THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, November 3, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met with videoconference this day at 4 p.m. [ET] to examine and report on anti-Semitism in Canada; and, in camera, to examine and report on aging out of foster care; and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Paulette Senior (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: 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.
My name is Paulette Senior, a senator from Ontario, and chair of this committee. I would like to ask my esteemed colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Arnot: Senator David Arnot from Saskatchewan.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle from Antigonish, Nova Scotia.
Senator Robinson: Welcome. Mary Robinson representing Prince Edward Island.
Senator K. Wells: Kristopher Wells, Alberta and Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Housakos: Leo Housakos, Montreal, Quebec.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. Welcome to all those who are following our deliberations today.
Before we welcome our witnesses, I would like to provide a content warning for this gathering. The sensitive topics covered today may be triggering for people in the room who are with us, as well as those watching and listening to this 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 both 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 have one panel of witnesses. 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 witnesses who are before us as well as virtual. Our witnesses have been asked to make a five-minute opening statement each.
With us at the table, from Independent Jewish Voices, Corey Balsam, National Coordinator. Welcome. Also with us at the table, Joshua Sealy-Harrington, Associate Professor and Chair, Palestinian Human Rights in Canada. And appearing by video conference, from Independent Jewish Voices, Rabbi David Mivasair, Member.
I now invite Mr. Balsam to make his presentation, followed by Mr. Sealy-Harrington and Mr. Mivasair.
Corey Balsam, National Coordinator, Independent Jewish Voices: Thank you, honourable senators, for the opportunity to address you today. My name is Corey Balsam, National Coordinator of Independent Jewish Voices, or IJV.
Independent Jewish Voices is a grassroots organization of Jewish Canadians committed to defending Palestinian human rights and opposing all forms of racism — anti-Semitism, anti‑Palestinian racism and Islamophobia alike. Our over 2,000 members live from coast to coast, and are active in 19 cities and 7 campus chapters. Among them are respected Canadians like Dr. Gabor Maté, Michele Landsberg and Avi Lewis.
We are part of a fast-growing and vibrant international movement that is affirming the proud Jewish social justice tradition and pushing back against the notion that Jewishness and Zionism are one and the same.
We identify as anti-Zionist, which is not to say that we oppose some abstract notion of Jewish self-determination. What we stand opposed to is how Zionism has been enacted through the creation and maintenance of a system that privileges one group — Israeli Jews — at the direct expense of another — Palestinians. It is this ideology that underpinned the Palestinian Nakba of 1948, an ongoing regime of settler colonialism and apartheid, and most recently, the genocide in Gaza.
We refuse to allow our beautiful and ancient traditions to be sullied by such an ideology, by such a state that violates the most basic principles of human rights and of Judaism itself. Yet when we express these views, we are often smeared by Zionist organizations as fringe, self-hating, or even as kapos, a deeply offensive slur referring to Jews who collaborated with the Nazis in concentration camps.
For Palestinians and their non-Jewish supporters, it’s often worse. They are routinely branded as anti-Semitic, whether for their criticisms, slogans or forms of protest. Almost always, these accusations prove baseless, but the politicians will have already weighed in, and the damage already done.
Honourable senators, as you deliberate on addressing the scourge of anti-Semitism, I urge you to also consider the harms caused by false accusations of anti-Semitism against Palestinians and their supporters, especially when defence of Palestinian human rights is so urgently needed. Such false accusations have led to unwarranted arrests, firings, expulsions, hate crime charges and irreparable reputational damage. They have led to deportations and the defunding of universities in the United States. They play into harmful stereotypes that Palestinians and their supporters are driven by irrational hatred of Jews, rather than a righteous struggle for justice — an idea that is defamatory and a clear form of anti-Palestinian racism.
Jews also pay a price. When criticism of Israel is equated with anti-Semitism, it suggests that Jews and Israel are one and the same. It also implies that there is something inherent in Judaism that lends itself to violent ethnonationalism. These notions are themselves anti-Semitic and put all Jews at risk of collective retribution for the actions of a rogue state.
That’s why IJV’s work, especially our anti-Semitism training, matters so much. We help people tell the difference between genuine anti-Semitism, which targets Jews as Jews, and criticism of a state or political ideology.
Our approach aligns with the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, signed by over 370 leading scholars of anti‑Semitism, the Holocaust and related fields, as well as the signatories of the New Jersey Statement on Antisemitism and Islamophobia.
Their work, like ours, seeks to counter the harmful International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, or IHRA, definition of anti-Semitism, which the Canadian government continues to promote through an official handbook intended for use across multiple sectors.
Honourable senators, this committee has an opportunity to chart a better course, to truly fulfill your role as the sober second thought. Fighting anti-Semitism cannot be a zero-sum game. It must form part of a broader, universal struggle against all forms of racism and injustice, both at home and abroad.
To that end, we recommend that you: call on the government to disendorse the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism and withdraw its accompanying handbook; draw a clear distinction between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel and Zionism; and ensure that efforts to fight anti-Semitism align with and complement the House and Senate’s previous studies on Islamophobia, in addition to broader work on systemic racism.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Over to you, Mr. Sealy-Harrington.
Joshua Sealy-Harrington, Associate Professor and Chair, Palestinian Human Rights in Canada, as an individual: My sincere thanks to the chair, committee and Senate for inviting me to present today.
As a scholar of racial justice, I oppose all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism. That said, to effectively oppose anti‑Semitism one must accurately conceptualize it, which the IHRA definition fails to do with anti-Semitism.
My four points are: First, that the examples associated with the IHRA definition were, in fact, excluded when it was formally adopted; second, that the IHRA definition’s text provides trivial guidance on identifying anti-Semitism; third, that the IHRA definition’s examples collapse criticism of Israel with anti‑Semitism and therefore are anti-Palestinian; and, fourth, that the IHRA definition has been authoritatively rejected.
First, the IHRA decision-making body was only able to reach a consensus on adopting the definition by excluding the examples misleadingly associated with it. This is relentlessly obscured by IHRA proponents, including Canadian Heritage. This is significant because to invoke IHRA’s authority actually requires rejecting the examples the IHRA decision-making body itself dismissed.
Second, without the excluded examples, all the IHRA definition provides is that anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews. This, of course, provides trivial guidance on how to identify anti-Semitism. For example, are positive perceptions of Jews — about their food and culture — by definition anti‑Semitic? In stark contest, when this committee defined Islamophobia in its 2023 report, it used a definition that referred not simply to perceptions but rather to racism, stereotypes and prejudice against Muslims.
To conceptualize different forms of racism in a consistent manner then, this committee should carefully consider the New Jersey Statement on Antisemitism and Islamophobia, which aligns with this committee’s prior report and, in addition, has been endorsed by a multiracial coalition of scholars.
Despite the IHRA decision-making body’s rejection of the excluded examples, the Canadian government still heavily relies on them. By mischaracterizing Palestinian human rights as inherently anti-Semitic, the excluded examples, rather than defining anti-Semitism, perpetuate anti-Palestinian racism, my third point. A whopping 7 of the 11 examples expressly curtail criticism of Israel, yet one can easily criticize Israel and not have any perception of Jews, anti-Semitic or otherwise.
For instance, example 7 excluded from IHRA claims that it is anti-Semitic to criticize Israel for its racism. Are we truly to believe that the characterization of Israel’s siege on Gaza as a genocide is simply an anti-Semitic blood libel, when it is, rather, an authoritative finding of the UN International Commission of Inquiry of the Human Rights Council, of which Canada is a member, as well as authoritative findings of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Al-Haq, Israeli NGOs like B’Tselem and Israeli genocide scholars like Raz Segal?
Such flagrant weaponization of anti-Semitism, which misrepresents opposition to a genocide as somehow anti-Semitic, explains why the IHRA has been authoritatively rejected, my fourth point. For example, 370 leading scholars of anti-Semitism, Holocaust studies and related fields have rejected IHRA because it has caused confusion and generated controversy; hence, weakening the fight against anti-Semitism.
Similarly, the Canadian Association of University Teachers and the 72,000 academic staff it represents has also rejected IHRA because it censors the academic freedom of researchers who have developed anti-racist and decolonial perspectives on the State of Israel.
Likewise, a coalition of 104 civil society organizations have urged the United Nations to reject IHRA because it has often been used to wrongly label criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic. Even the IHRA definition’s lead drafter has criticized the IHRA because it has been weaponized by right-wing Jewish groups in an attack on academic freedom and free speech.
To conclude, the State of Israel is not a race; it is a country. And like all countries, it is legitimately — indeed, importantly — subject to critique. When Israel oppresses Palestinians, criticism of that oppression is not anti-Jewish but pro-human rights and pro-international law. Even if this committee disagrees with criticizing Israel, preventing Canadians from protesting their own government’s foreign policy directly infringes their constitutional right to free expression, as the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group has confirmed.
Lastly, to stereotype the many Muslim Canadians who are protesting the slaughter of their families in Gaza as hating Jews rather than hating occupation, apartheid and genocide, perpetuates the very same Islamophobic vilification that this committee critiqued in its 2023 report.
I, therefore, urge this committee to conceptualize anti‑Semitism as distinct from criticism of Israel and in a manner that is consistent with international law and human rights, which, by corollary, would require that this committee reject IHRA in its work. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Over to you, Mr. Mivasair.
Rabbi David Mivasair, Member, Independent Jewish Voices Canada: Thank you, chair and senators, for the invitation to speak with you today.
I am a rabbi and have served for more than 20 years as the spiritual leader of two synagogues in Vancouver. I am also an active member of Independent Jewish Voices Canada.
As a Jew, I am called to fulfill the biblical commandment, “justice, justice you shall pursue.” My support for Palestinians flows from taking Judaism seriously. My commitment to justice and equality for all derives from our obligation to see the divine in every person. My awareness of the Holocaust compels me to stand in solidarity with Palestinians facing a genocide.
Thousands of Canadian Jews recognize that, as Jews, we bear a heightened responsibility to act for Palestinians as they struggle for their very existence because of the racist premise that the safety of Jews requires the erasure of Palestinians. We must all be careful how we interpret claims of anti-Semitism. Misunderstandings distort public perception and misinform policy.
When I moved to Hamilton in 2018, I heard it called “the hate capital of Canada.” That was a headline in The Canadian Jewish News on August 8, 2019, based on reported hate crime statistics. Upon reviewing the actual occurrences reported, I discovered that many — likely most — were misclassified. For example, a van with a swastika painted on the side turned out to belong to a Hindu temple. A geranium stolen from the garden in front of a synagogue was reported to the police as an anti-Jewish hate incident.
These incidents, and many others, are not anti-Semitic but are still on the books as reported anti-Jewish hate, contributing to very skewed statistics.
A personal example: In my garden, I had a lawn sign saying, “We stand for human rights” with a Palestinian flag. It was stolen. I reported it to the police, who classified it as an anti‑Jewish hate incident simply because I’m a rabbi. I had that misclassification corrected, explaining that it was actually an anti-Palestinian hate incident.
Between 2016 and 2022, Hamilton police recorded roughly 700 reported anti-Jewish occurrences, yet police investigations substantiated only 7 of the 700, a stark reminder that reported numbers can be very misleading.
Other widely cited sources are even less reliable. For example, B’nai Brith Canada’s annual anti-Semitism audit has repeatedly been shown to be grossly inflated and to misclassify support for Palestinians as hate against Jews, provoking an exaggerated sense of panic.
This pattern extends beyond statistics into policy. A recent example is Bill C-9, which proposes restrictions on protests near religious facilities. This measure arose primarily in response to peaceful demonstrations, which I helped plan and many other Jews joined, protesting real estate sales events held inside synagogues for properties in the occupied Palestinian territories. These events occurred when no religious activities were taking place, yet the reaction has been to impose restrictions that unduly limit Canadians’ freedom of assembly and expression.
Statistics Canada reports that Jews experience a disproportionate share of hate crimes. The CJA claims that Jews are 25 times more likely than other Canadians to experience a hate crime, but reported numbers reflect the likelihood of reporting, as the government itself recognizes. Racialized, Indigenous, 2SLGBTQIA+ and immigrant communities are far less likely to report hate crimes.
Jewish communities, by contrast, are often well established and have strong ties to law enforcement. In 2024, only 1.6% of reported hate crimes targeted Indigenous people, and nearly 25% targeted Jews. As Canadian criminologist Barbara Perry notes, hate crime data tells us as much about victims’ relationships with the police as about the extent of hate in society.
These examples illustrate that statistics, if uncritically accepted, can lead to policy and legislation that may unnecessarily restrict civil liberties or misallocate resources, as detailed in the report entitled The Use and Misuse of Antisemitism Statistics in Canada on the IJV website. Accordingly, I urge this committee to ensure that hate crime reports are carefully verified before being relied on and to treat reported statistics with serious caution. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mivasair. Thank you to the witnesses for your statements. We will now go to a question-and-answer session, starting with Senator Housakos.
Senator Housakos: I listened very attentively to our panel here this evening. I think they have shown up to the wrong committee. Frankly, we’re not doing a study on Israel’s right to exist from the river to the sea or a study in terms of Palestinians’ right to exist within Israel or whatever the case may be. That is for our Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade to study.
This is a study here by a human rights committee on anti‑Semitism in Canada. Honestly, I have not heard much recognition of the intolerable circumstances that the Jewish community is living in right now and what solutions you are recommending for us to overcome it.
My question is the following, and it is to the two representatives of Independent Jewish Voices, or IJV. Are you familiar with an organization CJPME, or Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East? And why is it that your organization is registered in the same office, in Montreal, as Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East?
Mr. Balsam: We felt it was important. I listened to a number of the previous sessions in which the IHRA definition was raised and in which it was claimed that 90% or more of Jews in Canada are Zionists even though a recent study shows it is 51%. Various claims were made about protests, and I felt we needed to use our time here — or I myself needed to use my time here — to dispel. The policy related to these issues of anti-Semitism is focused on the IHRA definition. It is fundamental to the way in which Canada approaches these questions. I felt it was important to address that.
Regarding our office, CJPME is a close ally of ours. We have five staff and twenty-six chapters across the country. We do not feel the need to have a physical office besides a mailing address, so they simply offered to host our mailbox.
Senator Housakos: Thank you for that answer. Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East —
Rabbi Mivasair: May I also respond please?
Senator Housakos: I have another question for you. I think I got an answer, and the answer is to —
Rabbi Mivasair: You got an answer. If we have five minutes, I would like to use some of the time to respond.
Senator Housakos: You both represent both organizations. I asked if you had shared offices with the Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East organization.
Rabbi Mivasair: That is not all that you said. With all respect, senator, that is not all you said. Some of what you said requires a response.
Senator Housakos: Go on.
Rabbi Mivasair: You, whom I do not believe lives in the Jewish community, just said that there are intolerable circumstances that the Jewish community is living in. I’m a Jew. I have been a Jew for more than 73 years. My family is Jewish. My friends are Jewish. People in my synagogue are Jewish. None of us live in intolerable circumstances.
What you just did is an exact example of why we’re talking about false accusations of anti-Semitism and extreme exaggerations of the circumstances that the Jews in Canada live in to score political points to suppress important legitimate expressions of support for Palestinians who you just dismissed in your introductory remarks. I will leave it there. I think you have just illustrated perfectly why we need to talk about the legitimacy of the IHRA definition.
Senator Housakos: Colleagues, for the record, the organization IJV shares offices with Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East. I welcome you to do any research on that organization. It is an inherently anti-Israel-based organization.
Second of all, with all due respect, sir, I do live within the Jewish community, born and raised and proud to represent the close to 90,000 Montrealers of Jewish faith in this institution, and I can tell you the vast majority are proud of the advocacy that I do on their behalf. Now, Rabbi Mivasair, if I may ask you a simple question: You posted on February 18, 2024, that organizations supporting Israel deserve to be “destroyed.” Do you still stand by that quote?
The Chair: You have 10 seconds. Do you wish to put that to second round, Senator Housakos?
Senator Housakos: I think that it warrants an answer. Maybe we’ll give him more than 10 seconds to answer. This particular quote deserves clarification.
The Chair: I’ll allow it. Go ahead please.
Rabbi Mivasair: Considering that Israel is conducting a genocide, pushing Palestinians off of their land and killing them every day, I do believe that organizations that support that state should be destroyed. They should not function.
Being anti-Israel is not being anti-Semitic. You started your comments by saying that we’re in the wrong committee. Let’s talk about anti-Semitism instead of talking about what you just brought up, which is being anti-Israel. I stand on myself being anti-Israel. I lived there for four years. I read, speak and write Hebrew. I read Israeli newspapers in Hebrew every day, and I’m anti-Israel. I have no problem saying that in a Senate committee. More and more of us need to say that.
Senator Housakos: Your comments were inflammatory. It doesn’t matter if you speak Hebrew, French, English or whatever. In Canada, those kinds of comments are unacceptable, and those are the kinds of comments that fuel hatred and fire bombings of synagogues.
The Chair: That is time, Senator Housakos. Thank you.
Senator Arnot: This question is for Mr. Balsam and, perhaps, Rabbi Mivasair.
Mr. Balsam, you are aware of Professor Robert Brym’s 2024 study on Jewish opinion in Canada found that 94% of Canadian Jews believe Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state. Given some of your organization’s positions are at odds with the overwhelming majority of Jewish Canadians, how do you reconcile that? I recognize that you say you have a membership of roughly 2,000 people with 26 chapters from coast to coast, but I also know that the Centre for Israeli and Jewish Affairs in Canada represents roughly 150,000 Canadian Jewish people.
My question then is: What do you say about that? In other words, I believe your voice is a minority as compared to the majority views on Jewish issues in Canada.
Mr. Balsam: Thank you, senator. The question of being a minority within the Jewish community, fringe, et cetera, this has come up in the committee already.
Senator Arnot: —
Mr. Balsam: You didn’t, but this has come up in the committee already—
Senator Arnot: You might be right. I don’t know.
Mr. Balsam: No, I’m saying we are aligned with Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the vast majority of Canadians who recognize it is a genocide. Those numbers, the 94%, are fascinating. I don’t know if everyone understands what it means to say that Israel has a right to exist or to think that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state. Maybe they think that is actually something that is allowed under international law, and it is. Countries can choose their identities in many different ways. Does that translate into support for the state? Does it even translate into Zionism?
Robert Brym has done another study where it was found that only 51% of Canadian Jews self-identify as Zionist. There was a poll in the U.K. — we do not have that many numbers — but in the U.K., 26% of 20-year-old Jews identify as anti-Zionist. For sure, we’re not the majority, but it is a growing community.
There are various shades. It is not just anti-Zionist. There are various shades —
Senator Arnot: I am limited to five minutes, and I have two questions further, sir.
If governments were to adopt the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism rather than the IHRA one, what concrete changes would follow for police training, campus codes and funding criteria in Canada? Can you please name three policy levers and expected outcomes for reducing anti-Semitic victimization in Canada?
A question I wish to also ask is — and you may have to put this in writing — what is IJV’s position on institutional security funding for synagogues and schools in Canada? I am looking at this in the Canadian context of anti-Semitism.
Mr. Balsam or anyone from the IJV?
Mr. Balsam: I can start. Regarding the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, I think it would be a fundamental change. I should say, first of all, the definition is very clear. Anti-Semitism is hatred — I don’t have it in front of me — or discrimination against Jews as Jews, right? It’s pretty clear.
Then they have what is anti-Semitism and what is not anti‑Semitism? They specify that it is not anti-Semitic to support boycotts, to call Israel an apartheid state, to say it’s practising genocide, all that stuff which is the fundamental piece of confusion that I think IHRA has led to.
Regarding the policy levers, I think the approach we take is tackling anti-Semitism as part of the fight against racism, rather than pitting it against. Oftentimes, what we have is IHRA suggests that anti-racists are the racists, right? It’s flipping everything on its head. So integrate it as part of the broader fight against racism in education, when it comes to policing, all of that.
On security funding, it’s interesting. I go to services. We don’t have security guards. I recognize there have been attacks on synagogues and it’s horrible. I live in Montreal and some of the shots fired and that sort of thing. We don’t have all the answers quite yet. Those things are all important to pay attention to. I do sometimes wonder about the over-policing of our institutions and the repercussions of that on often-racialized people.
Senator Arnot: I would like the witnesses to answer this question in writing, since you have seen some of the other testimony. How do you see the role of education, K-12, given the power of education in dealing anti-Semitism, Jewish hatred in the Canadian context? What about the power of education?
What do you recommend happening in the schools in provinces and territories in this country? I know that he doesn’t have time to answer.
The Chair: Second round.
Senator Arnot: I would like the answer in writing.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Arnot: Thank you.
The Chair: Would you like to go on second round, Senator?
Senator Arnot: Yes.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to all of our witnesses today. This is an important conversation we are having.
Professor Harrington, as I was writing down my notes from what you said, you made some of these distinctions; state of Israel is not a race, it is a state, anti-Semitism should be seen as distinct from criticism of Israel.
You mentioned the Canadian Association of University Teachers, or CAUT. I come from a university background. The Canadian Association of University Teachers rejects the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. It is important for us to dig into this.
Does CAUT align with IJV on their position? What definition of anti-Semitism is posted by CAUT?
Mr. Sealy-Harrington: I’m not familiar with a positive definition of anti-Semitism that CAUT has committed to. I think their mission, as an academic freedom organization, is very concerned about state repression, scholarship and teaching. That said, it has been specifically resistant to the IHRA definition because it has been repeatedly proven to be antithetical to academic freedom. My friends from IJV can speak to IJV’s conceptualization of anti-Semitism. I will say, I echo that the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism is stronger, and I think that the New Jersey statement is even better.
But I do not think CAUT has positively committed to a definition, they are more concerned about censorship.
Senator Coyle: That is because members of CAUT have felt a greater degree of censorship or that there is a chill?
Mr. Sealy-Harrington: Yes. I do not wish to narrow it too significantly. The Canadian Association of University Teachers and many academic freedom organizations, including the American Association of University Professors, are opposed to the IHRA definition. Setting aside academic freedom organizations, 370 leading scholars of anti-Semitism have rejected IHRA, and they are concerned. These are scholars who devote their lives to scholarship on anti-Semitism. Their opposition is rooted in the fact that because IHRA confuses what anti-Semitism is, it makes it harder to understand. And so for issues of education, right?
I’m an anti-racism educator. I love teaching about anti-racism, K-12 and university throughout. If we want to teach people about anti-Semitism, these anti-Semitism scholars are telling us that IHRA is not the way to do it and that it confuses our understanding of anti-Semitism.
Senator Coyle: It is always good to be reminded and to be skeptical of data and always drill into all of the testimony we have heard to date. That is our job.
Having said that, we know there is an issue with anti-Semitism in Canada. I believe from everything I have read and heard that it probably has increased since the community in Israel was attacked on October 7, then the hugely disproportionate attack on civilians and others in Gaza.
I believe there is an increase in anti-Semitic behaviour in Canada.
What do you think should be done about that? What are the main things that need to happen to deal with that? That is our job here, please.
Mr. Sealy-Harrington: Thank you, senator, for the question.
This committee must be careful and rigorous when addressing claims — not of any rise in anti-Semitism; I am happy to concede that — claims of astronomical rises in anti-Semitism we have to be careful with, particularly as Rabbi David Mivasair mentioned, I would direct the committee to the groundbreaking research of Jewish scholar Sheryl Nestel on the use and misuse of anti-Semitism statistics, a careful study that deals with these allegations.
And as her research clearly explains, reporting on anti-Semitic incidents is grossly misrepresented by pro-Israel organizations who consistently characterize criticism of Israel, including criticism of Israel by Jews as anti-Semitic.
As Israel is committing a livestream genocide in Gaza, criticism of Israel is astronomically rising, right? That is a foreseeable, humane response to what has been happening in Gaza.
In terms of specific policy, I return to the point I raised in my opening remarks, I think in so far as there are rises in anti‑Semitism — which I think that there are — we need to be accurate in what we understand to be anti-Semitism. If we’re teaching, not about anti-Semitism, then students are not learning what anti-Semitism means. Teachers are not receiving training on what anti-Semitism genuinely means, which is why you see so much opposition to IHRA from Jewish scholars with a focus on anti-Semitism.
Whether the policy lever is criminal justice, education, universities, if you are using the definition that misconceptualizes anti-Semitism, then you are not teaching about the very thing you are intending to target. That is a huge, missed opportunity for everyone to have a better understanding, not only of anti-Semitism, but as the New Jersey statement explains, the relationship between anti-Semitism and other forms of racism.
Senator K. Wells: Thank you for being here. My question is for the two witnesses in the room here with us today.
We have not yet talked about Bill C-9 which is before the House of Commons. It was designed to address some of the concerns that many different minority communities in Canada have raised around safety, access to public facilities, and concerns expressed by some communities that they are seeing a rise in hate crimes. To open your perspectives on Bill C-9, we would like to hear those.
You mentioned policy levers. Specifically with what we are here to study today, anti-Semitism, what kind of policy levers do you think are important to address the issue of anti-Semitism in Canada? What recommendations would you make to the committee?
We are trying to be a committee of action, to produce some recommendations. We would love to hear, first, your perspectives on Bill C-9 — the issues you might see with it or any of its strengths, as well as ways that could be improved — and then some of the other policy levers we may be able to move forward. Thank you.
Mr. Sealy-Harrington: Thank you for the question, senator.
Of course, I oppose all forms of hatred, which Bill C-9 is at least named in relation to, but I consider Bill C-9 a misleading and ineffective piece of legislation for combatting hate. Indeed, it has produced overwhelming opposition from civil liberties and racial justice organizations, including Jewish organizations. For example, this fall, 37 civil society organizations, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Independent Jewish Voices Canada and the Black Legal Action Centre, signed a joint letter, urging the government to reverse course on Bill C-9 because it threatens constitutionally protected expression and, with profound irony, threatens marginalized groups’ abilities to protest outside of their own institutions.
In this respect, it’s crucial to note, as Rabbi David Mivasair noted earlier, that recent protests outside of synagogues, many of which have been Jewish-led, including by congregants of their own synagogues, have not been motivated by anti-Semitism but rather the complicity of those synagogues in perpetuating anti‑Palestinian racism.
With respect to different policy levers, as an anti-racist scholar, I lean more heavily upon things like education rather than criminalization. I think proactive measures are more effective. Criminalization also has a disproportionate impact upon racialized communities.
I will say, though, that my interest in education is part of what motivates my resistance to the IHRA definition. Marianne Hirsch, a Jewish scholar at Columbia and daughter of Holocaust survivors, has said that she can no longer teach her courses on the Holocaust because the IHRA definition suppresses her ability to effectively teach the Holocaust. Palestinian luminary Rashid Khalidi cancelled his course at Columbia because he said that he is not able to assign Hannah Arendt anymore under the IHRA definition because she was a zealous critic of the state of Israel.
So I would front-load education, and I think IHRA, in many ways, functions antithetically to the ability to have free inquiry about things like anti-Semitism.
Mr. Balsam: You suggested there are many different communities that want this protection, but I don’t know about that in terms of the way in which it has been actually been presented. I note that NCCM and Muslim organizations have serious concerns. I’ve heard that anti-Black racism organizations are concerned that it bans only terrorist symbols, which are very skewed; for example, the noose, KKK symbols, the Confederate flags and those types of symbols are okay. You can fly those flags outside of a Black church, for example. I think it’s rather skewed in that sense.
Obviously, we’ve spoken a number of times about the real estate sales that sparked this whole conversation, which were primarily Jewish led in terms of protests; there were a number of different protests, but this was against actual war crimes being committed within the synagogues. So we have to be super careful. No one here — and I don’t think there are any instances of anyone protesting a synagogue because it is a synagogue. The protests that have happened have happened because of Israeli military folks speaking or the real estate sale. We really need to get that right, and the current bill is not doing that.
The Chair: You can be on a second round, which we have now moved into.
Senator Housakos: Mr. Balsam, I’m glad you have recognized that the attacks on synagogues are not necessarily just because of their faith, but because they do support the State of Israel or there is that perception. The truth of the matter is that no one will deny — and thank you, Senator Arnot, for bringing it up — the vast majority of Canadians of Jewish descent want a homeland.
But again, this is not the discussion we’re having here.
An NGO Monitor document states that IJV partners with 76 of 111 anti-Israeli organizations in Canada, including Samidoun, which Canada designated as a terrorist entity in October 2024. Samidoun leadership — we know who they are and what they’re all about, so will your organization condemn today Samidoun and Hamas for being terrorist organizations that spew nothing but anti-Semitic hate, and more importantly anti-democratic hate in Canada? The question I have is this: Why does IJV maintain partnerships with organizations like Samidoun and others of that nature?
Mr. Balsam: Just for context regarding NGO Monitor, there are various organizations that are “attack dog” organizations. We have NGO Monitor, UN Watch, HonestReporting, et cetera. They are meant to attack various sectors and, essentially, keep them afraid and, therefore, not criticizing Israel. NGO Monitor is one of those organizations. I was fascinated by the organizational connections map they made. I don’t know where they got a lot of those organizations. We do partner with many organizations. Samidoun is not one of them, so I wonder where that came from. Canary Mission is another one that targets students, primary on campus, and doxes them online.
It’s all about delegitimizing organizations like ours.
Senator Housakos: So you do condemn Samidoun and Hamas for the anti-Semitic terrorist organizations — like Government of Canada and Parliament? I assume that you fully condemn them?
Mr. Balsam: It is not my place to do that. Samidoun is an organization that is engaged on Palestinian human rights. We don’t agree with everything they espouse, but that is not why we’re here; again, we’re talking about anti-Semitism here.
Senator Housakos: At a Montreal rally on October 7, 2025, attended by IJV-aligned activists, there was the chant of “glory to the martyrs” — again, a reference by Hamas operatives who planned the massacre. How do you justify organizing and participating in events — at least, it appears to me when people are saying “glory to the martyrs” — you’re glorifying the perpetrators of deadly attacks on the Jewish people and, more importantly, on a democratic state?
Mr. Balsam: This requires a bit of cultural understanding. I actually spent a few years living in the occupied West Bank, so I came to understand various subtleties and how people communicate things. Martyrs are those who were killed by the state. There are martyrs in different contexts, but, here, we’re talking about martyrs killed by the State of Israel. When we talk about “glory to the martyrs,” that is a way of communicating and giving homage to those who have died, which, I think, in this context, is fully reasonable with the tens of thousands of people who have been murdered.
The Chair: I see that Rabbi Mivasair would also like to respond.
Rabbi Mivasair: As Mr. Balsam just said, the word “martyr” means the people who have been killed by Israel. Mr. Balsam says there are tens of thousands of them. People we know — relatives, family members, completely innocent people. Again, tens of thousands. So with all respect, senator, you’re misconstruing that word. You’re constructing a question that makes it sound very ominous. These are simply people honouring their dead. We Jews use that language when we talk about people murdered in the Holocaust. So the very fundamental premise of your question is one itself that I call into question.
Mr. Sealy-Harrington: I just want to point out the characterization of Arabic words such as “martyr” as, in some way, inherently tied to terrorism is trading in the very same vilification and demonization that this committee, in its 2023 report, was opposed to. “Martyr” just means “witness,” and in the context of the genocide in Gaza, it’s referring to the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people who have died. To associate that with terrorism is displaying a profound lack of cultural competence.
The Chair: Senator Housakos, that is time.
Senator Arnot: Witnesses, we’ve talked about the Jerusalem Declaration of Anti-Semitism — the New Jersey definition, the IHRA definition. I know all the witnesses on this panel have thought about these issues, and are very articulate regarding them. I would like to begin with the end in mind. What we’re going to be doing is making recommendations for the prevention and elimination of anti-Semitism in Canada. What I call “anti‑Semitism” distills to what has been termed the world’s oldest hate; it’s been around for a long time — maybe 2,000 years or more. And it is not rational hatred towards Jewish people.
Thinking in those terms, I’m asking you, what recommendations you think this committee should be making about anti-Semitism as it occurs in the Canadian context? That’s really what I’m thinking about. On the ground for Jewish people in Canada what can we do? What kind of recommendations would you make for this committee to consider?
And I realize we don’t have time today in a five-minute session to get that answer, but if you could put those answers in writing it would be very helpful to the committee.
You may want to be able to speak to the issue.
Rabbi Mivasair: I think putting our answer in writing would be a great idea and I hope we’ll do that.
But the first thing I would like to say is first be clear about what really is anti-Semitism in Canada. For example, I remember about two years ago in early December 2023, here in Ontario, the RCMP arrested two men on terrorism charges who were members of a group called Atomwaffen, which is an explicitly neo-Nazi group. They were arrested on weapons charges, that’s an anti-Semitic incident here in Canada.
And I want to note that with my thorough searches of the websites of CIJA, B’nai Brith, Simon Wiesenthal Center, I never found anything where they commented on that at all, nothing.
I’m making the point that when we’re talking about anti‑Semitism in Canada, it does exist. I don’t think any of us are denying that. But to this committee of the Senate I would suggest that you try to really understand what is anti-Semitism? I think it’s actually being dealt with fairly well by our authorities.
And what’s not anti-Semitism — which is getting most of the attention — and that is people trying to stop Israel’s oppression of Palestinians. That’s being called anti-Semitic. I think the calling that anti-Semitic is kind of weaponizing false accusations of anti-Semitism in order to suppress honest, thoughtful conversation about what’s happening in Israel and Palestine.
Mr. Sealy-Harrington: I just want to note, senator, when you characterize anti-Semitism as hatred of Jews — which is a characterization I want to be clear I agree with — I encourage you to read the IHRA definition — which does not say hatred — and I encourage you to read the definition in the New Jersey statement — which does refer to hatred.
How you’re thinking about anti-Semitism is exactly how I’m thinking about anti-Semitism. If that’s what you’re looking to target I really encourage considering those other definitions that, like this 2023 Islamophobia report, understood racism as involving prejudice, hatred and discrimination.
Senator Arnot: Just a supplemental question, very short, to any of the witnesses that would care to comment, and it builds on what the rabbi said. Under current Criminal Code law hate propaganda, threats, mischief to property, religious property and human rights law, where do you see genuine gaps in protecting Canadian Jews from harassment, intimidation, threats, and what narrow statutory or policy fixes would you recommend this committee find in its recommendations?
Mr. Sealy-Harrington: Thank you, senator.
I actually don’t consider there to be gaps in relation to stopping anti-Semitic hate crimes. Hate crimes are already criminalized. Anti-Semitism is a recognized form of racial hatred. In fact, what we’ve seen post-October 7 is a lot of accusations of anti-Semitic-motivated crime, and when subjected to objective scrutiny by courts the findings are consistently that it is not anti-Semitic motivated.
If you look at the TMU student petition, if you look at the UofT encampment, the Jewish activist from York that threw red paint on Indigo, that Jewish activist did that because she was critical of the owner of Indigo’s support for the Israeli military.
When courts look at that objectively and subject it to scrutiny you’re not seeing a lack of convictions because of a gap in the system, you’re seeing a lack of convictions because the system is working and is properly filtering out specious allegations of anti‑Semitism and what are very clearly anti-war protests.
Senator Coyle: You asked some of the questions I was going to ask. But I want to go to the online space a little bit, which is a very important space to be talking about. We’re talking about physical spaces here. But some of the efforts to sow the seeds of misinformation, disinformation, promote anti-Jewish tropes, is online and it has an impact.
I’m curious what our three witnesses have to say about what you think the Government of Canada should be doing, if anything, about those monitoring and addressing those spaces where we see anti-Semitic hate?
Mr. Balsam: There’s no doubt that online is a cesspool against — there’s anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, anti-Palestinian racism, anti-Black racism, it’s all there.
One concern that I have is the outright dismissal of anti‑Semitism accusations, again because the waters have been so muddied by IHRA and all these accusations, which is something that I consistently raise and say we can’t just dismiss it. We have to take it seriously, even though often times it’s not genuine.
But back to the online space. I think the government tried, on a number of occasions, to put forward bills to tackle online harms and it is very complicated.
For us one major issue is still that conflation of — I think Meta banned the use of Zionism or Zionists in certain contexts, it’s very easy to get it wrong.
Mr. Sealy-Harrington might have a more technical answer.
Mr. Sealy-Harrington: I, of course, oppose misinformation, stereotypes, et cetera, about any racial minority, but building off of what Mr. Balsam said, and to be clear, it’s also important to understand that basic knowledge about the facts of Israel’s siege on Gaza is not something that Canadians need protection from. Indeed, as I already explained, the genocide has been authoritatively found by legions of experts and tribunals.
And so we need to exercise extraordinary caution when we’re effectively told — by certain pro-Israel organizations — that international law itself is anti-Semitic misinformation and something that Canadians need to be protected from. This is not true.
In fact, focusing on international laws’ application to Israel, as Mr. Balsam just said, muddies the water. Whatever resources we have invested in anti-Semitism are not looking at the tropes and the stereotypes that we need to educate against, and it is important that we oppose them.
Rabbi Mivasair: I have seen a great increase in expressions of anger at Jewish people, blaming Jewish people for what Israel is doing. I think that would reduce if the Government of Canada didn’t support things like the IHRA definition, which associates all Jews with support for Israel, considering criticism of Israel to be somehow anti-Semitic.
If our government didn’t support that I think fewer people would associate Jews as a whole with the State of Israel and their anger at Israel wouldn’t be directed at the rest of us Jews. That’s one element that should be taken into consideration when you’re thinking about online expressions of hate.
The Chair: We have come to the end of our session so thank you all for your presentations today and thank you for being here. Thank you for spending your time with us.
I would now like to sincerely thank you for agreeing to participate in this important study. Your assistance with our study is greatly appreciated.
Honourable colleagues and guests, the public portion of our meeting is now over. We shall suspend this meeting for a few minutes and resume in camera to discuss a draft report.
(The committee continued in camera.)