Meeting the Canadian Government’s Commitments to Combat Contemporary Antisemitism
- Mark Sandler
- Feb 19
- 8 min read
The Government Issues a Report
Public Safety Canada recently released a report, entitled “National Commitments to Combat Antisemitism.” The report purports to document the actions taken by the federal government and other stakeholders to combat antisemitism so as to fulfill the commitments made at the National Forum on Combatting Antisemitism in March 2025 (“the National Forum”).
Unfortunately, Public Safety Canada’s report seems geared towards listing as many initiatives as possible, without adequate insight into which initiatives meaningfully address contemporary antisemitism in Canada. Indeed, the report fails to address the inadequacies in the government’s response to such antisemitism.
My emphasis on contemporary antisemitism is not accidental; nor is it new. When I was invited to address the National Forum as an expert in legal measures to combat hate, I described what steps are needed to reduce antisemitic hate crimes in Canada. These steps included recognition of how contemporary antisemitism often manifests itself: namely through antizionism: demonizing and otherwise targeting the vast majority of Canadian Jews who support Israel’s right to exist and holding Canadian Jews collectively responsible for the conduct of Israel.
Indeed, former Prime Minister Trudeau spoke at the National Forum declaring himself to be a Zionist and stating that “No one in Canada should ever be afraid to call themselves a Zionist.”
The Debate Over Fighting Antisemitism
Recently, there has been significant debate within the Jewish community worldwide about our effectiveness in combatting antisemitism. NY Times Columnist Bret Stephens, in his recent State of World Jewry Address, pointed out that antisemitism can never be eradicated and that “we need to stop caring.” In effect, his message was to ignore the bigotry around us and instead, focus on building up Jewish identity.
I disagree with his message, except to this limited extent: if we focus exclusively or largely on old-fashioned, centuries-old antisemitism, on traditional stereotypes about Jews, we are bound to fail. As I stated at the National Forum, our focus – in advocacy with government, in education, in law enforcement and prosecution must be on contemporary antisemitism.
This means addressing the demonization of Jews because we support Israel’s right to exist. This means confronting both the malevolence and ignorance fueled by disinformation and by failing to distinguish between criticism of Israel and denial of its legitimacy. This means that Holocaust education is critically important, but only if we also explain why Holocaust denial, minimizing and inversion take place – as a calculated strategy to depict Jews as evil for promoting a false story, and Israel as illegitimate because its raison d'être is tied, in part, to its critical role as a sanctuary for Jews otherwise facing destruction and persecution.
It is in this context that one should consider Public Safety Canada’s report on whether the government is fulfilling its commitments to combat antisemitism.
The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism
Canada adopted the IHRA working definition of antisemitism as part of its anti-racism strategy. It also published, in partnership with the Special Envoy’s office, the Canadian Handbook on IHRA. Both documents clearly describe how contemporary antisemitism is often manifested by antizionism and carefully differentiate between antizionism and criticism of Israel of the same type leveled against other countries.
One of the core commitments made by the federal government at the National Forum, as reflected in PSC’s report, was to “promote consistent messaging and definitions in the fight against antisemitism by advancing awareness and adoption of the IHRA definition and aligning legal and policy frameworks across jurisdictions accordingly.”
The action items listed in connection with this commitment represent the briefest content of the entire report. The report states that the Government of Canada has done three things to meet this commitment.
1. It has committed to working with partners across all orders of government to increase awareness of the IHRA definition and all elements contained within the Canadian Handbook on the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism.
Response: This simply restates the government’s commitment, rather than demonstrating it has done anything to act on it. I can assure the reader there is no alignment across jurisdictions on IHRA’s use, despite its adoption by Canada and most provinces.
I see no indication that this commitment has been acted upon.
2. Canadian Heritage is working with partners across provinces and territories to increase awareness of the IHRA definition and all elements contained within the Canadian Handbook on the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism.
Response: Our community is unaware of any such efforts. Nor are any documented in the report.
On the contrary, Canadian Heritage funded at least three projects incompatible with this commitment: (I alerted the public to this issue some time ago, and referred to it in earlier editorials):
$99,950 to the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association for a project (currently underway) entitled “Understanding Anti-Palestinian Racism: Educational Resources and Training for Inclusive Practices.” It is this organization that has promoted a toxic definition of Anti-Palestinian Racism (APR) that is not only incompatible with IHRA, but treats as anti-Palestinian racists all those who fail to accept Palestinian narratives about the creation of the State of Israel or who fail to acknowledge that Israel represents, in its entirety, occupied lands;
$2,000 to the same organization for a French translation of its report: “Anti-Palestinian Racism: Naming, Framings and Manifestations.” This is the report that promotes the toxic definition of APR; and
$99,500 to Toronto Palestinian Families for a project entitled, “Combatting Antisemitism and Anti-Palestinian Racism.” This organization rejects the IHRA definition of antisemitism, the connection between Jews and Israel and is remarkably ill-suited to be addressing antisemitism.
It is hardly surprising that the mainstream Jewish community has become disheartened by and cynical about Canadian Heritage’s commitment to fight antisemitism. I have urged Minister Miller to take immediate steps to rectify this situation.
3. The RCMP is taking steps to integrate the IHRA Handbook’s definition of antisemitism and other definitions related to hate crimes, into its operations. This includes examining alignment with current operational policy, training materials and informational products as well as operational policy.
Response: The RCMP’s Deputy Commissioner indicated during the National Forum, to his credit, that the RCMP would be doing this. However, it remains a matter not yet operationalized, although the RCMP and the Canadian Race Relations Foundation (“CRRF”) are training prosecutors and police now. This raises significant questions about the efficacy of their training insofar as it relates to the challenges of contemporary antisemitism. Although contemporary antisemitism is often manifested through demonizing and delegitimizing all Zionists (a point addressed in Recommendation 19 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, “Heightened Antisemitism in Canada and How to Confront it”) PSC’s report contains no reference to antizionism or for that matter, Zionism.
I have written before about my deep concerns about the government’s decision to abolish the office of the Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism, having allowed the Special Envoy’s position to remain vacant since Deborah Lyons’ departure in mid-July 2025. But PSC’s report makes only one reference to the Special Envoy’s office, despite its inclusion of many items that preceded her departure. The only reference to her office in a report about combatting antisemitism is that she was invited by the CRRF to a single meeting of the Hate Crimes Task Force to promote collaboration.
PSC’s report does not suggest there ever was any collaboration in fact with the Special Envoy’s office. It is replete with examples of training of police and prosecutors on hate crimes that “included antisemitism” or manuals or handbooks that contain “references to antisemitism.”
I am familiar with much of the laudable work being done on hate crimes, but in many instances, there is only a fleeting reference to antisemitism, and no mention of the challenges posed by contemporary antisemitism. There is no indication that any antisemitism training by CRRF/RCMP was developed in consultation with, disclosed to or approved by the Special Envoy’s Office. There is no indication that the CRRF even adopts the IHRA definition of antisemitism or uses the Canadian Handbook designed by the federal government to provide guidance to law enforcement and others on how to use IHRA, including its Illustrative Examples, to assist in their work.
This must be contrasted with the training ALCCA is doing for police and prosecutors across the country. Rochelle Direnfeld, former senior prosecutor for 32 years and former member of the Ontario Attorney General’s Hate Crime Working Group and I have been training police and prosecutors on legal measures to combat hate with real-life scenarios that are relevant to all vulnerable groups. Our training also explains how IHRA and the Canadian Handbook can be used as a non-binding tool by law enforcement and prosecutors to inform their work.
Although ALCCA has reviewed its training modules with the Special Envoy’s Office and provided that office with a list of training we have completed, there are only two references to this training in PSC’s report (one explicit in relation to Ontario training, one not, in relation to the BC Hate Crimes Unit). In addition to the two sessions mentioned in PSC’s report, this training has included:
A webinar accompanied by resource materials under the auspices of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police for police leadership across the country
Training of OPP leaders, including detachment commanders, incident commanders, liaison officers amongst others
Training of officers representing multiple police services in PEI and other regional provinces, resulting in a request for a follow-up program that took place within the same week for regional chiefs of police
Training of Manitoba prosecutors and several sessions involving Ontario prosecutors
In total, over 40 police services have been represented at our sessions. I outline this extensive training, all known to the Special Envoy’s Office, because it tells me that it is highly unlikely that the authors of PSC’s report consulted or collaborated with that office in preparing its report. The failure of the report to highlight or even know about this extensive training (which addresses the need to combat contemporary antisemitism) undermines the government’s commitment to work closely with the community in combatting antisemitism and calls into question how resources will be allocated for future training. Of course, these concerns are heightened by the closing of the Special Envoy’s office. There will be no dedicated position within the federal government to address pervasive antisemitism.
It was particularly illustrative of the problem with PSC’s report that it cites the City of Toronto’s initiatives, given Toronto City Council’s failing grade in showing zero tolerance for antisemitism.
Moreover, it represented another example of lack of due diligence. The report cites the initiative in Toronto to create a public order policing policy on protests, demonstrations and occupations. The Toronto Police Service Board invited the public to make submissions on such a policy over one and a half years ago. No such policy has been created; nor, as promised, has a draft policy been circulated for stakeholder input. There has been silence despite its urgent need.
Nothing in this commentary is intended to deprecate some good work being done, and additional resources devoted to hate crimes. But careful analysis of the listed actions in this report shows that it fails to acknowledge serious deficiencies that need to be addressed as well as government conduct incompatible with its own commitments. In particular, it fails to address contemporary antisemitism.
The government has asked that a number of us who expressed concern about PSC’s report to participate in discussions about how its work can be improved. I welcome any opportunity to explain what the federal government needs to do to combat antisemitism. In the meantime, I ask our community and its allies to urge the federal government to take measures to address these issues: for example, by ensuring that training of police, prosecutors, police cadets and other participants in the criminal justice system incorporates a robust understanding of contemporary antisemitism and appropriately relies upon the government’s adoption of IHRA and the Canadian Handbook as important tools to guide the authorities.
I understand Bret Stephens’ perspective. But the solution is not to abandon the fight but instead to focus on the right strategy. And to do so collaboratively. With heightened emphasis on partnerships with allies who share our values. And with measurable outcomes.
Bottom line: I am not prepared to leave a world to my grandchildren where antisemitism and antizionism and hate crimes are normalized – at least not without a fight. Fighting antisemitism is only a futile battle if we allow it to be.
About the Author
Mark Sandler, LL.B., LL.D. (honoris causa), ALCCA’s Chair, is widely recognized as one of Canada’s leading criminal lawyers and pro bono advocates. He has been involved in combatting antisemitism for over 40 years. He has lectured extensively on legal remedies to combat hate and has promoted respectful Muslim-Jewish, Sikh-Jewish and Black-Jewish dialogues. He has appeared before Parliamentary committees and in the Supreme Court of Canada on multiple occasions on issues relating to antisemitism and hate activities. He is a former member of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, a three-time elected Bencher of the Law Society of Ontario, and recipient of the criminal profession’s highest honour, the G. Arthur Martin Medal, for his contributions to the administration of criminal justice.