live it, not just for some communities but for all.
Last, universities already have codes of conduct that prohibit harassment, hate and intimidation. The problem is not that the rules don’t exist; they just don’t exist when the victim is Jewish. This is not about being pro-Israel or pro-Palestine. It’s about basic decency and protecting every student’s right to learn without fear. These days, when I talk about Jewish things in public, I catch myself lowering my voice. But I shouldn’t have to, and so, tonight, this is me raising it again.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Krut.
We’ll now proceed to questions from senators. I remind my colleagues to please identify the person to whom you are directing your questions. Please ask questions one at a time, although I understand the temptation to make them multiples. You have five minutes for your question, and that includes the answer.
Senator Bernard: Thank you all for being here and for your testimony today. Thank you, Pe’er, for using your voice loudly here. I’m trying to do the same.
I want to ask about the impact of anti-Semitism on students — university students and college students. What are you seeing? What are the psychological, social and economic impacts for students?
Ms. Krut: Senators, when we talk about anti-Semitism in Canada, it’s important to acknowledge that this is actually a global issue and Canada is just a part of it. A recent survey by the Anti-Defamation League and the World Union of Jewish Students revealed that over three quarters of Jewish university students worldwide conceal their religious identities, and more than 80% hide their Zionist identities. Even more troubling, one in five Jewish students knows someone who has been physically assaulted on campus. I’ve done a lot of global advocacy. When people hear I am from Canada, they say things like, “Ooh, it’s really bad there, isn’t it?” That’s not the reputation that Canada should have. It’s not one that I ever thought I’d have to hear. What we’re seeing on campus is that, in the global context, anti-Semitism is rising, but what’s particularly troubling is that Jewish students never thought something like this could happen in Canada, a place that is so known for shared values of tolerance and democracy and freedom. The truth is, Jewish students can’t be free on campus anymore; they risk their safety and their lives.
Senator Bernard: Is that the case across the country? Are some campuses getting it right? If they are, what are they doing?
Ms. Krut: Thank you for your question.
Unfortunately, I have trouble identifying a university that I would actually praise for how they’ve handled the past few years. Like I said, it’s a Canada-wide issue. It varies across campuses and even within programs. Some programs are just naturally worse than others. The picture as a whole is deeply troubling. But it says a lot that when you ask a Jewish student today where they feel supported, most will pause — not because they’re thinking of a good example but because they’re struggling to think of even one.
Senator Bernard: Full disclosure, I’m a retired academic. I love academia, and one of the things I have always loved about the academic space was that it was a space where you could have dialogue and where differences were something that you worked with as opposed to making people feel unsafe. So I’m struggling a little bit, wondering what question I want to ask.
Is your organization working with other student groups to address that very issue of the lack of dialogue? That’s what I’m seeing and hearing — that the dialogue isn’t happening anymore.
Ms. Krut: Yes, absolutely. Personally, I can speak to this. I’m a Jewish person, but I attended a Catholic high school. There, I disagreed with people, but we always talked through it, and the dialogue made us better. When I came to university and October 7 happened, I saw the exact opposite. What should be a stage for dialogue became a stage for fear. I’m the first person to say that free speech is so incredibly important on university campuses, but it needs to be respectful. It needs to be dialogue.
Unfortunately, because of calls for the elimination of the Jewish people from their ancestral homeland, telling Jews to go back to Poland, for example, we’re seeing expressions not of free thought but of hate. That’s not debate. That’s dehumanization. We’re trying to foster dialogue by having universities eliminate bad actors who are only trying to create chaos on campus, which actually keeps any real dialogue from happening.
Senator Arnot: I have one question for each of the witnesses. I don’t know how I will fit them in.
Ms. Peters, thank you for working with the teachers on anti-Semitism in the B.C. context, in the K-12 system. Could you walk me through a lesson plan that you consider to be a gold standard for teaching anti-Semitism and which does so without politicizing current events?
Ms. Peters: Thank you so much for the question. That’s a really hard question because, regardless of what we’re teaching or not teaching, it gets politicized for us — in our name, effectively.
However, I would like to talk about the power of voices, of having voices, whether they are Holocaust survivors or Jewish people or Israelis in specific careers or roles, the power of bringing those voices into the classroom and normalizing those voices. Right now, I’m finding it’s very binary. You are oppressor or oppressed. You are something or you aren’t something. Bring in regular voices of Jews and Israelis who are working and living and loving and existing, and having it, in certain cases, not be about Israel or not even be about the Holocaust, because that also gets pigeonholed. Any discussion of Jewish history, of Jewish indigeneity, of the Jewish experience, can become about the Holocaust. Just having that broad spectrum of voices, mentors and guest speakers to talk about just their lived experiences, that would be a good place to start.
Senator Arnot: What metrics would you use in your school to measure an improving climate with respect to anti-Semitism?
Ms. Peters: That is another great question.
People have spoken today about being proactive and reactive. First, a school should be rich in conversations and discussions and events around Jewish life. Whether we like it or not, we live by a Christian calendar. Our holidays and cultural festivals easily get missed. I find some schools remember not to plan big events on, for example, Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year, or Yom Kippur, our holiest day. Some schools have displays up for Canadian Jewish Heritage Month or International Holocaust Remembrance Day. Those are the metrics. On the reactive side, there is the blissful silence: the students not coming and crying as a result of something that has happened to them, done either by a student or a teacher, or parents not complaining, or better yet, letting us know how safe and secure their children and family are feeling at the school.
Senator Arnot: Thank you.
Mr. Hebert, if you had three line items for a campus anti-Semitism budget, what would you fund first, and what would success look like to you in 12 months or 2 years?
Mr. Hebert: Thank you for that question. It’s a tremendously tall order on short notice.
By no means am I an authority on how curriculums or approaches should be used to combat anti-Semitism that way, but in my approach to advocacy, I’ve always believed that, first and foremost, there’s a need to cure the negative perceptions about Jewish people. That can be done by improving representation on campuses, because one of the biggest issues that we faced at the University of Windsor is that, at the end of the day, we were a couple of dozen students fighting against an unrelenting tide of ignorance, bigotry and — more than anything — students who, despite having such strong views about Jewish students, had never met a Jew in their entire life.
If we’re supposed to have line items, instead of always defaulting to try to punish universities, always trying to pull funding or trying to figure out ways to make them repent, one of the best ways to do it is to incentivize Jewish students to attend universities that otherwise lack such representation. A great way to do that in terms of line items is to provide scholarships for Jewish students at universities that struggle with representation of Jewish students on campus. That is a big one that I’ve discussed at length with other people who feel very similarly. It goes toward the broader trend of this evening, which is that the only path forward is through education. I don’t know if this is something for which we could necessarily see a turnaround in 12 months.
There are other ways that we could also have a bit more of an immediate and hands-on approach. One thing I mentioned is figuring out ways to take the burden off of Jewish students, because, for the most part, the way it stands now, no one is taking a proactive approach in ensuring that Jewish students feel safe or secure. It’s a situation where we wait for an incident to happen, there’s a response, the response is wholly inadequate, Jewish students feel unsafe, and then another response happens. One way or another, there needs to be somebody — not just externally, but internally — within universities, whose role is basically to ensure that Jewish students’ needs are represented wherever decisions are made and wherever areas affect Jewish students. There needs to be someone who basically is ensuring that the entirety of this burden doesn’t fall on the shoulders of Jewish students.
Senator Arnot: Thank you very much. That was a good answer. I will have one question for Ms. Krut in the second round.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to our three witnesses.
We’re gathering more pieces of this puzzle. It’s a disturbing puzzle, and everybody has been clear that anti-Semitism has reached absolutely intolerable levels for students of all ages, and in our greater society, and that the events of October 7 and what followed, in terms of the attacks in Palestine, including on civilians as well, has heightened this situation.
We’re hearing from Ms. Peters about a lack of and need for moral clarity in Canadian society, particularly in schools; Mr. Hebert is talking about the dehumanization of Jewish people, and that we need to call hate by its name; and you, Ms. Krut, are talking about how students just want to live their lives as who they are — their authenticity — and in safety. That should not be a high order of requirement, and that basic decency has to be there.
My colleague Senator Bernard mentioned this issue of dialogue, and I’m trying to remember, for the life of me, whether it was a joint letter from the University of Ottawa written by Jewish and Islamic law students that we received very early on. I was so taken by the bravery of those students and the moral clarity of that collective of students who came forward, calling out what happened on October 7 and also ensuring that it was clear that they weren’t sanctioning the killing of civilians in Palestine as well. It wasn’t a “yes, but” situation; it was, “yes, that is bad, and this is bad.”
We need to build dialogue and conversation and find places for people to come back together, because it’s so polarized and dangerous — dangerous for the individuals, is what we’re hearing, but really dangerous for Canadian society. I’d like to hear not just about what the Jewish teachers are doing, which is very good, and what the Jewish students are doing, which is necessary, but also about the attempts to come together with other allies to try to rebuild relationships and rebuild our institutions as safe places, which ultimately helps contribute to building a safer Canada.
Ms. Krut: I’m the first person to say that I champion interfaith dialogue, and it’s important to me to connect with people who live outside my bubble. Looking inwards into the community can only go so far, and we need to connect with those outside of the community to create real solutions to these problems.
The issue, I have to say, is that campus is so polarized because there are significant bad actors who do not leave room for dialogue. When there are chants about the dehumanization of Jewish people, telling us to get off campus, when Jewish students don’t even feel safe coming to class, how are you going to motivate them to come to the table to have these important conversations? That’s why it’s so important that universities oversee their code of conduct. That is the first piece of the puzzle to ensure that we can come to the table, because it’s critically important. That’s the Canada I know and love; that’s the one I grew up in.
Senator Coyle: Does anybody else want to speak to that?
Mr. Hebert: To that point, something that I’ve said often is that universities should not be forced to try to balance the need for safety and dignity of its student body with preserving discourse and academic freedom.
Since the beginning of this conflict, I’ve been one of the first to say that there is such a thing as legitimate scholarship that supports both sides of the argument. One of the biggest challenges we face right now is that the voices prevailing on campuses are not the ones that seek to further knowledge and understanding or promote unity and mutual respect, but rather the voices that seek to divide our campus and dehumanize Jewish and Israeli people.
The long-term goals of every campus should be to create these healthy, conducive mediums in which interfaith dialogue and interpolitical dialogue can happen, but a point that’s been hit upon a few times tonight is that we can never hope to get to that if we can’t at least ensure the safety of these spaces for Jewish students.
At least on my campus, and, for the most part, every campus that I know of, Jewish students are outnumbered. They’re outnumbered by those who hate us, and we need equitable protections that face that reality head on. Dialogue is important, and when we extend an olive branch, it shows everyone in between that we are not the problem makers but the problem solvers. However, before we can get to that point, there needs to be a base level of enforcement of respect for each other on campus.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
Ms. Peters: I want to say one thing to build on that. When we talk in K–12 about students who are self-regulated and emotionally prepared, we ask if students are calm, alert and ready to learn. That’s the question we ask of every student when we’re assessing, evaluating and observing. I can say that right now, Jewish students in K–12 are not calm, alert and ready to learn because they are too busy worrying about their physical and psychological safety. I would argue, too, that even though we don’t apply that metric to teachers, many Jewish teachers are feeling that way as well.
Finally, regarding your original question about allyship and bridge building, it is by design that we are not Jewish teachers against anti-Semitism but B.C. teachers. We have a number of allies across faiths, ethnicities, socio-economic backgrounds and geographical location. It has been impressive and heartwarming to see. We are continuing to foster connections with other identity groups of teachers that share those values and goals and to work on these issues for the betterment of all students in K–12.
The Chair: We’ll move on to round two, but before we do that, I want to welcome Senator Cardozo, who has joined us.
I have a question that I’ve been trying to put together. It’s a question with respect to how we can distinguish and disentangle the Israeli government from Jewish individuals who are being targeted. Do you have any comments on that?
Ms. Krut: Senator, I’m not an expert on the Middle East. Honestly, to conflate my appearance today with this question is precisely the issue I’m here to combat. Jewish students, by the mere fact of being Jewish, should not be expected, like you said, to defend or comment on Israel’s policies. I was invited here as someone who can speak about anti-Semitism in Canada, but honestly, every single Jewish student could probably talk to you about anti-Semitism in Canada because they face it every single day. I think that conflating Jewishness with whatever is happening in Israel only deepens the very divisions we’re trying so hard to heal. I’m a Canadian. I’m a Canadian Jew. Yes, Israel is important to me. I was born there. But Israel’s policies as a foreign government are not something that I’m prepared to talk about. In class, I have been expected to talk about it. That’s completely unacceptable.
The Chair: Thank you. Any other comments?
Mr. Hebert: One of the things that I have struggled with on my own campus and with my own advocacy is how to properly define anti-Semitism and how to properly identify it when it rears its head.
One of the unique challenges that even everyone in this room is facing is how to define the new anti-Semitism as opposed to the versions we have known for generations. That’s because this new anti-Semitism really cannot be properly addressed by any bright-line definition. It’s a totally fluid phenomenon. It’s motivated by so many different factors. It often manifests through harassment, vandalism and violence. Often, that emerges only when we have this conversation about Israel. This new anti-Semitism so often involves the perception of Israel as the collective Jew, so to speak, where anti-Semites will, as you said, uncritically intertwine the Jewish people with the worst aspects of the state of Israel. This form of anti-Semitism is really becoming prevalent, not just on campus but also specifically within progressive or left-wing circles, particularly as it blurs the line between legitimate criticism of Israel, which exists, and forms of speech that draw on traditional anti-Semitic tropes. One of the biggest challenges we face when we see these less extreme or less obvious forms of hate speech that draw on traditional anti-Semitic tropes is that they can be more dangerous because people are more easily persuaded to believe something that is not obviously absurd or not obviously hatred.
It’s tough to ask how we do this, but first, we have to make sure that people actually understand what the implications of their speech are. I think that’s exactly what definitions like the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, or IHRA, working definition try to do. Without being binding, the IHRA definition provides well-articulated examples of how criticism of Israel can encroach into anti-Semitism. I think the reason why we see so much pushback on campuses is against adopting the IHRA definition is because the proponents of rejecting it are, in fact, the ones who seek to blur those lines. I think the ones who are so adamantly against adopting the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism are the ones who uniquely benefit from people grouping Jews and Israelis or Jews and Israeli policy together into one pot.
The Chair: Thank you. I really appreciate your responses.
Ms. Peters, did you want to add anything to that?
Ms. Peters: Thank you. As simplistic as this may sound, if you plug in any other country or any other government, I can’t imagine someone hating me for being me because Prime Minister Carney and the Liberal government are in power now. I feel like once you look at it from that perspective, it’s really hard to take as a Jewish person. As was already said before, that expectation, indeed that burden, being put on us to either associate or dissociate ourselves from a government that is 10,000 kilometres away puts us in an impossible position and conjures up tropes of dual loyalty, et cetera.
The Chair: Thank you for your responses. As you gave them, it made me think of the situation just south of us and how folks are doing their best to deal with that in terms of what they are experiencing. I appreciate your very thoughtful responses.
We will start the second round of questions.
Senator Arnot: This question is for Ms. Krut. How successful has the Canadian Union of Jewish Students been in coordinating or working with the U15 Canada presidents and provincial education ministers on building consistent sanctions for the harassment of the students or vandalism in the university? In other words, how successful have you been in making Canadian university campuses safe and secure for Jewish students? If not, what is the impediment?
Ms. Krut: I’ll be honest with you. We’re a fairly new organization. We were only founded a few years ago, so we are still trying to find our footing in that sense.
What I will say is that I think Jewish organizations and Jewish funding fills in a lot of the gaps that universities are creating, and that creates strong student groups on campus that have the tools they need to advocate on behalf of themselves to administration, and it’s helped along by incredible professionals who do this for a living. The question is: Why does that have to exist for Jewish students? There is clearly a need. That is what I was talking about earlier, about how Jewish students are not included in accessibility initiatives or equity, diversity and inclusion initiatives. That is the crux of the issue, right?
As far as the Canadian Union of Jewish Students goes, we’re certainly working on that, but there is already this built-in legacy of that happening because the need has existed far before October 7 ever happened, and unfortunately, October 7 happening only increases its need as we go forward.
Senator Arnot: Thank you.
I wonder if Mr. Hebert wants to give an answer with respect to his experience at the University of Windsor.
Mr. Hebert: The Jewish Students Association at Windsor Law was perhaps a little different in what our objectives were. First and foremost, we were never conceived as a humanitarian or activist organization. First and foremost, we were just a student group geared towards making the lives of Jewish students better on campus.
We existed long before October 7. I remember when I first got involved with the JSA, we had our first executive meeting a week or two before October 7 happened. The word “anti-Semitism” never even came up in our discussion of what our plans were for 2023 and 2024. In many ways, after October 7, we were responding to a crisis in real time, much like this committee is doing today. We didn’t have the luxury of being able to decide what worked and what didn’t work because we never had the experience on how to combat anti-Semitism. This was an issue that was totally unprecedented. Everything we planned on doing that might have been productive or positive in reaffirming Jewish identity had to take a back seat in the post-October 7 landscape because it was simply about putting out one fire after another.
In our forced experience — something we didn’t ask for but was very much thrust upon us — we have developed strategies, or at least I can say my successors have developed strategies on how to deal with anti-Semitism. The biggest thing we have done is to identify the shortcomings in at least our own university in how they struggled to deal with anti-Semitism, not even just in sheer volume of complaints made but on an individual level. I don’t think the policies that exist, as they are written today, truly understand what anti-Semitism is now. When you have so many complaints and so few resolutions, you have to look at where the whole process goes defunct somewhere in the middle because, as it stands, Jewish students are not seeing justice.
If there is one thing I can point to that I’m proud of is I did my best to try to embolden students to actually go through the unfortunately arduous process of educating the university just as much as they would educate us. When we’re submitting a complaint about something we deem anti-Semitic, unfortunately, we have to explain why. We have to take on that burden of making sure that every single “T” is crossed or “I” is dotted. We have to go into a tremendous amount of history and context and current events just to ensure the university has the base level of understanding why this could even be interpreted as injurious to Jewish students. If we have done nothing else in the last two years, we can’t say that the university isn’t informed. We can’t say they don’t know.
I don’t know if that answers your question, but that’s what we have tried to do.
Senator Arnot: Thank you very much.
Senator Cardozo: For the benefit of the guests, welcome. I’m a senator from Ontario. I’m not actually a member of this committee. I’m on another committee which meets at the same time, but given your agenda this evening, I wanted to attend. We got finished early in the other committee, and I want to assure you that it had nothing to do with the baseball game that just started.
You have talked about Jewish students not feeling safe on campus. To what extent are Canadian Jewish students picking universities, one over the other, because of the reputation it might have of safety and not being safe? To what extent are Canadian Jewish students thinking about not going to university in Canada these days?
Ms. Krut: It’s front of mind, not just for students but for parents too. You would be shocked at how many messages I receive from worried parents asking me, “What’s it like on your campus?” That’s a crazy concern for any student to have.
I chose my undergraduate university because of a scholarship. I know Jewish students who turned down significant scholarships to certain institutions because they couldn’t fathom studying there given the campus environment, and that’s just so unCanadian. It’s a real concern for students and parents alike.
Unfortunately, as I was saying earlier, no campus is immune to this issue. No matter where a Jewish student chooses to go, they are going to face this in Canada. That’s the unfortunate reality. That’s what we’re here to combat.
Mr. Hebert: I would like to follow that by saying it’s an interesting circumstance we find ourselves in because one of the panellists today is a current law student and the other panellist, myself, is a recent graduate of law school. It’s a tough question to ask specifically for people who want to go into law because there are so few accredited law schools in Ontario, and that is the requirement for becoming licensed to practise law in this province. I have often heard people say the best law school is the one you get into. There are few alternatives or considerations beyond where did I get in.
When I get asked from prospective Jewish students, and they tell me that they got into the University of Windsor, my immediate follow-up question is, “Where else did you get in?” Usually that decision comes down to one or two options, maybe three if you’re lucky. Frankly, most schools — at least from what I know — are pretty much the same in how this issue is being handled or, rather, mishandled. It’s tough.
I would say for undergrad students, definitely today, I would imagine this is probably at the forefront of their minds. This is probably the first and last consideration they have when deciding where they want to go to school. I can say with certainty that if I had to do my undergrad over again in 2025, I would not have gone to Concordia because it is, without a doubt, an unsafe environment for Jewish students, more so than any other campus I have seen or heard of in the last two years.
Ms. Krut: I won’t reveal which university but, for the Jewish students watching — especially those who want to go to law school — we all know there are some universities Jewish students don’t even apply to. They don’t even try anymore.
Ms. Peters: I would love to add a personal note. I know I’m on here speaking about K-12, but with my mom hat on, my son has chosen to do his post-secondary education in Israel because he does not feel safe being a visible Jew, wearing a kippah, on any Canadian campus right now.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you for that. That’s disturbing, but real. I appreciate your comments.
The Chair: Thank you, all. Where we have ended is sobering. Thank you for your incredible contributions and presentations today and the dialogue we have had which we would like to see replicated in other spaces. Thank you for that.
On behalf of the committee, this is the first day we have heard from four panels. We went through a lot today. The testimony will be helpful in our deliberations. That brings us to the end of today’s meeting.
(The committee adjourned.)