THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, November 24, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met with videoconference this day at 5 p.m. [ET] to examine and report on antisemitism 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 the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
I am Paulette Senior, a senator from Ontario and chair of this committee. I would like to now invite my honourable colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Antigonish, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Arnold: Good evening. Dawn Arnold from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator K. Wells: Kristopher Wells, Alberta, Treaty 6 Territory.
Senator Housakos: Senator Housakos, Quebec.
Senator Arnot: Senator David Arnot, Saskatchewan.
The Chair: Thank you. Welcome, senators, and 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 meeting. The sensitive topics covered today may be triggering for people in the room with us, as well as for those who may be 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 both personal and work-related concerns, as well as crisis counselling.
Today, our committee is meeting under its order of reference to examine and report on anti-Semitism in Canada. This afternoon, we will have three panels. In each panel, we will hear from the witnesses and then the senators around this table will have a question-and-answer session. Our witnesses have each been asked to make a five-minute opening statement.
To introduce our witnesses, by video conference, from the Concentus Citizenship Education Foundation, we have Mr. David Fisher, Executive Director. At the table with us is Rachel Cook, who is a student at the University of Alberta; and from Canadian Women Against Antisemitism, Talia Klein Leighton, President.
I now invite Mr. Fisher to make his presentation, to be followed by Ms. Cook and Ms. Leighton.
David Fisher, Executive Director, Concentus Citizenship Education Foundation: Good afternoon. Thank you, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to share with you today our relevance to Canada’s confrontation of anti-Semitism.
Our thesis is simple, if not even obvious: Meaningful inclusion and belonging for everyone in every community in Canada requires engaged citizens who understand not only their rights but also their responsibilities. Developing this responsible, pluralist citizen is the best defence against hatred and bigotry such as anti-Semitism.
Our education system plays a central role in realizing such citizenship; thus, we contend the classroom is one of the most important places to combat anti-Semitism. I am pleased to see more Canadian provinces officially incorporating Holocaust education into their curricula, including Saskatchewan where I speak to you from. This has long been a necessary element to a modern education. I hope to see the day when all provinces and territories include this. Until that day, the Concentus resources I represent commend and refer to a range of powerful existing educational tools to address anti-Semitism and Holocaust education. These include the Azrieli Foundation, Facing History & Ourselves, and the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre’s Antisemitism Classroom Toolkit. Whether or not a jurisdiction includes Holocaust education in its legislated curricula, it will often reach for such resources when an anti-Semitic incident occurs in their community. At these times, it is so important to have these powerful tools available.
There is an understandable tendency to respond to hateful events with a “siloed approach.” When an incident occurs, each community reacts with advocacy, outrage, resources and targeted educational tools, and that is important. However, reaction cannot be the complete response. Preventing hate demands a proactive approach as well. Reaction and proactiveness are necessary to reach the roots of this hate and racism that inspire anti-Semitism as well as Islamophobia, hate against Indigenous peoples and all “othered” communities and individuals.
A comprehensive, deliberate resource is the most potent way to target the poison that is common to all such hate. From kindergarten to grade 12, citizenship education is that resource. The long-term antidote to racism and bigotry is the development of critical thinking, empathy and engagement in Canada’s youth. It is effective citizenship education that allows the discovery, exploration, development and refinement of these essential qualities. Our youth learn to read because they are taught to read in school. They learn mathematics because they are taught math in school. They learn about other broader topics, such as music and art, and can appreciate and create music and art because they learn them in school. Why would we leave the development of responsible, respectful, participatory, pluralist citizens to chance rather than teach it deliberately in school?
Citizenship education is the study, understanding and application of the rights and duties we have to each other as citizens in local, provincial, national and global communities. The organization I represent, the Concentus Citizenship Education Foundation, is a CRA-registered charity that administers, supports and fundraises for the development and advancement of such citizenship education.
Concentus citizenship education is an inoculant to hate. It confronts and prevents racism and discrimination at their fundamental levels. Our resources cover a student’s continual learning career from kindergarten to grade 12. In today’s multi‑ethnic, multi-theistic, multi-social classroom, it is essential that the pluralist and multicultural nature of Canada is purposefully taught. By reaching students in their formative years, we prevent barriers of such hate as anti-Semitism from enduring, and as students mature, they bring these essential values and critical thinking skills into their communities and into the workforce. In the ongoing confrontation of anti-Semitism, this is the goal and gift of citizenship education.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to present today.
The Chair: Thank you.
Rachel Cook, Student, University of Alberta, as an individual: Thank you, honourable senators, for allowing me to speak with you today. It is a privilege to contribute to this study and to shine a light on on-campus anti-Semitism. I am a Jewish Canadian third-year law student at the University of Alberta in Edmonton.
Almost exactly two years ago, I made what I thought would be an innocuous request: that my faculty include a menorah in their annual Christmas display. At the time, I thought this would be a display of interfaith inclusion and would be in line with the Faculty of Law’s stated dedication to “fostering a learning environment that values, promotes and celebrates equity, respect and inclusion for everyone in our community.” However, the Faculty of Law refused my request, removed the trees and blamed me.
Because of the media attention I received following this incident, many Canadian students reached out to me to speak about anti-Semitism they had experienced on their campus. One such story was shared by a 21-year-old undergraduate student who, at the end of every term, would pay for an official sealed transcript to be sent to her home. She keeps this sealed transcript with her passport and birth certificate because, “If my great‑grandfather had done that, maybe he would have finished medical school before he left Poland.” Another student chose to write his exams during the first two nights of the holiday of Passover instead of spending them at a seder. He reasoned that, with everything going on, it was better to keep his head down in his final year than to risk being a target of biased grading by asking for religious accommodations.
I, as well as many other Jewish students, no longer pick classes because of my interest in the subject nor how well the time works with my schedule; rather, I pick them based on the social media posts of the instructor and if I think he or she might have been supportive of my religious needs to take holidays off.
When talking among ourselves, many Jewish students discuss if Canada will be safe in the next decade and, if not, where we might end up living. When we see our classmates — future judges, doctors, politicians and academics — who have chanted things like, “Say it loud, say it clear, we don’t want no Zionists here,” be rewarded with scholarships and accolades, it is hard not to wonder if we will be able to stay safely in the country of our birth and our parents’ birth and raise our future children here.
It should be noted, however, that on-campus anti-Semitism does not affect only students. Jewish faculty, administrative staff and their supporters are also targets of hatred and derision. I spoke to one professor who wondered if speaking about a relative who survived the Holocaust was a reason for his student evaluations having dropped. I do encourage the Senate to speak to members of the Network of Engaged Canadian Academics and the Jewish faculty members for more information on this topic.
To combat on-campus anti-Semitism, I have three recommendations:
First, the Senate has the power to investigate the source of funding of some of these programs and to understand why these protests sprung up so quickly after the horrific events of October 7. If foreign actors have funded the harassment of Jewish people on campus, it is important to become aware of that and take action to address it.
Second, I encourage the passage of legislation like Bill C-257, which would criminalize the promotion of a terrorist group or activity. This suggestion mirrors recommendations of people like Mark Sandler from the Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism, and it is common sense. It would protect students like me from being subjected to our classmates calling to globalize the intifada or putting up tributes to Hamas, Samidoun or the PLFP.
My third and final recommendation is actually more of a request. I am sorry to report that my faculty never reversed their decision to put trees back up or to include a menorah. Therefore, when I return to campus, I won’t be greeted by a polar bear wearing a bow, or snow globes, or charming twinkling lights. Therefore, I ask you, honourable senators, to move a motion to express solidarity with my community and include a menorah in your Christmas display when it appears in the next few weeks. By including one, it is my hope that it will dispel the darkness of anti-Semitic hate and shine a small light on your solidarity with my community.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Cook.
Talia Klein Leighton, President, Canadian Women Against Antisemitism: Honourable senators, my testimony today combines my submission on the intersection between misogyny and anti-Semitism with the findings from our submission written by our vice-president, Revi Mula, on foreign extremism and radicalization.
I am here to detail a crisis in Canadian society: the coordinated, violent convergence of anti-Semitism and misogyny targeting Jewish women, fuelled by foreign extremism and met with institutional betrayal.
I have given you the raw, unfiltered truth of the hatred Jewish women face. However, members of the Senate Human Rights steering committee asked us to remove some of the worst profanity and explicit hate speech, including threats of rape and sexual violence. While I have created an alternate, sanitized version of the brief for public consumption, I encourage the committee to read and rely upon the unredacted version because, while vile, shocking and repugnant, it tells the real story. I have limited the profanity in these remarks, but my point cannot be made with none.
When protesters on our streets chant “globalize the intifada,” “long live October 7th” and “resistance by any means necessary,” they are not talking about policy critique. They are being used by the communication arms of listed terrorist entities to normalize violence and celebrate mass murder, which includes the well-documented sexual atrocities of October 7.
There is no difference in their eyes between a Jew and a Zionist. When a Jewish woman is targeted, I am not called a “dirty Jew.” I am called a “Jewish whore,” and I am called a “Zionist bitch.” The hatred is fused with anti-Semitism, anti‑Zionism and misogyny. Let me be clear: According to the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism is absolutely anti-Semitism. It is not a legitimate criticism of Israel. It is the denial of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in our ancestral homeland, a right afforded to every other people. The vast majority of Canadian Jews identify as Zionists.
Jewish women face a distinct crucible of hate: anti-Semitism habitually paired with misogyny and threats of rape, often cloaked in anti-Zionism. I’ve been told that I “ought to be raped” and that I’m a child abuser for having Jewish Zionist children. A Jewish school in Toronto has been shot at three times. A Grade 6 girl was told she should be raped by Hitler. In one vile exchange, a woman was told, “How do you know she’s lying? I know because she’s a woman and she’s Jewish.”
This hatred invades our bodies and our sexuality, yet when we seek solace, we face institutional betrayal. The founding principle of universal solidarity — “believe all women” — has become #MeToo_Unless_Ur_A_Jew. Rape crisis centres and women’s shelters, which should be sanctuaries, have been weaponized by adopting anti-Zionist positions, turning them into spaces of hostility where Jewish survivors are led to believe that their trauma is colonial or political, where the atrocities of October 7 are denied or ignored, and where rape is resistance sanctioned against Jewish women. Our access to safety is now conditional on our political-social acceptability.
The unprecedented anti-Semitism in Canada is not spontaneous outrage. It is the result of coordinated foreign ideology and indoctrination operating through Canadian institutions. This includes foreign extremist networks like Samidoun, which was designated a terrorist entity in 2024, and ideological ecosystems aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. These groups use a spider-web infrastructure, embedded within NGOs and unions like CUPE Ontario and student bodies to launder extremist messaging into the mainstream, framing Zionists and Jews as legitimate targets. They rely on tokenizing fringe anti-Zionist groups like Independent Jewish Voices, which represents less than 0.56% of the Jewish population, to deny anti-Semitism and undermine mainstream Jewish organizations.
The problem is not a lack of laws; it is an enforcement failure. Openly pro-Hamas demonstrations featuring the propaganda of listed terrorist entities occur routinely because law enforcement is unwilling to act. This creates a two-tiered system of protection, forcing Jewish institutions to behave and secure themselves as targets of terrorism.
We urge this committee to treat this infiltration as both a human rights and a national security issue. Our recommendations are concrete: Mandate political neutrality in all federally, provincially and municipally funded crisis centres. The principle of “believe all women” must be universal. Investigate foreign extremist infrastructure, including organizations aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. Hold institutions accountable when their platforms are used to disseminate extremist messaging. Enforce the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. Criminalize the willful promotion of terrorist groups and terrorist activities, as stated in Bill C-257, or by amending Bill C-9. Clearly recognize slogans like “long live October 7th,” “globalize the intifada” and “rape is resistance” as hate speech towards Jews.
Jewish Canadians and Canadian women cannot be collateral damage in foreign ideological warfare. Protect Canadian women, protect the fundamental right of a minority to self-determination and uphold the integrity of our institutions.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you to all our presenters. We will now proceed to questions from senators. Senators, you have five minutes for your question, and that includes the answer.
Senator Arnot: My question is to Mr. Fisher. I would like you to describe how the Concentus Citizenship materials you talked about represent using and recognizing the power of education as a compelling tool to prevent anti-Semitism. In particular, I would like you to expound on the five competencies of Canadian citizenship: that all students should be ethical, enlightened, engaged, empowered and empathetic. How do you use that in your materials? Why do you believe it is so effective? Why do you say that there needs to be explicit, deliberate, purposeful and sequential education on these very issues starting in kindergarten right through to Grade 12?
Mr. Fisher: Thank you for the opportunity to expand on that because it is an important emphasis, that K to 12, the entirety of a student’s time in school, analogous to the way we regard English and math and classes like that which are always part of our learning continuum. Citizenship education needs to be that.
In my opening address, I applauded the provinces that are formally adopting Holocaust education into their curriculum. Manitoba recently officially made theirs released and is, you might say, in the classroom. There are a few grades throughout, I think Grades 6, 11, 12 — I may be mistaken — where that is an official part of the curriculum and will be part of their social sciences study. So nothing but good, and that is important, full stop. But there is also Grade 11, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1. That K-to-12 continuum is vital, in our mind.
You talked about the common citizenship competencies. These are the universal aspects of being a Canadian. They form the fundamental foundation for the resources that we have created that align with the curriculum so that a teacher is not being asked to do more, which is often a conversation-ender if you are talking with a teacher. By being aligned with the curriculum, this is helping them do what they already are required to do .
Senator Arnot: Mr. Fisher, I understand that these resources are aligned with the Ontario school curriculum, from K to 12, and the Saskatchewan school curriculum. Are they easily alignable with all the curricula in the 13 provinces and territories in Canada?
Mr. Fisher: Indeed. Within the last few years, we were able to — we began in Saskatchewan, created very robust K-to-12 resources specifically aligned with the existing social sciences curriculum. In partnership with the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies, we created the Ontario equivalent of that and deliberately made those more universal, because curriculum is always changing, albeit slowly. The resources and material that is now available at concentus.ca, if you don’t mind the plug, are absolutely free and available. They are licensed under Creative Commons so the teachers don’t need to worry about stepping on copyright infringement. So concentus.ca is where we have the Saskatchewan resources as well as the Ontario resources. And to more directly answer your question, senator, yes, our ambition is to take this universal set and ensure that it aligns with each province’s and territory’s education curricula.
Senator Arnot: Mr. Fisher, in terms of teacher needs, I know you know much about that. What are the things you think, for instance, Heritage Canada and Public Safety Canada could do, working with teachers in professional development, to really augment the experience of students in school through the professional development of teachers?
Mr. Fisher: Professional development for teachers is important, and understanding the delicacy of federal and provincial jurisdictions. Promoting and merely making teachers aware that these materials are available to them would be a very valuable effort by such a ministry.
Senator Arnot: Thank you.
Senator Housakos: My first question is for Ms. Cook. I have been around this country now for almost 60 years, and I always took for granted religious rights and privileges that we as Canadians had. I come from Montreal, probably the second-most diverse city in Canada, and I come from a particular riding, Saint-Laurent, which I think is probably one of the most ethnically diverse in the country. I have never seen a situation where anybody was offended at Christmastime or during the holiday season by having a menorah next to a Christmas tree, and I have never seen any particular conflict between temples in my riding and synagogues and churches. When an institution is as misguided as a university, a city hall or any other institution, to basically ban the Star of David, a cross, a menorah, a Christmas tree, isn’t that the largest infringement on our Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this country, and have we got to the point where our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not worth the paper it is written on and politicians just like to navel-gaze about how diverse we are?
Ms. Cook: On your last point, I would agree that there is sometimes a lot of navel-gazing about being diverse but not actually accepting diversity of opinion or diversity of thought. I have found at my institution that there is a lot of talk about how diverse and equitable they are, but when a student says, “Hey, can we add a menorah to this lovely display,” they blame her for taking it down and then take it down.
I also find that there is a push to make sure that you are not like the other Jews when you speak to administration or faculty. I’m very cognizant of the fact that I have to be very on top of all my religious observances because, if I am not, I worry about a student next to me or behind me who may be more observant than I am who now has to justify why the student who spoke to the news didn’t observe that holiday or didn’t behave in that way. I think that it’s profoundly unfair.
Senator Housakos: Thank you.
My next question is for Ms. Leighton. You have highlighted some very disturbing cases of displays of anti-Semitism and misogyny and you name it. We had witnesses come before this committee from an organization called IJV, a maple leaf rabbi, David Mivasair, who said, “Senator, all these anti-Semitic cases of schools being shot at, firebombed, Jews being beaten up in front of their children in the park is something — a figment of my imagination and grossly exaggerated.” I think you are Jewish. I think your organization is intimately involved in the Jewish community. What are your thoughts on those comments?
Ms. Leighton: I think I mentioned it in my brief that Independent Jewish Voices, or IJV, which, as I think you know, shares its mailing address with Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, or CJPME, is often trotted out to be the token Jewish organization by those who are actively allied against us and against the Jewish community and against fighting this crisis of anti-Semitism that we find ourselves in. That particular organization is anti-Zionist. Its whole objective is to erode the Jewish community’s ability to defend ourselves, to advocate for ourselves, by speaking in our names. It does more destruction to the Jewish community than virtually any other organization that I can think of. They certainly do not represent me. They do not represent the vast majority of the Jewish community. As I said in my brief, they represent 0.56% of the Jewish community, whereas at least 91% of Jewish Canadians will call themselves Zionists.
Senator Housakos: Thank you.
My last question is for Mr. Fisher. You talked about education, and I agree it is part and parcel of trying to fight xenophobia and ethnocentrism, but how about the fact that we are dealing with a world where revisionist history seems to be at a level we have never seen before, in addition with misinformation? How do we combat those two challenges?
Mr. Fisher: To simply reply with the word “education” I know sounds naive and simplistic, and no one would pretend that what they have is some sort of magic wand or silver bullet, but responsible education is ultimately the answer to all those issues you have referred to.
Senator K. Wells: My first question is for Ms. Cook. As a three-time graduate from the University of Alberta and as a former professor at that institution for over 20 years, I am deeply dismayed to hear about your experiences on campus. I wonder if you are finding from your experience where Jewish students are now forced to make different choices around the universities they are going to choose in Canada.
Ms. Cook: Yes, I have found that. I spoke to some incoming law students, and all of them said they were either regretting their choice or, when they talked to me, said, “Oh, no, I thought you were at a different university, and if I had known that they would behave like that, I wouldn’t have come here.” I think it is just very, very sad, because for all of the struggles I have had with the institution, there have been some incredible allies both in faculty and administration that I’m really grateful for.
Senator K. Wells: I’m glad you have been able to find some sources of support on campus.
I’m not sure how familiar you are with Bill C-9 that is being introduced in the House of Commons, and, as we speak, being debated. If you are familiar with Bill C-9, I wonder if the newly proposed intimidation and obstruction sections would help you, as a student, feel safer on campus.
Ms. Cook: I think there are some good parts with Bill C-9. In true law school fashion, I did take notes on different legislation. I am a bit concerned about 423.3(4), where you may obstruct for “the purpose only of obtaining or communicating information.” My concern is that if you’re communicating information about, say, a genocide or someone’s dislike of bacon or things such as that, that could be used to obstruct an institution and give them a bit cover on that. That would be my first-read pause.
Senator K. Wells: Thank you.
Mr. Fisher, I’m also an educator, and I share your belief in the importance of education and particularly what you’ve described as some of the materials that are happening in traditional K to 12 classrooms. What are your thoughts or any work you may be doing in your organization to address social media and the kind of education that’s happening outside of classrooms, often unsupervised, that deals with a lot of mis- and disinformation, and certainly where we seem to see more and more Holocaust denialism taking place.
Mr. Fisher: Indeed, media literacy is vital. A lot of curricula that is actually being used predates social media. Again, under that headline or banner of “media literacy,” that, too, is a vital aspect to it. When something exists that is powerful and effective, we are not going to reinvent a wheel that works well. As I referred earlier to the many very effective Holocaust education resources that exist, we will just direct teachers and students to that. So, too, with media literacy. There are some Canadian organizations that have very potent, very effective material for teachers to bring into their classrooms at very young grade levels as well. So a long answer to a short question. That, indeed, is an important aspect of citizenship education.
Senator K. Wells: Thank you.
If I could just follow up briefly, what are your thoughts on some governments in Canada that are placing restrictions and asking parents to opt their children into the curriculum in schools, and have you’ve come across that or do you have any concerns with that where students are not able to access information in their schools without parental consent and how that might apply to your curriculum?
Mr. Fisher: That is a delicacy that always exists there, a very fragile situation, and there are school divisions and jurisdictions where what you have described is the case. I wish it wasn’t like that. I wish responsible teachers were trusted with what they do. That is not something that we choose to challenge directly because, again, what a youngster learns at home and what they learn at school, it’s a fraught situation to put those in conflict with each other.
Senator K. Wells: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to all of our witnesses.
Mr. Fisher, you have already answered many questions that I had, but I believe you spoke about how reaction is important. I would like to hear a little more about that. When incidents arise, what are you teaching through the curriculum about how to deal with incidents in the schools? I believe that most of your work, though, is about prevention or proactive education, where you are looking at the prevention of the kinds of discrimination and hateful behaviours that we are talking about here. Could you talk about these two things?
Mr. Fisher: Yes, indeed. I think what you said is very correct.
In regard to responsiveness to an event, to an incident, to something like that, in the specific context of an anti-Semitic incident, which is far too common in our experience here in Saskatoon where I live, there are some very effective agents. We work closely with the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre, and we connect them with the schools. We have done that in recent years, where we connect the right resources to the right classrooms. That is dealing with a specific event or circumstance.
In the broader context, literally a set of resources that we aspire to develop and have drafts to create is what is referred to as “the day after pedagogy,” how a teacher can effectively engage with any kind of traumatic, or otherwise, news or public event that is going to be known to the students. There is nothing students aren’t discovering through their phones. Giving a teacher the tools to address or engage that in an effective, safe way is something that we feel needs to be developed.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
Ms. Cook, I’m really horrified at what you have experienced. Thank you for coming forward, as you have done repeatedly. We are thankful you are with us today. I’m interested in your first recommendation. Could you repeat it and unpack it a little more for us? That was the source of funding.
Ms. Cook: One of the things I started to do after October 7 is I started to use freedom of information requests at my university and other universities. One of the things I found very interesting was that there were a number of universities in Canada that had tuition levies for organizations or research groups that were at arm’s length removed from the institution but were funded by student tuition connected by the university.
One of those groups is at Carleton University. I think on their website they still note that they are allied with Samidoun, although I’m not sure if that website is up to date. If so, I find it deeply concerning that tuition money may be going to a now‑listed terrorist organization, but I haven’t been able to confirm how long that website has been up.
My concern is that, with my freedom of information requests and a bit of a grudge, that it is not something that can be sustainable long term. My hope would be that the Senate could use the power of calling for people, places and documents to look into that more and actually ask for the documents. When I use freedom of information with my institution, they come back completely black, and I ask where this money is going. Is that money tuition money? Is that money from foreign actors? Members of the media, such as Mr. Kinsella, have talked about foreign funding. Ms. Leighton has talked a bit about foreign funding as well.
I just don’t believe that a bunch of university students on their own had perfectly printed graphics within three days of October 7 happening. I have found some meeting minutes where they have actually talked about — I think on October 10, 2023, there was a meeting at the U of A, one of these tuition-funded but definitely not part of the U of A groups, where they were discussing, “Okay. Now we have to fight. This is our time to rally in support of Gaza.” This was before Israel had done anything. The bodies were not even cold on October 7.
Senator Arnold: Thank you all for being here for this important discussion.
I am new to the committee, so I have just spent the weekend reading through a lot of the past testimony. I was struck by one of the witnesses, Imran Ahmed, CEO for the Center for Countering Digital Hate. He said:
The result has been the normalization of hate against Jews. We are especially concerned by polling we commissioned showing that 14–17-year-olds are the age cohort most likely to believe anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in the U.S. and U.K.
Elsewhere in the testimony was reference to the radicalization of youth and that 10% of the radicalized people in Canada right now are youth.
Mr. Fisher, are you seeing this? Is that happening in Canada as well?
Mr. Fisher: I can’t speak to statistics. I can’t quote them to you the way I wish I could. It is likely that, as one goes, so the other, but I don’t have facts to substantiate that, as likely as it seems.
Ms. Leighton: I’m a parent of two children in the Toronto District School Board. That particular school board has certainly come under criticism for the kind of politicization that has occurred in the classrooms. It starts with the DEI framework that pits students as oppressed versus oppressor. It divides students into that binary where Jewish students are seen as White supremacist oppressors, which is cuckoo bananas. My Holocaust-surviving grandparents would be rolling in their graves to think that we’re now described as White supremacist colonizers versus students who are oppressed. All that does is maintain that binary and actually amplifies that hatred, institutionalizing the hatred and the binary between students. The TDSB has subsequently been taken over by a supervisor, but, before that, we saw a very activist school board of trustees who were bringing this into the classroom and a lot of politicization in the classrooms.
One of the campaigns that we certainly undertake is that the politics and indoctrination cannot occur in our kids’ classrooms. It’s bad enough that we have to fight TikTok, which is where a lot of that indoctrination and politicization is coming from. In the U.S., it has essentially been banned because there is absolutely no way to regulate the absolutely virulent anti-Semitism that is dressed up as cartoons and fun jingles on TikTok.
Senator Arnot: Thank you for that.
When I was reading through it, I was thinking about these young people and how they’re being used. Mr. Fisher, you talked about going to outside sources when it comes to social media. Do you have any concept of the education around that as far as critical thinking and teaching kids how they are being used in these situations?
Mr. Fisher: Indeed. And I don’t want my last reply to suggest that I was doubting what you were saying; it is quite the opposite. The influence of social media and its potential to radicalize is undeniable.
MediaSmarts is a Canadian media literacy organization that creates resources. At the heart of that, in addition to critical thinking and source verification, et cetera, is also being aware of the influencing effects that are often weaponized and wielded against youngsters. As I say, there is a range of resources, because it’s at an alarmingly young age where kids have their phones with them all day long.
The Chair: We’re now into second round, and given the time, we will have three minutes per question, please.
Senator Arnot: Mr. Fisher, building on the day-after pedagogy and in answer to Senator Coyle’s question, I believe Dr. Sherry Van Hesteren has worked carefully with the Concentus Citizenship Education Foundation to build mechanisms and tools to elicit what I will call difficult conversations in classrooms, being sensitive to the issues and doing it in a way that produces constructive results. I’m wondering if there is some specific intentional professional development along Van Hesteren model that would be helpful to teachers throughout Canada.
Mr. Fisher: That aspiration that I described earlier is very much a product of conversations and meetings with Dr. Van Hesteren. I would contend that she is probably a leading thinker in that space in Canada. We want to develop it. You might say that’s our next project — what we are aspiring to do — and we have the right people ready to create.
Senator Arnot: Mr. Fisher, do you feel that citizenship education, such as your organization’s model emphasizing empathy, ethical judgment and civic responsibility, might be helpful in assisting young people to recognize and reject anti‑Semitic narratives and have the confidence to stand up against those narratives?
Mr. Fisher: Yes, I very much do. Critical thinking — that phrase keeps recurring for a reason. It’s an essential core to it. Those citizenship competencies of being empathetic, an ethical thinker, being engaged and enlightened — we use the five “E”s as a mnemonic device, but they are the fundamentals to that. In the context of K to 12, the continual part of a student’s learning career, that is where the impact is possible.
Senator Arnot: Final question: How important is teacher training? What should governments do to require and ensure that educators are confidently identifying anti-Semitism and intervening in it appropriately when it’s seen in classrooms?
Mr. Fisher: That’s the area for a school division’s values, standards and practices. It needs to be articulated, and it often is. Flowing into that is making it part of the curriculum — Holocaust education, in particular — as a means of fighting anti-Semitism. That is —
The Chair: Sorry, Mr. Fisher. That is time. I need to move on so others can have time as well.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you, witnesses, for being here online and for making the effort to be here in person.
As someone who has spent a lot of time working to eliminate violence against women, I want to express the broadly shared concern around this table for what you and so many other Jewish women have been experiencing. Tomorrow is the beginning of 16 days of activism to eliminate violence against women, and occasions like this make it hard to hear what you and your families have been subjected to and what has been happening across the country. We know that there is a rise in anti-Semitism and that, in many cases, it is not recorded or well known.
I am going to direct my question to Mr. Fisher, but I certainly welcome a response from the others, if they wish. Mr. Fisher, I wonder if you could indicate what definition you use for “anti‑Semitism” and, in particular, are you using the one the Canadian government has adopted, generally known as the IHRA definition?
Mr. Fisher: Yes, that is the one we use as well.
Senator McPhedran: Based on what we’ve heard from some witnesses at this committee — and I’ll just name one, which is Professor Joshua Sealy-Harrington of the Windsor University Faculty of Law. I think it’s fair to say he expressed a concern on behalf of hundreds of academics in Canada that the definition actually opens up more risks for anti-Semitism because of the way it conflates Zionism with Jewish identity. Part of the concern that we heard expressed is this conflation actually shields Israel as a state from any accountability to universal standards of human rights and international law. I welcome your responses to that, Ms. Leighton.
The Chair: I will extend another 15 seconds so you actually have 30 seconds.
Ms. Leighton: Thank you.
The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism does not shield Israel from criticism at all. You can criticize Benjamin Netanyahu and the government of Israel all you want. What you cannot do, based on the IHRA definition, is deny Israel the right to exist and deny Jewish people self-determination in their ancestral homeland. That’s it. I have no trouble conflating Zionism with Jewish identity because we know — certainly here in Canada — that the vast majority, over 90% and probably closer to 97%, of the Jewish community in Canada will consider themselves Zionists.
Senator Housakos: This is a quick question directed specifically to Ms. Cook. Do you feel that public institutions, universities, governments and municipalities are letting down the Jewish people? I received videos last week of students, Jewish and non, at McGill University, in the middle of a class where they are being disrupted by protesters, and the protesters were being escorted around by security of the university. We have municipalities flying flags of a state that has never existed, to this day doesn’t exist, with no boundaries, no defined geography and no identity as a people. Do you think all these actions on the part of public organizations are fanning the flames of anti‑Semitism?
Ms. Cook: Yes. I also think there is an institutional coddling of people who have views that the administration agrees with. I went internationally viral. I was getting calls from all over the world. I was mentioned by name on major U.S. news syndicates. Later, when I read the Access to Information Act information, my administration was more concerned about other students and not concerned about my safety. They were more concerned about students that I may be calling out for being anti-Semitic.
Ms. Leighton: There is a total lack of law enforcement of these marauders who are on university campuses and on the streets of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. This lack of law enforcement, plus the statements made by faculty associations and unions, has created an environment of absolute permissiveness. It is socially acceptable right now to be an anti‑Semite.
Senator Housakos: The last question I have, for anybody who wants to take it, is that I believe all this nefarious behaviour on the part of public officials is just because of diaspora politics. I have never seen it before in this country to the degree I see it today. Mayors, premiers and prime ministers are playing diaspora politics while underestimating the power of hate that comes out of it.
Ms. Cook: As a Jewish student on a university campus, I did not conflate my menorah with Zionism; my institution did that when they chose not to put it up. I am a Canadian Jew. I am not Israeli. I asked to display a menorah. Because the institution was worried about showing support for Israel, they took the trees down instead of doing it. I did not conflate Zionists and Jews, they did.
Ms. Leighton: I think the actions of this government — I’m going to say something very unpopular — doing something like recognizing the State of Palestine and going against Canadian foreign policy that has existed for years, which is that we will recognize the state of Palestine when, and only when, there is a negotiated settlement, when there is a path toward democracy, countering that has opened up this Pandora’s box against Israel and against the Jewish community in Canada. I can’t understand. I’m not sure it has any impact on foreign policy or has any impact on what goes on in Israel or Gaza. It certainly doesn’t help the Palestinian people. All it does is open up the Jewish community to greater hatred, to greater targeting and to that kind of —
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Leighton.
Senator Coyle: I would like to ask Ms. Leighton two questions. I would like to know more about data that you may have to help us understand. I was upset with what you said about the rape crisis centres not being welcoming places for Jewish women. I would like to hear about that. If you could talk about the handbook you or your organization developed for students and how effective that has been and the uptake of that, I would love to hear more about that.
Ms. Leighton: The rape crisis centre in Toronto co-sponsored an event where they made posters for an anti-Israel, pro-Hamas rally. They also had a Take Back the Night protest. Personally, I remember being part of the very first Take Back the Night protest in the 1990s. I was there. I marched the streets in Toronto. I thought it was fantastic. I actually had to participate in a counter-protest this year because Jewish women were not welcome. Not only were we not welcome, but when we arrived at this Take Back the Night rally, there were masked men wrapped in keffiyeh whose whole objective was to intimidate the Jewish woman and keep us away from participating in the Take Back the Night rally. Now, if I’m a Jewish woman and, God forbid, I’m raped in Toronto, where do I go?
In terms of our outreach to students, this was a campaign we did last year. We tried to give them a sense of safety and some tools to advocate for themselves when they went back to campus. More than just the handbook, we created a sense of community. They know there are women who have their back and we will always have their back. I have so much admiration for students like Rachel, because it is tough out there right now. That kind of courage is extraordinary and exceptional. Anything we can do to support students like Rachel is an honour and a privilege.
Senator Coyle: I’m curious about allyship. It’s hard for some students to be allies. Are you finding some allyship from some non-Jewish students?
Ms. Cook: A lot of Christian students, including the Christian Legal Fellowship, have been incredible. I went viral, and my university went silent. I was getting personal emails from members of the Christian Legal Fellowship offering to walk me to class. No student should ever feel like they need to be put in that situation, but they were. I also have some amazing friends in the Indigenous Legal Society. Some of them told me they are Zionists and think that Israelis and Jews are indigenous to Israel.
While the minority of students are incredibly vocal and many students are feeling threatened by them — or they are silent — there are some brave — another minority — students willing to put their money where their mouth is and send emails and whisper support, but they don’t feel they would be safe if they said they were pro-Israel or even neutral because they would be targeted by people who hate Zionists and hate Jews and their allies.
The Chair: Thank you to all the witness for being here for our first panel, and to the senators for the questions and your responses to their questions. I would like to thank you for agreeing to participate in our study today. Your assistance with our study is greatly appreciated.
I will now introduce our second panel. Our witnesses have been asked to make an opening statement of five minutes each. This will be followed by questions from the senators.
With us via video conference, from Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights, we have Noah Lew, Director and Special Advisor to the Honourable Irwin Cotler. Also appearing by video conference — someone I have not seen for a while. Great to see you, Mr. Bronfman — Brian Bronfman, President and Co‑founder, Peace Network for Social Harmony.
We welcome you both, and I now invite Mr. Lew to make his presentation, to be followed by Mr. Bronfman.
Noah Lew, Director and Special Advisor to the Honourable Irwin Cotler, Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Three of the core principles of the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights are justice, human rights and democracy. Today, I will be speaking about how anti-Semitism poses a serious threat to all three.
First, anti-Semitism erodes human rights. Often described as the “canary in the coal mine” for all forms of hatred and intolerance, the spread of anti-Semitism weakens societal guardrails against discrimination and hate. This begins with failures to hold those who engage in anti-Semitism accountable, leading to it becoming socially acceptable and, ultimately, even commendable. This legitimization process — whereby discrimination and hate become normalized — corrodes our commitment to protecting human rights for all, which is especially dangerous for minority and vulnerable groups. For example, while Jews were the primary targets and victims of the Holocaust, Roma, LGBTQ+, people with disabilities and political dissidents all became victims of the Nazis as well.
Second, anti-Semitism undermines the rule of law. The core premise of the rule of law is that no one is above the law and all are equal before the law. This is undermined when perpetrators of anti-Semitism are allowed to act with impunity, even when they breach the Criminal Code, employment law standards or municipal bylaws. When this happens, those perpetrators are treated as above the law. At the same time, victims of anti‑Semitism are denied justice and thereby treated as unequal before the law. Together, this emboldens perpetrators and incentivizes further rule breaking and illegal conduct and causes observers to lose trust in law enforcement and the justice system.
Third, anti-Semitism is toxic to democracy. Anti-Semitism is a threat to good governance and social cohesion. When Jews become the scapegoat for all of the world’s problems, societies are prevented from addressing the true causes of those problems, and because anti-Semitism relies on falsehoods and disinformation, it obscures reality and biases decision makers, negatively impacting policy outcomes. This undermines trust in government and in one another.
Honourable senators, this is the reality that we face in Canada today. As you have heard from many other speakers, anti‑Semitism in Canada is no longer relegated to the political fringes but has become mainstream. It has become socially acceptable, even fashionable. To make matters worse, as anti‑Semitism becomes more socially acceptable, combatting it becomes less politically expedient. That is why I believe that you, as senators, are uniquely placed to help address this crisis.
Your report can and should be driven by good policy rather than politics. My four brief policy recommendations are as follows:
The first step is to define anti-Semitism. It is crucial that you use the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism — the most comprehensive, authoritative and universal definition that exists today. I encourage you to rely on the Canadian Handbook on the IHRA Definition — which I had the privilege to lead the drafting of — as your guide to understanding and using the definition.
Second, we need the right legislative tools to address anti‑Semitism, and they need to be consistently enforced. Bill C-9 is an important step in the right direction, and so are municipal bubble laws.
Third, to reverse the growing normalization of anti-Semitism, Canadian leadership must demonstrate a multi-partisan, consistent and unequivocal no-tolerance approach to anti-Semitic rhetoric and actions across the political spectrum.
Fourth and finally, your report will need to address the two‑way relationship between anti-Semitism and Israel: first, that what happens in Israel impacts anti-Semitism here in Canada; and second, that global institutionalized anti-Semitism shapes the world’s perception of Israel.
I look forward to elaborating on all of the above in response to your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lew.
Brian Bronfman, President and Co-founder, Peace Network for Social Harmony, as an individual: Thank you, honourable senators.
I would like to explain that while I am president of the Peace Network for Social Harmony, I would not claim to speak on its behalf, given that the organization is made up of 25 philanthropic foundations and companies who, at times, have differing opinions on political issues. The network does not involve itself in politics, focusing instead on practical solutions regarding issues in diversity and inclusion and violence prevention. I would also like to emphasize that I’m not an expert on anti-Semitism and will not cite statistics that you are aware of anyway.
Like the committee, though, I am extremely concerned by the alarmingly high, and increasingly so, levels of anti-Semitism in this country. I am not here to put that into question in any way.
What I do have and what I feel can make my contribution here worthwhile is experience in the grey areas, those where difficult conversations about controversial topics, such as genocide, terrorism and encampments actually take place. I have made a concerted effort throughout my career in mediation, dialogue, peace and even philanthropy to seek out opportunities to connect with others who have differences in their identities. I have been fortunate to meet so many people with diverse backgrounds who have an open heart, an open mind, curiosity and a vision of shared humanity. With this as a starting point, relationships have been built, generating mutual respect, an increasing recognition of common values and objectives, an understanding of where perspectives differ and why and, over time, the development of trust.
Once in these grey areas, you discover first that scores of people in each camp see themselves in very much the same way: as misunderstood and mischaracterized, and as victims of both media and government bias. You also see that those firmly ensconced in these camps are unable or unwilling to recognize or even to feel some degree of compassion for the other side’s pain. There are also intense pressures to adhere to your group’s narrative and not stray from your story of victimization at the hands of the other side, who is the villain or oppressor.
I have stood strongly against the scourge of anti-Semitism by doing what I can to link the fight against it to a vision of shared humanity and the fight against all forms of hatred. This, I believe, is the only effective way to combat anti-Semitism, given that Jewish people are already clearly aware, and to be simply complaining among ourselves has no real impact. We need the credibility of this universalist vision, and non-Jewish allies as well who see themselves in our struggle.
In taking this stance, I have had a surprising number of Jewish colleagues tell me that they are behind me 100% and that I need to keep up this effort. This support is usually whispered in my ear or sent through private emails, given the aforementioned community pressures. I also know for a fact that the same pressures exist for my Muslim friends and colleagues, including Palestinians, of course.
I think the committee would be interested that the Peace Network, with me as its key project person, has partnered with the lead organization PLEDJ, in the Solidarity Dialogues. This initiative uses a format that is both innovative and based on best practices to create spaces for brave and difficult conversations on divisive issues. The project has been running for about 16 months, during which time 19 leaders from academia, faith communities and civil society were trained in dialogue facilitation, from which multiple subsequent dialogue projects emerged.
The most significant of these for me personally has been a series of workshops that Dr. Amal Elsana Alhjooj and I have given to well over 200 McGill social work students, as well as a first group of law students, with each workshop incorporating an opportunity to dialogue around a difficult and divisive issue. The reaction from the students has been incredibly positive. Amal and I have seen first-hand how the experience of talking through difficult issues, including, at times, those related to Israel-Palestine, has been empowering, impactful and, oftentimes, a tremendous relief for students whose opportunity to engage has been stifled by a fearful university administration. While there have been moments of pain, discomfort and tears, these conversations have inevitably created the kinds of relationships among students that are based in deeper understanding, greater empathy and increased connection, all of which are sorely needed in these times of division and polarization.
Without the frame provided by the Solidarity Dialogues approach, such conversations would either not have happened at all or, even worse, would have been liable to increase the pain and the divide. The dialogue workshops bridge the gap between education and experience, which is incredibly valuable since experience is where real change occurs, not just in the mind but in the heart. After all, I believe that you cannot just legislate hate away. You need to find concrete ways based in experience that affect the individual at their core and lead to personal change.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you both for your presentations. We will now move to questions from senators.
Senator Arnot: Mr. Bronfman, I would like to know more about your bridge-building strategies and their effectiveness. I would like to know how you measure success, trust-building, incident reduction and participation. I would like to know what works with youth versus adults, and how scalable these interventions are that you have been promoting.
Mr. Bronfman: That is quite a series of questions, senator. I’ll do my best.
As far as scalable, I believe that this sort of work is applicable, scalable, as far as you can get resources and partners who are well placed to implement them. Right now, we are actually a small team and the funding is quite restricted, but we have had interest from other Canadian cities. I’m going to Vancouver in about two weeks to present about this, along with Amal and another colleague. There is interest in Winnipeg. I think that’s coming later on. We have people we may collaborate with in Toronto. There has even been some interest expressed internationally. We are far from getting there, but it is definitely highly scalable. I feel that these approaches are universal. They are not easy, though. All that being said, I don’t want to give a rose-coloured glasses impression that you can just sit people down and have these simple conversations around extremely difficult and divisive issues, but with the proper frame and the proper structure, you can certainly get somewhere, and it can lead to amazing personal change.
We have done most of the work with university students. What I found interesting — I made reference to it in my opening remarks — is that these students were really not given the opportunity to have these conversations. There seems to be a fear at the university level. These issues are extremely inflammatory, potentially. They are worrisome. But these students proved to me and my colleagues, Amal especially but also Patrice Brodeur from the University of Montreal, that with the right structures and the right framing — and we have a whole approach that involves connecting over common values, discussing what it looks like to have a safe and open conversation, what the keys are to creating that, and then having effective facilitation at work — that you can actually get somewhere and people can connect. As I said, there may be tears and there may be extreme discomfort but, in pretty much every case, it became a very satisfying conversation that we would not otherwise have had and that was well overdue, and the students have been incredibly appreciative for the opportunity.
Senator Arnot: Thank you very much.
Senator Housakos: Thank you to both of you gentlemen for being with us here this evening. I have two questions.
We’ve seen anti-Semitism, obviously. It’s an historical, ugly thing that has existed for a very long time, but nobody would have thought, in 2025, that we would see some of the ugliest examples happening in Canada on our campuses and in our streets and communities. What do you think are some of the catalysts that have brought us to this particular point after what seems to me to be 50 years, more or less, of relative peace compared to the last couple of years?
My second question is more fundamental. We have already had hate laws in the Criminal Code for a very long time. They seemed to be more than adequate in helping us fight back against hate of all kinds, like linguistic hate and religious hate. We are a very diverse society. Why, all of a sudden, are those hate laws no longer effective to combat the degree of anti-Semitism we are seeing?
Mr. Lew: First, to your question about anti-Semitism rearing its ugly head in this way and of this magnitude at this time, part of the cause is simply the passage of time. We are now 80-plus years out from the Holocaust. After that, many people understood and learned the very hard way about the dangers of anti-Semitism and the dangers of anti-Semitic rhetoric and incitement. Unfortunately, recent generations are starting to forget those lessons. It is quite telling that anti-Semitism in these days — this was spoken about earlier today — is especially prominent among young people. On the same note, another issue facilitating the spread of anti-Semitism at an unprecedented pace is social media, where it is easy to spread disinformation to the masses with the click of a button and with total anonymity. Together, those two factors are helping contribute to the mass spread of anti-Semitism today.
Senator Housakos: How about the second question in terms of the Criminal Code and the hate laws we already have on the books? Why do we need Bill C-9? Why do we need to revisit the Criminal Code when it seemed to work as it was for many years? Why is it not working any longer?
Mr. Lew: Bill C-9 is helpful in filling gaps. The sort of hate that we are seeing in the streets may be of a different type and, in a sense, may have more of a mob-like quality than we’ve seen previously. It is also true that there were already laws on the books that could have been used to deal with some of this hate, but we’ve seen a lack of leadership, whether it be political leadership or among law enforcement or prosecutors or the judiciary. We have seen a lack of leadership in employing all of the tools they have at their disposal. I think the problem is both that of certain gaps in legislation, which hopefully Bill C-9 will help fill, and also a lack of leadership at the top, which frankly enables police officers on the front lines and prosecutors to inadequately apply the rules on the books.
Mr. Bronfman: I agree very much with what Mr. Lew said. An additional factor as to why things are getting worse is the political trends. There has been a normalization and empowerment of divisive voices and the use of divisive politics in order to gain power and maintain power in multiple states around the world. That has raised voices and made people less hesitant or fearful to express various types of racism, including, of course, anti-Semitism.
To slightly repeat what I said in my opening remarks, laws have a role, of course, but to make fundamental changes, you need to touch people’s hearts. I don’t think anyone’s heart gets changed by reading a law or having it read to them or thrown in their faces or whatever, no matter how valid that law may be. It takes that personal experience, that connection, that opportunity to exchange and challenge each other, perhaps, but at least to have that face-to-face conversation where you can start to understand where the other person is coming from. You can get their perspective. You may agree or disagree, but through that kind of human connection, that is where personal change can take place and where laws become no longer needed and where society becomes more harmonious once again. We need to find those opportunities. I have always tried to find those opportunities for myself, which perhaps is why I am here and why I do the work I do. I feel really fortunate. I would love to find and create as many of those opportunities as possible for others.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bronfman.
Senator K. Wells: My first question is for Mr. Lew. I wanted to give you a further opportunity to expand on your thoughts on Bill C-9 and also the municipal bubble zone legislation that some cities in Canada have passed. Do you see these as being effective in addressing anti-Semitism and other forms of hate?
Mr. Lew: Those are definitely a step in the right direction. They are trying to address issues that we’ve seen increasingly arising with protests and intimidation and harassment in front of places of worship and schools and other community centres. Those bubble zones are certainly steps in the right direction. I think Bill C-9 could be buttressed with a Criminal Code provision on the promotion of terror but, otherwise, Bill C-9 is a very helpful step, as is bubble legislation.
Senator K. Wells: Do you have suggestions for legislation that would address the rise in online hate that we’re seeing?
Mr. Lew: Yes. One proposal that I have heard and that would be helpful is to prevent people from operating behind a shield of anonymity. Many problems arise because people are allowed to spew hate without attaching any name or persona to that. It is a lot harder to spread that hate when you are face to face. It is closer to the town square model that we used to have once upon a time.
Another helpful step, which I know has been explored on X, formerly known as Twitter, is identifying where people are posting from. This is something we can talk about. The issue of anti-Semitism and, frankly, other forms of hate and disinformation are also intertwined with foreign interference. A lot of these campaigns involve autocratic nations that are seeking to effectively destabilize liberal democracies by using anti‑Semitism and other disinformation campaigns. That would be another helpful step.
Senator K. Wells: Great.
My next brief question is for Mr. Bronfman. Paulo Freire, the great Brazilian educator, talks about education as a form of humanization, which aligns well with how you have described your program. Based on some of your comments about the rise of populism, attacks on minorities and the political opportunism that is feeding some of this, do you have thoughts or is your program working to address this hate as it manifests online when we’re not face-to-face or in person, to focus on the piece that is missing instead of the polarization that happens online, the need for the humanization?
Mr. Bronfman: It is interesting you mention Paulo Freire because he is one of the influences to this approach. The whole ideas of solidarity with dialogue involving elements of power structures and giving voice to those who are marginalized are very much in that. I appreciate you mentioning him. He is a huge influence.
As far as online, we do not have an online component to the program. It’s interesting when you mentioned online. I’m not staying there couldn’t be online components, but Philanthropic Foundations Canada had an online dialogue not too long after the events of October 7 for members of philanthropic communities around the country. I did take part in that. It was a good experience and it was very well facilitated. The groups that did that did a tremendous job. But there is a big difference between in-person and online when you are trying to dialogue. It is hugely advantageous, in my opinion, to do this work face to face.
Senator K. Wells: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to our witnesses today.
Mr. Lew, I want to get you to first repeat your fourth recommendation.
Mr. Lew: The fourth recommendation was, effectively, that I think there should be a better understanding of the two-way relationship between anti-Semitism and Israel, the first way being that what happens in Israel impacts what happens here in Canada, and we’ve seen that with a massive spike in anti‑Semitism since October 7, and we also saw that since May of 2021 with the war between Hamas and Israel. The second was that anti-Semitism has an impact on how people view Israel globally and how institutions treat Israel globally.
Senator Coyle: I want to unpack both of those things because it relates somewhat to the definition of anti-Semitism that you had a hand in developing, the handbook that the Canadian government is using. I think I understand your first point, and I agree with you that anti-Semitism in Canada rises when Canadians see what they consider injustices perpetrated by the State of Israel taking place on the ground in places like Gaza or the West Bank. Is that your first point?
Mr. Lew: Yes, exactly. That’s effectively it. There is a causal relationship there.
Senator Coyle: I think that is something we all notice and observe. I’m just wanting to make sure I understand. As you know, there is some criticism of the definition. Part of the criticism of the definition that you have suggested we use is that it conflates the religion Judaism with the State of Israel. Can you speak to that?
Mr. Lew: Yes, I can.
What I think you may be alluding to is that people, as one example, say that the IRHA definition prevents criticism of Israel. I think it’s worth noting that the IRHA definition expressly says that criticism of Israel — similar to that levelled against any other country — is not anti-Semitic. That is actually expressly part of the definition. That is really important because that helps distinguish between criticism of Israel — which is entirely legitimate, as is criticism of Canada or any other nation, and which might include criticism of the Israeli government and Israeli government policies which might be entirely legitimate — versus criticism of Israel that crosses a threshold into what could be discriminatory. That would be the sort of criticism of a magnitude and severity or type that you don’t see with other nations. An example of that might be that we can criticize the current government of the United States, and many people do, but in doing so, they, in anything I have ever seen, never say that the United States should be destroyed or has no right to exist, but that is something we see with Israel. That would distinguish.
To answer in better depth, I think the IRHA definition does a good job of addressing both this modern form of anti-Semitism as it relates to Israel and the more classical forms of anti-Semitism. Some of the examples address more classical forms and some address more modern forms. Those modern forms tend to intersect with Israel as the Jewish state.
Senator Coyle: Those are examples six, seven, eight and so on. That is probably where some people are finding some difficulty.
Mr. Lew: I think that’s right. If you look at the IRHA definition’s examples, the first half tends to be more classical examples of anti-Semitism and the second half would be more what is considered contemporary forms of anti-Semitism. Many of those do have to do with targeting the State of Israel as sort of the new iteration of the Jewish collective. In ways that Jewish communities were previously targeted, now we see the State of Israel as a representation of that Jewish collective being targeted.
Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Thank you to our witnesses for giving us of your time this evening.
I want to begin with a question to you, Mr. Bronfman, and I want to put it in context of being an independent senator from Winnipeg, Manitoba. The value of philanthropy and leadership for human rights is probably best demonstrated by the Canadian Museum for Human Rights which would not exist but for the philanthropy of Israel Asper and his daughter Gail Asper in particular.
In your work in the leadership of the Peace Network, which is really a federation of organizations, I’m really impressed with your emphasis on the Sustainable Development Goals, especially Goal 16 for peace, justice and strong institutions. A previous witness to this committee raised questions about whether the time for DEI is over and whether it’s appropriate in this current environment. I wonder if you could comment on that, please.
Mr. Bronfman: Thank you, senator.
I would not agree with that at all, of course. I think that diversity really needs to be recognized as something that is hugely enriching to our lives. It provides ideas, culture and joy. The diversity we live in Canada, I believe, contributes tremendously to our nation and definitely contributes tremendously to my life. I appreciate it very deeply.
The idea of inclusion is to go beyond the fact. Diversity is sort of a fact. Inclusion is going beyond that and including it. I believe that the idea of making sure that those who come from diverse backgrounds are included, feel belonging and get respect and have the opportunity — which is equity — to lead lives that allow them to reach their full potential, how could that be something that has passed? I just don’t see that at all, frankly. It is crucial to our values, to our country and the well-being of all of us and for our future.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
Mr. Lew, please convey to the Honourable Irwin Cotler how much we miss him in Parliament.
Members of this committee have heard from scholars, specifically Professor Joshua Sealy Harrington from University of Windsor Faculty of Law, but also we’re well aware of the letters signed by over 650 academics in this country questioning the use and the adoption by the Canadian government of the IHRA definition and arguing that it in fact opens up risk for more violent anti-Semitism by conflating Zionism and Jewish identity. These academics have expressed the concern that it actually is this conflation which contributes to undermining the global struggle against anti-Semitism by shielding the State of Israel from accountability to universal standards of human rights and international law. I would just also reference the letter that was sent to Israel signed by Irwin Cotler and many other prominent Jewish leaders across the globe raising great concern about the State of Israel and the use, for example, of starvation as a methodology. In that context, I wonder if you could just say a bit more to us about where you see the strengths of the IHRA definition and whether you have any concerns.
Mr. Lew: I’ll start by saying that Professor Cotler actually asked me this, and I would be remiss if I didn’t say that he asked me to pass along his best wishes to you and to the other senators here today. He wishes he could be here as well.
I’m glad you mentioned the letter because not everyone may know that Professor Cotler played a personal hand in the formation of the IHRA definition, along with Nobel Peace laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel and many others. When they drafted the definition, as I spoke about earlier, they were very careful to distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel of the sort in that letter that you referred to that Professor Cotler signed, among many others, which is entirely legitimate. We at the Raoul Wallenberg Centre believe that Israel should be held accountable for any breaches of international law, like any other country. That’s very important, and again, I spoke a bit earlier about this. The IHRA definition, in saying that criticism of Israel similar to that level against any other nation is not anti-Semitic, expressly helps to set the parameters for actually a healthy dialogue of the type that we want to promote in a democracy like Canada’s and draws the line between that and the sort of rhetoric that is incendiary, delegitimizing, dehumanizing and actually leads to increasing hate and is really toxic, not only to having healthy debate but also to democracy as a whole.
I really don’t have concerns about how the IHRA definition draws that line. I actually think the IHRA definition, used properly, can help promote healthy debate on this topic of the type that we want to see in a democracy, while also preventing the sort of incitement that leads to real world harms and violence as we’re seeing today.
The Chair: We will now start the second round of questions.
Senator Arnot: Mr. Lew, how does the Raoul Wallenberg Centre conceptualize modern anti-Semitism as a human rights issue? Secondly, are you aware of countries with best practices, any international best practices, that are successful in fighting anti-Semitism that Canada could adopt or mechanisms that Canada could adopt from others?
Mr. Lew: Those are great questions.
I’ll start with your latter question with respect to best practices. The first example that comes to mind to me is Lord John Mann, who has been a special envoy for combatting anti‑Semitism in the United Kingdom and has had a lot of success — this is top of mind because we’re speaking about the IHRA definition. He has had a lot of success working with universities in the United Kingdom. I know there are a lot of concerns that we have heard in Canada and at this committee in terms of the IHRA definition and how it can be applied in academic spaces. That’s something that has been managed really well in the United Kingdom, so that’s something that I would encourage we look into.
Sorry, I will actually get you to repeat your initial question.
Senator Arnot: How does the centre conceptualize modern anti-Semitism as a human rights issue?
Mr. Lew: Right. I would start by saying that just in terms of how the centre looks at what anti-Semitism is, it would be relying on the IHRA definition. In terms of how it sees anti‑Semitism as a human rights issue, it would look at it, in part, through the lens of international law. We have international legal instruments like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ICCPR, which address religious freedoms. Anti‑Semitism is certainly a threat to religious freedoms. The way that we’re seeing it play out in Canada today would be a threat to freedom of compression for those Jewish people who are expressing opinions that are linked to their Jewish identity. So really, we would look at it through the lens of those international instruments and also through charter rights and how it’s manifesting in a way that’s detrimental to people being able to express their identities and practise their religion in Canada and around the world today.
Senator Arnot: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: I would like to ask a question of Mr. Bronfman. I’m fascinated with the work that you’re doing. It sounds extremely effective and constructive. You mentioned that it has been fairly limited in scope but that there is interest in it across the country. I really agree with you that this connection and bridging that gap between education and experience is what is so powerful, and feeding both the mind and the heart is what we need when we’re dealing with things like anti-Semitism that really to me defies the rationale. I’m curious about maybe the Peace Network or other networks or organizations you may be connected with, maybe even Mr. Fisher’s organization that we just heard about that teaches about citizenship in the schools. I would like to know whether there is any more thought on the scaling up of this because I think it is a very valuable thing that you’re doing.
Mr. Bronfman: I very much appreciate your support, senator. It’s really kind. It gives me a good feeling, and it’s very encouraging.
I would say that no one can do this work at a large scale without partners, and already the Peace Network is partnering with PLEDJ. PLEDJ is actually the lead organization. As I mentioned, I’m the key person from the Peace Network doing this work. I’m both president of the network and I do all the fundraising and I do certain projects. It keeps me busy to help run the philanthropic foundation, but at any rate. It certainly takes the power of multiple organizations. I think the fact that, for example, I am a Jewish man who works extremely closely with a Palestinian woman, given our shared values and objectives and our joint desire to see a more united and harmonious Canada, can be really inspiring. That happened naturally, by the way. I have known Amal for 20 years, but we became close maybe 10 years ago and started to work together 5 years ago, and all of a sudden October 7 happened. It was like, okay, what we’re seeing around us needs to change. There is only so much we can do within the region, but at least in our own society and in the streets of Montreal, we need to do what we can to stand up and say that this is not acceptable and civil society rejects this kind of hatred. We are both in favour of self‑expression, but not self-expression that either calls for or celebrates violence. There has to be limits, even though that self‑expression is much needed.
There are other organizations. We know a group in Toronto that also involves a Jewish and Palestinian pairing that is doing similar work. I did not know Mr. Fisher’s group.
As much as I believe very strongly in what we are doing — I’m glad that you do as well — I think that it needs to come from multiple angles. It needs to be a whole-of-society approach. There is room for laws. There is room for religious observation. There is room for education, of course. But there also does need to be that experience. It is going to take everybody working together, coalescing around those shared values and those shared objectives, to create those spaces and opportunities where, again, minds are changed. People are stopped from doing the wrong thing, perhaps, by legislation, but hearts actually change as well. There is a feeling of understanding, of empathy and of connection that does not exist right now in a lot of cases.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
The Chair: I would like to sincerely thank our witnesses for agreeing to participate in this important study today. Your assistance with our study is truly appreciated.
We now come to the third and final panel for the day. For the benefit of our witness, I will ask my colleagues to reintroduce themselves before we begin.
I’m Senator Paulette Senior, from Ontario, and chair of the Human Rights Committee.
Senator McPhedran: Welcome, ambassador. I’m Senator Marilou McPhedran, from Manitoba.
Senator Coyle: Welcome, ambassador. I have met you before with our Foreign Affairs colleagues. Mary Coyle, from Nova Scotia.
Senator Arnold: Welcome. Dawn Arnold, from New Brunswick.
Senator Robinson: Good evening. Mary Robinson, from Prince Edward Island.
Senator Downe: Percy Downe, from Charlottetown.
Senator K. Wells: Kristopher Wells, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Housakos: Leo Housakos, Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Arnot: David Arnot, Saskatchewan.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
I will now introduce our final witness, who is with us in person at the table today: His Excellency Iddo Moed, Ambassador, Embassy of Israel to Canada. A warm welcome to you. I now invite you to make your opening statement of five minutes. Following this, we will turn to questions from our senators.
His Excellency Iddo Moed, Ambassador, Embassy of Israel to Canada, as an individual: Thank you very much, Ms. Chair.
Honourable senators, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today regarding the rise of anti-Semitism in Canada.
I appear before you today in witness to a troubling resurgence across this land, one that reiterates the bleakest chapters of our shared history. In recent years, Canada has experienced a renaissance of violence and violent acts that target Jews for the crime of simply being Jewish: synagogues fired upon, bombed and set ablaze across the land, a father assaulted before the horrified eyes of his children, a woman stabbed in the nation’s capital while shopping for groceries. The list is long and terrible, as these are by no means isolated incidents. According to the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, CIJA, the Jewish community of Canada has now become the victim of 70% of all religion-motivated hate crimes in this country.
The late Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said:
Antisemitism is the hardest of all hatreds to defeat because, like a virus, it mutates . . .
We don’t hate Jews, they said in the Middle Ages, just their religion. We don’t hate Jews, they said in the nineteenth century, just their race. We don’t hate Jews, they say now, just their nation state.
Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney described anti‑Semitism as a “noxious social cancer” and the “world’s oldest hatred.”
Anti-Semitism is not a threat to the Jewish community alone. It is a symptom of that deeper social cancer that Brian Mulroney identified. It represents a blight upon society that threatens the most basic and inalienable human rights that all free peoples aspire to. It necessitates not only resilience from Jewish communities, but it also demands uncompromising attention and dedication to its identification and eradication.
Israel’s approach to combatting anti-Semitism is broad and manifold.
First, the government must champion cross-cutting, multi‑layer collaboration, both nationally and internationally, recognizing that governments, civil society and technology partners must act in concert to effectively disrupt the spread of hatred.
Second, a robust legal framework is essential. Legislation must be drafted and enforced, with the justice system performing a central role in the protection of vulnerable communities and in upholding equality under the law.
Third, technology must be applied to monitor the digital domain where anti-Semitic rhetoric proliferates, ensuring that our responses are as agile and adaptive as the threats we face.
Fourth, as Israel does, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, IHRA, definition of anti-Semitism must be adopted as our point of departure. This globally recognized framework guides our efforts in raising awareness, in improving data collection and in shaping policy responses.
Finally, to combat the ignorance that fuels anti-Semitism, a commitment to the pooling of resources and data — sharing experiences, best practices and integrating monitoring — enables us to address both immediate risks and the underlying factors driving intolerance.
The surge of anti-Semitic rhetoric and violence at home here in Canada, with their reprehensive characteristics and insidious forms that strike at the heart of the individual as well as group rights and freedoms and the institutions dedicated to uphold them, remains a stark reminder that tackling anti-Semitism is not only about safeguarding Jewish life and dignity but is a commitment to defending democracy itself, to fortifying social cohesion and to ensuring the fundamental and incontrovertible rights of all. When we combat anti-Semitism, we do so for the integrity of our society and for the safety of all its citizens so that the blight of hatred does not spread.
Sadly, the sentiment universally expressed to me by Canadian Jews from coast to coast to coast is one of abandonment and harrowing testimonies of intimidation, harassment and unadulterated hate. As the representative of the Jewish State, I offer them not only my and my nation’s sympathies and moral support, but also our encouragement to stand up to and call out hatred and speak truth to lies in the fight against the rising scourge of anti-Semitism in this country.
In this vein, I propose the following recommendations.
First, to develop and disseminate, in collaboration with Yad Vashem, the World Holocaust Remembrance Center, educational programming targeting all age groups and administrative levels, including law enforcement, that focuses on the identification of sources of hate and racism within our communities.
Second, to broadly adopt the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism to consolidate and streamline policies to recognize and combat anti-Semitism across institutions and government bodies.
Third, to monitor online hate speech and hate-related misinformation.
In all these things, it is imperative that we recognize that combatting anti-Semitism is a Canadian responsibility, not just a Jewish one, and that courageous and committed Canadian leadership is required to take up that fight at all levels.
Consider the following statement made recently by the Honourable Arif Virani, former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada:
It takes leadership at all levels of society to stop antisemitism. We must stand against it, whenever and wherever it emerges. The safety and social cohesion of our communities depend on it.
Israel’s Foreign Minister, Gideon Sa’ar, similarly recently warned about the resurgence of global anti-Semitism, fuelled by modern blood libels and anti-Israel narratives. On viewing the recent footage of the Jewish Canadian man beaten before the eyes of his son in the streets of Montreal, he had this to say:
These are images reminiscent of dark periods of Jewish persecution.
This is appalling.
The Canadian government must do more to fight antisemitism!
Canada can no longer allow a culture of anti-Semitism born of prejudice, ignorance and evil to grow and to thrive within its boundaries and without. To live in peace and without fear from the consequences of hate are inalienable human rights for all people. These values are Canadian values, not just for portions of its population but for all its peoples. Let us uphold those values.
I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We will now proceed to questions from senators. You have five minutes for your question, and that includes the answer.
Senator K. Wells: Thank you, ambassador, for taking the time to be here with us on this important issue.
I want to focus on the third recommendation and the online space you mentioned. I wonder if you could speak to how you see social media platforms and, particularly, what I like to call the “angry algorithms” that have been contributing to the rise of anti-Semitism.
Second, in Israel, is there legislation to combat online hate or other forms of hate-related crimes? Are there any lessons we can learn in the Canadian context from what is happening with the government in Israel?
Mr. Moed: Thank you for your question, senator.
To answer your second question, we have legislation in Israel that is relevant to what is spread from sources within Israel, but I think what we are looking at is international collaboration. The issue with online is that, very often, the source of the spread of misinformation and disinformation is across the border where our jurisdiction, of course, has no meaning. When we are talking about collaboration, that is exactly what we are talking about in the sense of digital media.
Israel is now the president of the IHRA, and one of the projects we are trying to pursue is to connect legislation around the issue of the online spread of misinformation and disinformation, particularly the issue of spreading anti-Semitism and hate. It is very complicated and difficult, first, because it is difficult to streamline legislation across borders, and second, because the main players, technology companies, are less inclined to cooperate. It is the algorithm that actually drives their success, and, very often, the algorithm is prone to violence, hateful messaging and so on. You try to attract viewers to look at the screen for more than three seconds, and we know that is usually with very graphic and emotional stuff. So that’s a very complicated issue to deal with.
When we are talking about international collaboration, one of those topics is to try to come together to deal with the technology players and try to implement any kind of understanding with them, because that is not about legislation but actually trying to enforce regulations that will make sure that online hate is not spread. The European Union has been very successful with that in the past when it comes to protecting privacy. They have come up with international regulations that actually work very well and are exemplary in that sense. We need a similar kind of coalition to deal with the spread of hateful messaging, especially when it comes to discrimination, racism and anti-Semitism, in particular. Our effort is to combat that. In Israel, we have an understanding of what is spread in Israel, but we know that that is a fraction of what is going on around the world.
Senator K. Wells: Thinking about your answer regarding the online world and the challenges and the work happening there, what about in the classrooms in schools? How are you addressing this misinformation and disinformation? We see a lot of Holocaust denialism, particularly online. Are there particular educational strategies in place that you think would be relevant to our issues here in Canada?
Mr. Moed: Our experiences are different. A visit to Yad Vashem is part and parcel of our education system, both in school and also during mandatory military service. We all have to fully understand what we are talking about when talking about the Holocaust. There are school programs in place. But it is very different than Canada. I can hardly say anything from Israel can be adopted here in that sense. What we do have, for example, in Yad Vashem are education programs where teachers from around the world come to see what Israel has to offer in terms of packages for schools. Teachers have come from Canada and attend those courses during summertime, and those have proven very successful. My suggestion would be to find a way to amplify that. We can definitely be facilitators in this and bring those programs to Canada with Yad Vashem instructors and talk about that on a bigger scale.
Senator Housakos: Thank you, ambassador, for being here with us tonight.
Here in Canada, the whole process of nation building has relied heavily on social peace. Right now, for the first time in my lifetime, I have seen social peace in the most precarious of circumstances where we have failed Canadians of Jewish faith. There are two questions I have.
There have been a number of people who argue that October 7 has precipitated this growth of anti-Semitism in Canada, but we have always had geopolitical conflicts that affected this country directly or indirectly. We have had Armenia at war with Azerbaijan, ethnic cleansing in Artsakh, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and we have had Türkiye occupying northern Cyprus illegally for decades. But I don’t recall Turks and Greeks ever fighting in the streets, or Azerbaijanis going to Armenian churches and threatening them in Canada, and vice versa. I don’t see fighting in the streets between Ukrainians and Russians. It has been uniquely plowed upon Canadians of Jewish faith.
In Western democracies and our allies and friends, there are many who claim that Canada is very porous and has fallen under the influence of the Islamic brotherhood and that foreign interference is much more prevalent right now in Canada than most other democracies. I would like your comment on that.
My second question is: Where would Canada fall compared to other countries in the world, in your opinion, in terms of fighting anti-Semitism?
Mr. Moed: Thank you very much, senator, for these questions.
With your permission, I’ll tell you a story, a personal experience I had relating to the issue of how anti-Semitism is connected to Israel and its being. During my career, I had an opportunity to meet with a high-level official in an Arab country, in the Gulf. At that time, we didn’t have official relations. We met, and he told me that he once saw a picture of an Israeli fighter jet, an F-16, flying over Auschwitz. He said, “You have such a strong military. You don’t need that strong military. You can beat all the Arab armies easily. You don’t need that.” But he said to me, “When I saw that picture, I got to understand what you are talking about when you say ’never again’. You have to have your security in place. You have to feel strong to mitigate any kind of threat.”
It was striking because it was somebody who, as far as I know, never interacted very much with Israelis or Jews, but he was able to put himself in my shoes. He wanted to do that because he felt we should grow closer to build trust among ourselves. It was striking because of his curiosity and his ingenuity. He really wanted to get an understanding of where I am coming from. It is a completely different world where he is. So when we are talking about social cohesion, in this case, I found somebody who was really interested in understanding where I come from.
I met, just this weekend, a representative from an Arab country, and I got the same sense. We don’t agree on many things, but there is an interest in understanding where I come from and why I do what I do and say what I say. This is what is necessary for us to live in a society that tolerates each other. We don’t have to love each other, but we have to respect each other and tolerate.
When I see the Muslim Brotherhood and the like spreading their vehement hate, that venom, that is very troubling. We see it around the world. We know that if we don’t stand up to that and educate people to look in the eyes of others and try to put themselves in their shoes, then we lose the battle for a free and tolerant society.
Where is Canada? That’s a very tough question. Israel is holding Canada to a very high standard, the same way that Canada holds Israel to a very high standard. The last few years — especially after October 7 — we have seen more and more incidents. Those incidents are very quickly reported in Israel because there is an interest and an expectation for Canada to prevent that. The question that always comes with that information about the incident is: What is being done about that? I think that my duty here tonight is to highlight what I quoted from our foreign minister, who says, “We expect Canada to do more on that.” It is not a question of where Canada stands in the global scale; it is where our two countries see each other. This is what I would like to stress here tonight.
Senator Arnot: Thank you, ambassador.
Sir, how do anti-Semitic trends in Canada compare with other countries internationally? As you know, I’m a strong believer in the power of education. I like your recommendation concerning Yad Vashem and that partnership with education institutions in Canada, maybe with Heritage Canada and Public Safety Canada. I would like you to comment on that, and then I have some follow-up questions.
Mr. Moed: I think we see, especially after October 7, trends that are quite similar to other parts of the world, especially the Western world, where very strong language is used against the Jewish state. That is, in our eyes, a continuation of the same type of anti-Semitism, but perhaps a mutation of that. It is the same language that attacks Jews, Jewish institutions and anything that resembles or is connected to the Jewish community. That is the difficult part. Having criticism against Israel is fine. Of course, it’s not fine, but it’s part of the game. Against the Israeli government and policies, that’s fine, but when it comes to attacking Jews here, that’s very troubling. When I hear that a teacher, whom I met, is about to be thrown out of her teachers’ union just because she supported Israel on October 7, I think this is appalling and troubling.
We see similar trends, but some of the things I have witnessed here are mind-boggling. I was born in Holland and grew up partially in Holland. My parents are Dutch, and they both survived the Holocaust as small children. To me, speaking about anti-Semitism is a life mission. When I first became a diplomat in Holland and travelled to one of the transition camps used in World War II and met a group of young Germans who came to do some repair work, I told them that I came by train, just like my mother 65 years earlier. It was a sort of closure for me at that moment but also a realization we have to keep fighting against anti-Semitism. I had an argument with my father at that time. I said, “These young Germans are here doing repair work, so we are in a new situation, a new world, and anti-Semitism is subsiding.” But unfortunately, he was right. He said, “It’s not going to end, and you have to keep fighting against it.” We see today what happened. Especially after October 7, we see the rise in that, which is exponential, and this is very troubling.
Senator Arnot: Ambassador, you are in touch with Jewish Canadians. We are hearing that they feel abandoned and that they feel vulnerable and unsafe in the streets, synagogues and communities. It is disheartening to hear that, but it is absolutely true. It seems to me the federal, provincial and territorial political leaders and university presidents are not really standing up the way Canada expects them to stand up. These are strong principles of democracy that are under attack, yet the leaders who profess strong Canadian democratic values don’t seem to be standing up here. I’m reminded of the Supreme Court of Canada case in 2013 on hate speech, a unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada where the court clearly said, “This is not up to Jewish Canadians; it is up to all Canadians because these are fundamentally attacks on our own democracy and our own safety.”
Mr. Moed: I’m a visitor here, a guest. I feel very welcome, but I’m a guest. In that perspective, as a guest and especially as a diplomat, it is not for me to criticize, but I met with the president of a university who is not Jewish but who was actually personally attacked in an anti-Semitic way, let’s say, very clearly. I will not go into details. He told me that his complaint is about the need for him to increase the security costs for the institution, and I didn’t hear him talk about the Jewish students and protecting them. It was said earlier that one of the things we expect — and there are people here in this room who do that this — is that when something happens, you go and you stand next to the people who are attacked. You tell them, “If you are attacked, I’m attacked.” This is what we are talking about, this kind of courage. It is not criticism, because Canada is a different place. It is a different world.
I would suggest that, in my mind, the world is changing so fast, so quickly, that we have to understand. At least, that’s what we see in our part of the world, that we have to adapt to those new changes, and it requires us to act and to speak out and to stand for the values, actively. And I know it is hard. I know it is hard for the Jewish community to do that. I’m talking to them. Again, I was born in Holland, and I understand they don’t want to stand out and rise and draw attention, and they say we are in dialogue with the government and everything is done to prevent this and so on.
As a bystander, as somebody who comes from a country that is constantly attacked, for us, it is clearer that, in these changing circumstances, we have to change our approach. We cannot do what we tried to do in the past. We have to try new things, be it online, be it in terms of solidarity, be it in terms of education, enforcement, whatever. I think since we have seen this enormous rise in incidents, that means the times now are different and that different things must be done.
The Chair: Thank you, ambassador.
Senator McPhedran: Ambassador, thank you for coming today in person. It really does make a difference to the kind of dialogue we can have.
In August this year, over 6,300 Jewish leaders from over 20 countries, including our esteemed Honourable Irwin Cotler, signed a letter to your prime minister affirming support and solidarity with the State of Israel as a national homeland and expressing concern that the
. . . policies and rhetoric of the government you lead are doing lasting damage to Israel, its standing in the world and the prospects of secure peace for all Israelis and Palestinians. This has severe consequences for Israel but also for the well-being, security and unity of Jewish communities around the world.
Ambassador, considering these comments, can you please share with us what the Israeli government is doing to both respect and respond to these calls for action from 6,000 plus Jewish leaders from 20 plus countries?
Mr. Moed: Thank you for your question. I appreciate it very much because it focuses attention on the relationship between what has happened in Israel since October 7 and the rise of anti‑Semitism.
The government is reaching out to the Jewish community around the world to say, first of all, “We see you; we feel for you; we support you; and anything that we can do for you, we’ll try to do that. We’ll speak to governments” — which is what I’m doing — “and we’ll offer collaboration, cooperation, anything that we can do to alleviate your stress.”
The Jews around the world have suffered a trauma just like the Jews in Israel have suffered after October 7. In that specific sense, it is a different context when they raise their voices regarding the policies of Israel. That’s their right, and we accept and respect that. That is something that is welcome within our society, within the Jewish world when we disagree. As you may know, we normally disagree on everything.
Senator McPhedran: Like lawyers.
Mr. Moed: We debate about that, and we always try to find the better argument why we are right. That kind of joint study is actually what brings us to more informed decisions, policies and approaches to life broadly speaking.
When Irwin Cotler has criticism and he voices that or he joins voices that criticize Israel, we are speaking about the person who, on October 7, went out to protect, to call out the enormous, horrendous crime that was done against Jews in Israel — the worst atrocity since the Second World War — to call for the release of all the hostages, to call for attention to crimes against women that were done on that day, which, by the way, until today, are ignored by bodies like the United Nations and others. So any criticism and any voice that people like him raise are welcome because it is part and parcel of our society.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
Ambassador, in addition to what you have stated here tonight about the connection, we have heard from numerous witnesses that Israel’s war against Gaza contributes to the rise of anti‑Semitism in Canada and around the world. The Senate is currently considering a motion as follows:
. . . in light of findings and orders from the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court on the situation in Gaza, the Senate call on the Government to examine the risk to Canada and Canadians of complicity in violations of international humanitarian law, including war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide . . .
Ambassador, do you see the connection?
Mr. Moed: I’m very worried about such a connection because it is sort of borderline between a fair approach to examining what took place, and I would trust such an effort if it had been similar to any other conflict around the world. I’m not sure the same approach was handled when it comes to other conflict areas. I’m not sure. I don’t know. I didn’t check. But my guess is that this is a deliberate effort to try to find where Israel has done wrong as opposed to neglecting other parts of the world. This double standard is exactly the reason why I’m concerned.
We are transparent in the way that we handle the war. We are proud of the fact that we had legal experts involved in combat situations. We have no issue with facing international scrutiny about that. I think that some of the issues that have been raised through international courts are politically motivated. The fact that the United Nations decided to turn to the International Court of Justice was politically motivated. Israel has an automatic minority in the United Nations, so if one would like to say that Israel actually has turned the sun upside down and created day as night and night as day, then that can pass because there is an automatic majority against Israel. We have to put aside politics if you really want to try to delve into what is exactly transpiring in Israel. Again, we have no issue with international scrutiny, and actually, we find it quite easy to show that it is politically motivated and not interested in finding the facts but trying to accuse Israel of whatever crimes. That is problematic. I will leave it at that. Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
The Chair: We will now start the second round of questions.
Senator Arnot: Ambassador, I would like you to express what you think Canada should be doing to attack anti-Semitism in a way that is more effective in the future than it has been in the past. Are there any examples from other countries in the world where you think Canada could be learning how to do a better job on the domestic fight here in Canada against anti-Semitism? If not, are there other ideas that you would have and recommend that Canada explore?
Mr. Moed: Without naming names and risking my colleagues looking at me with a frown — colleague ambassadors — I would say that reaching out to any other country would be very beneficial, because we have to realize that much of this current wave has to do with internationally supported hatred against Israel and similar phenomena taking place in other countries. I mentioned at the outset that different legislation, of course, call for tailor-made solutions, but there are some issues that can be compared between countries when it comes to training of law enforcement, when it comes to school education, when it comes to raising awareness, when it comes to leadership, all of that. I think that is where we can always compare notes. During the presidency of IHRA, we tried to draw countries’ attention to these examples of international collaboration. Thank you.
Senator Downe: I’m wondering, ambassador, if you could tell us how your relationship is with the Government of Canada and Global Affairs. Has there been any change in the last year?
Mr. Moed: In what sense, if I may ask?
Senator Downe: In the sense that you are not getting meetings or information you are requesting or the degree of representation is lower, that you are meeting junior officials as opposed to senior officials? Or is it status quo?
Mr. Moed: I would say that it can always be more because there are so many pressing issues, and, of course, I appreciate that officials and elected officials have their hands full with so many issues, and for this government, these are early days, but I do find interlocutors with whom I can raise my concerns that are decision makers at high levels, and I appreciate that very much. I would say that it is also important to engage elected officials because, as I just pointed out, in terms of leadership and calling out issues and standing up for issues, I think that that also makes a difference for the broader public.
Senator Downe: As a representative of the state of Israel, I’m wondering — and that was a very diplomatic answer, incidentally. I am wondering what your view is — you indicated you are in touch with the members of the Jewish community in Canada — about the enforcement of our laws or if there is an absence of laws that are impacting the community. Senator Housakos, for example, raised a concern about a meeting that was held in this very building, apparently, where some of the people were well-known anti-Semitic leaders around the world and had been condemned by the Canadian minister of Foreign Affairs, strongly condemned by David Cameron when he was prime minister of the U.K. for some of their comments, and disassociated for their remarks by the UN Secretary-General at the time. Should people like that be allowed into the country? Do you think the laws are currently being enforced? Is there uncooperative attitude from some of the police with some of the marches and rallies that we see, from your experience talking to the community in Canada?
Mr. Moed: I will not answer this question directly, with your permission, but I will say the following: When we have concerns about issues or visitors or anything, we raise that with the appropriate authorities, and we always find a listening ear. I will not comment in public about how Canada enforces that unless there are specific incidents that we are raising in public. I would say that we do find it concerning when people who spread hate and are known for spreading hate are allowed to do that also in Canada and that the necessary precautions to protect society from such people are not being taken. I will leave it at that, with your permission.
Senator Downe: Thank you, ambassador.
Senator Housakos: Ambassador, I appreciate the diplomacy, the great diplomat that you are, with the answer to my good friend Senator McPhedran. The truth of the matter is that the International Court of Justice, which I consider the international court of kangaroo court, can come out with whatever decision they want. The United Nations has been calling on Türkiye now for how many years to get out of northern Cyprus, but would that ever justify any Canadian being anti-Turkish or bullying a Turkish member of our citizenship in this country? That, for me, was at the core of the question. We have the right to have a geopolitical conflict in Israel; we never have the right to be anti‑Semitic or anti-any other faith in this country.
How does the state of Israel feel when this institution — the upper chamber of the Parliament of Canada — hosts a Palestinian tribunal a few days ago, and we had panellists at that tribunal whom CBSA legitimately did not allow to come into this country? This institution thought it worthy to allow that Palestinian tribunal to carry on with panellists when there were 9/11 deniers on that panel. There were panellists on that tribunal who believe that Charlie Hebdo in France was a conspiracy of the French government, not the Islamic brotherhood. Forget about Canada. How does the State of Israel view the upper chamber of this institution when we allow something like that to happen?
Mr. Moed: We are extremely concerned about such a phenomenon and the fact that someone like that is allowed. We understand the rules of democracy, the freedom of speech and all of that, but as I said earlier, we are in a new reality, and in this new reality, these kinds of incidents have an impact It is different than just having a broad discussion and allowing people to come up with extreme views. It is different because such acceptance may give rise to expressions of hatred by other parts of the public, repeating messages that are inflammatory, that are hateful and that are discriminatory. So we are very concerned about that, and, of course, we repeat that and we shared that with the authorities.
Of course, we keep in mind the fact that in a democracy, we should have space for people to speak within the law, and we have this debate in Israel as well, about what are the limitations of democracy and how do you conserve democracy while also protecting its citizens from hateful speech, from brainwashing, from misinformation and disinformation. This is one of the biggest challenges of these times, and we face that. I would only say that the best way to do it is to do it together and share our experiences. Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you, ambassador.
We have been trying to understand at this committee, in this very important study we’re undertaking, the nature and the degree of anti-Semitism in Canada. We have heard consistently that acts of hate — and you raised some of them yourself here — towards Jewish people in Canada rose in a very significant way that we have never seen before, frankly, since the attack of October 7 and then the retaliatory attacks into Gaza. I am curious now, a couple years in, whether we are seeing any decline in this anti-Semitism in Canada. Is there a curve that we’re seeing? If there is, would we relate that to fatigue and/or that there looks like there is more of a resolution, a ceasefire? I’m just curious, because we are trying to match this trend with the activity that is happening in Israel and Gaza.
Mr. Moed: I would certainly hope so, but I think that what I am hearing from Jews here in Canada is exactly the opposite, that they feel that anti-Semitism has actually become, for lack of a better word, institutionalized and that they see that it is even more strongly embedded in all kinds of social institutions and they are even more concerned nowadays about their community life. They take more precautions. They presume in advance that they may be threatened if they walk with the kippah. Somebody told me he is driving a car with two Israeli flags and he feels very comfortable with that and he doesn’t get any threats and no incidents and so on, but I think the overall majority feels that the situation is getting worse and that, in their eyes, public domain is more and more occupied by those who do not allow them to experience their faith and their identification with Israel, which most Jews do and would like to do in public as well. They feel more and more difficulty in having that freedom.
Senator Coyle: So it continues to rise.
Mr. Moed: It does.
Senator Coyle: Thank you. I just thought that that might be a logical shift and was hoping for that.
In your remarks earlier, you mentioned to combat the ignorance that fuels anti-Semitism, a commitment to pooling of resources and data — sharing experiences, best practices and integrating monitoring — enables us to address both the immediate risk and the underlying factors driving intolerance. That action that you are mentioning here, that commitment to pooling, are you talking about an international pooling of resources? Who are you suggesting should take the leadership in doing that? Is a nation state or other non-state actors taking that pooling on? That’s a very important point you were making.
Mr. Moed: The meaning is that it is about pooling resources at every level — internationally, nationally, locally, provincially or municipally. It requires cross-sector collaboration.
Senator Coyle: But who would take that initiative?
Mr. Moed: Government. Yes.
Senator Coyle: Governments. Thank you.
Senator K. Wells: Just as a general question, if you had a message to share with Canadians during these challenging times, what would that message be?
Mr. Moed: We have so much in common. We share the same values, the same perspectives, the same belief in democratic values and tolerance and acceptance. But these are challenging times, and in these challenging times, each and every one of us has to see themselves as a leader and has to see themselves as playing a role and making a difference.
I met neighbours that were witness to some incident, and when I spoke to them, they told me that their children had a lesson in democracy in a negative way, because it wasn’t a very pleasant incident. The way they conveyed it to me was — and it was related to Israel and so on — they thought that it was something, in a negative way, positive. They learned something of a new reality, of a new world. When I mentioned earlier that Canada is a different world completely, it is a different part of earth — we come from an environment which is very harsh and difficult, and Canada is different, and Canada tolerates so much. There are Muslims and Sikhs and Chinese, and it is a beautiful society. But we also have to realize that there are threats everywhere, and those threats are becoming global.
I mentioned earlier the spread of international actors who are trying to instigate that hate, and so we have to look out and we have to understand what we are talking about when we are talking about the spread of hate and that it is unfortunately also here in front of our doors.
When we see people walking in an intimidating way in front of other people’s homes — so non-Jews in front of Jewish homes — just to let those Jews know, “We see you and be careful,” that’s — somebody else should come and stand outside the Jewish home and say, “Go away.” And sometimes it happens, and I see in some parts of Canada that people are reclaiming the public domain and do not allow this, and I think this is courageous. It is not typical, but I think that it is required. So this is what I would say: Act.
Senator K. Wells: Thank you.
Senator Arnold: Thank you so much, ambassador, for being here with us tonight.
I am reflecting back on how I learned about the Holocaust and the stories, mostly through literature, great novels by authors like Bernard Schlink, The Reader, The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, Schindler’s List, The Brutalist. I recently read a novel that was shortlisted for the 2024 Booker Prize that was written by an author from the Netherlands, Yael van der Wouden, and it was the first time that I had truly understood what happened in the European countries when the survivors got out and they had to go back and they went by the homes that had belonged to them that were no longer their homes and that sort of thing. I was struck by you saying that this work has become your personal work. Without getting too personal, I know you are an ambassador, but I would like to hear a little bit about what inspired you to want to do this work and why and how we can continue the stories of the head and the heart so that we can do a better job of educating generations on what came before us historically.
Mr. Moed: Thank you for your question. I appreciate it very much.
You are asking me about my personal history. I was brought up in a way that, without anybody telling me, compelled me to come to where I am today, and this is my life’s mission: to represent Israel in the world as the homeland of the Jewish people and as a friend and ally of the free world, but also to sometimes commemorate and help people remember that there is evil in the world and that we have to stand up to it.
In my family, my mother’s mother — my grandmother whom I didn’t know — who survived the Holocaust was the one who made a difference for the family, because she was the one to make decisions at critical junctures that made the difference for the survival of the family. When the Nazis came to pick them up from Amsterdam, knocking on the door, my grandfather was ready to reach for his bag to go with the Germans. But she asked the Germans, “Who exactly are you looking for?” Their last name was De Jong, which is a very popular name. They gave her the first name, and she started yelling at the Nazis, saying that she was this and they were looking for that. So they left. They actually left.
We sometimes don’t realize that small things make huge differences. I learned that it is not just the small gestures; we really have to do whatever we can to share our experience with others. Everybody has a different background.
When I tried to speak with my mother about her experiences during the Holocaust, she could never do that. My father could never speak. The only way that I found out about his history during the Holocaust was through Steven Spielberg’s project. We have that interview. He spoke in Dutch, so I translated it into English for my brother’s kids, and that’s when I learned so many interesting details. The most interesting part for me was that, unfortunately, he wasn’t good at remembering names, but when it came to the Holocaust, he remembered every little detail. It was so detailed that, years afterward, I went back to some of the locations he described, and I could see exactly what he meant. He had described it in such a vivid way.
Again, for me, this means that the psychological trauma that he and my mother suffered is so deep — and there are so many others — that we have to do whatever we can to not only preserve that but to convince anybody around the world, Jews and non-Jews, that we have to do whatever we can to prevent this kind of evil from happening again — any evil and any kind of hatred.
My father’s motto was, “Love thy neighbour as thyself.” It is actually engraved on his tombstone. He did a lot in his life to reach out to non-Jewish communities to talk about bridging the gaps and was a great example for me. That’s my motto in life as well, and I think that we tend to forget that. Everybody wants to have a life and everybody wants to have full freedoms, but we have to find a way to compromise. We have to find a way to live together. If we do that, our lives become better. But that’s a difficult way. Sometimes, it is not easy to understand that.
Having said that, that’s the utopia, but the reality is that we have to, first, fight for freedoms for so many people. Irwin Cotler was mentioned earlier, and he has been such a warrior for Jews — just for the sake of releasing people who were oppressed, imprisoned and so on. These are the examples we have to live by. It is a motto for all of us when we are talking about the spread of hate nowadays.
I accept all criticism about Israel — that’s fine — but when it comes to the relation of the State of Israel and saying Israel has no right to exist or when it comes to singling out Israel in the United Nations and other places, that’s where I feel that things really need to be corrected. That’s part of my diplomatic work.
Senator Arnold: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, and thank you, colleagues, as well. This has been an engaging time together. On behalf of the committee, I would like to sincerely thank you for taking the time to appear before us today. Your testimony will be helpful in our deliberations as we work on our study. Thank you, ambassador.
(The committee adjourned.)