Responding to the Senate Report on Antisemitism – Part 2: Evaluating its Recommendations
- Mark Sandler
- 21 hours ago
- 10 min read
On April 21, 2026, the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights released its report on antisemitism. The report documented the sharp rise of antisemitism in Canada, based in part on the lived experiences of Canadian Jews, and identified antisemitism as an urgent problem. Nonetheless, in Part 1 of this editorial, I identified significant concerns about the report’s content:
It declines to recognize the critical role that antizionism plays in demonizing Jews and Israelis
It fails to mention Anti-Palestinian racism (APR), defined and misused to demonize all Zionists as racist
It fails to mention radical Islamism as a source of antisemitism in Canada
It treats the debate over the use of the IHRA definition of antisemitism as largely an exercise in semantics
Here, in Part 2 of my editorial, I evaluate the Committee’s 22 recommendations. Considered separately from the report itself, quite a few of the recommendations have value, and align with recommendations ALCCA and other organizations made. I will focus on 11 of the 22 recommendations, which I have organized into several categories. Appendix A elaborates on the remaining recommendations.
Education and Public Awareness
Recommendations 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14
The report emphasizes the importance of education in combatting antisemitism and reinforcing democratic values of pluralism, equality and mutual respect. Six of the recommendations (nos. 4, 10-14) urge the Government of Canada to support educational initiatives that address antisemitism and other forms of hatred, democratic values, and digital literacy. Two of these recommendations are illustrative:
Recommendation 13: That the Government of Canada work with provinces, territories, and educational partners to strengthen preservice and in-service education relating to hate, bias, and antisemitism, the Holocaust, and democratic citizenship. This work should include enhanced teacher training, access to educational resources, and support for initiatives that promote historical understanding, literacy, and critical thinking.
Recommendation 14: That the Government of Canada support professional development for educators and administrators at primary, secondary and post-secondary levels. This work should include improved capacity to identify and respond to hate, bias, and antisemitic incidents, greater understanding of historical and contemporary antisemitism, and support for respectful discussion of contentious geopolitical issues consistent with democratic values and Charter protections.
The importance of antisemitism and Holocaust education was also emphasized by the House Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in its earlier study on antisemitism¹ and captured in the federal government’s commitments made at the National Forum on Combatting Antisemitism² last year. There is undoubted value in reemphasizing the need for education, including professional development for educators and administrators at primary, secondary and post-secondary levels. However, in reality, education is largely the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments and educational institutions, not the federal government. That is why these recommendations are framed in terms of the Government of Canada “supporting” professional development or working with provinces, territories, and educational partners on educational and training initiatives.
The federal government should take a leadership role in supporting provincial and territorial educational initiatives to combat antisemitism. But realistically who will perform that role, now that the federal government abolished the Office of the Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism? That office was deeply involved in promoting the very educational initiatives recommended by both the House and Senate Committees.
In this regard, the Senate Committee was correct. Recommendation 1 states:
That the Prime Minister reinstate the position of a Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism, and, under paragraph 127.1 (1)(c) of the Public Service Employment Act, appoint the Special Envoy with a mandate to advise the Government of Canada on policy, education initiatives, and international cooperation relating to antisemitism and Holocaust remembrance.
The Committee expresses its concern that the Special Envoy position was replaced on February 4, 2026 with a new Advisory Council on Rights, Equality and Inclusion. The Committee states that it “shares the new council’s goal of combatting all forms of racism and hate, but questions whether it will be able to adequately continue the specialized work of the Special Envoy. The structure and composition of the council remain unknown to the [C]ommittee at the time of publication of this report.”
I would add this. Combatting antisemitism is an urgent priority. And yet, the government allowed the Special Envoy’s Office to remain vacant from July 8, 2025 to February 4, 2026 when it announced the position was being abolished in favour of an Advisory Council that has yet to be created. Over that period of almost 11 months, Jewish institutions and individuals are being shot at and vilified, plots continue to be uncovered to mass murder Jews, and antisemitic incidents are daily occurrences in our schools and professions, on our streets and online. Although the government has, to its credit, significantly increased funding for community security and introduced criminal law enhancements in Bill C-9, it is unlikely that the Advisory Council can begin to replace an office dedicated exclusively to combatting antisemitism and preserving Holocaust remembrance.
The Committee recommended (no. 2) that the Advisory Council “include” a focus on antisemitism in its mandate and composition, but let’s face it, a council that is to provide “advice” only and do so on all forms of racism and hate will represent a poor substitute for the Office of the Special Envoy. What is needed is a strengthened Special Envoy’s office, with enhanced financial resources and standing within the government, to truly make a difference.
Hate on the Internet
Recommendations 21 and 22
The Committee correctly identifies hate on social media platforms as deeply problematic. Several of us amplified this massive problem in our testimony before the Committee. Two of the Committee’s recommendations relate to this issue:
Recommendation 21: That the Government of Canada introduce legislation to establish a Digital Safety Commission, under the responsibility of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, with a mandate to address online harms including hate speech and the amplification of identity-based harassment.
Recommendation 22: That the Government of Canada develop policy options to address amplification of hate, prejudice, and identity-based harassment; and develop regulatory mechanisms to improve transparency and accountability of digital platforms that host and disseminate hate-motivated content, including reporting obligations, research access, and mechanisms enabling individuals to seek redress where platforms fail to address unlawful hate related content.
I support both recommendations and call upon the federal government to implement them immediately or explain why it does not intend to do so.
Antisemitism Task Force
Recommendation 9
The Committee recommends (no. 9) that the Government of Canada immediately establish an interdepartmental task force to address antisemitism and outlines what the task force, at a minimum, shall do:
determine the nature and impact on antisemitism in Canada;
address foreign interference;
address misinformation and disinformation affecting Canadian institutions, particularly in federally regulated sectors;
create a framework of initiatives to combat antisemitism in Canada;
coordinate data collection, policy development, enforcement, and operational responses, particularly in relation to the recommendations of this report;
improve cooperation among federal institutions responsible for public safety and social cohesion;
identify methods of tracking and measuring the success and failures of each initiative; and
report annually to Parliament on progress and emerging trends.
The task force should include representatives from Public Safety Canada, Canadian Heritage, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, including the Integrated National Security Enforcement Teams, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Justice Canada, and Canada Revenue Agency. The task force should collaborate with provincial and territorial counterparts as well as municipal police agencies and specialized hate crime units.
I, and others, made this recommendation to the Committee and have made it at various levels of government. I support the immediate creation of such a task force, provided that its members have a robust understanding of contemporary antisemitism and its manifestations, including the demonizing of those who support Israel’s right to exist and holding Canadian Jews collectively responsible for the events in the Middle East.
I address the balance of the Senate Committee’s recommendations in Appendix A below. In Part 3 of this series, I will further examine what I regard as missing recommendations and the larger systemic issues associated with antisemitism in Canada, particularly the failure to name, and address the sources of today’s antisemitism.
Appendix A
The remaining recommendations largely track prior recommendations, or government commitments, or actions already taken. Nonetheless, their inclusion can be helpful in driving change. Here are my brief comments on the remaining recommendations:
Recommendation 3: That the Government of Canada continue to review government policies, programs, training, appointments and funding, ensuring they are free of antisemitism and consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and to promote safe and inclusive workplaces across the federal public service.
Comments: This recommendation conforms to a prior commitment of the federal government. This commitment has yet to be acted upon in a meaningful way. Canadian Heritage funded training on Anti-Palestinian racism by an organization which uses a toxic definition of APR that is incompatible with the government’s own policies. We have yet to see action taken to rectify or even acknowledge this breach of the government’s obligations.
Recommendation 4 That the Government of Canada work with civil society organizations, educational institutions, and professional bodies to develop evidence-based training programs and resources that improve understanding of both historical and contemporary antisemitism in Canada and appropriately resource and equip institutions to respond effectively to incidents of hate.
Comments: These training programs, including the training of police and prosecutors ALCCA has designed, in partnership with the Office of the Special Envoy, already exist. The challenge to date has been that the federal government has failed to understand how some of the programs it has supported do not adequately address contemporary antisemitism. We continue to work on this fundamental problem.
Recommendation 5: That the Government of Canada work with all federal institutions and federally regulated sectors to ensure that clear and transparent mechanisms exist for reporting and addressing hate, bias, and antisemitic incidents. These mechanisms should include safeguards against reprisals and should provide individuals with confidence that all complaints will be investigated fairly and promptly.
Comments: Again, the challenge (which we have seen at other levels of government) is whether it will be implemented based on an adequate understanding of what amount to antisemitic incidents. Complaints are often not investigated fairly and promptly. Implementation must involve collaboration with mainstream Jewish organizations best situated to evaluate whether meaningful change has taken place.
Recommendation 6: That the Government of Canada support improved research and disaggregated data collection relating to hate, bias, and antisemitism in Canada, including the monitoring of trends across sectors such as education, workplaces, and digital platforms.
Comments: This is not a new recommendation but an important one nonetheless. It is hoped that with the passage of Bill C-9, we will see improvements in data collection pertaining to hate crimes. But it is difficult to monitor trends across sectors such as education, workplaces and digital platforms without the active participation of a Special Envoy’s Office. It commissioned reports to do precisely this.
Recommendation 7: That the Government of Canada increase funding to the Canada Community Security Program and streamline requests and approval procedures for critical community safety infrastructure and security needs of targeted communities and events.
Comments: Funding has been increased for community security. I leave it to those Jewish organizations directly involved in our community’s security needs to evaluate continuing progress in this area.
Recommendation 8: That the Government of Canada close the loophole regarding the charitable and non-profit status of organisations when they are listed as terrorist entities by immediately reviewing their activities in Canada and retracting their statuses.
Comments: After considerable advocacy on the part of the Jewish community, progress has been made to revoke the status of such organizations. However, what has often not taken place is appropriate enforcement action against the principals of terrorist entities once entities have been listed. As I have also advocated, the Criminal Code needs to be amended to criminalize the wilful promotion of designated terrorist entities and their activities. This potentially represents one of the most effective ways of addressing support for terrorist entities in Canada.
Recommendation 15: That the Government of Canada, with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as the lead, work with provincial and territorial governments to establish and effectively resource specialized hate crime units in all major cities and regions across Canada, with a focus on education, community outreach, investigation, disaggregated data collection, information sharing, prosecution, and deradicalization efforts.
Comments: I have made this recommendation at all levels of government and endorse it here. However, specialized policing units can only be successful if prosecutions are done and prosecutorial decision-making is made by specialized prosecutors.
Recommendation 16: That the Government of Canada support evidence-informed training initiatives for police, prosecutors, and other justice-sector actors at all three levels of government to improve their ability to identify and respond to hate and bias motivated crimes, including antisemitic offences.
Comments: As previously indicated, such training initiatives already exist, though not yet adequately supported by the Government of Canada, other than through the Office of the Special Envoy.
Recommendation 17: That the Government of Canada encourage municipalities, provinces and territories to consider narrowly tailored “safe access” or “bubble zone” measures where appropriate to protect access to certain religious institutions, places of worship, and community spaces (such as libraries, recreational facilities, and hospitals) while respecting the Charter-protected freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly.
Comments: I supported this recommendation as a witness before the Committee and continue to do so. Criminal law amendments are not a substitute for preventative measures such as bubble legislation designed not to punish those who intimidate or harass, but prevent such intimidation and harassment from taking place.
Recommendation 18: That, in a manner consistent with Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Government of Canada review legislative options to address the display of symbols associated with hate groups, such as Nazi and White supremacist symbols, when used with the intent of willfully promoting hatred against identifiable groups.
Recommendation 19: That the Government of Canada examine legislative measures to address intimidation and obstruction that interferes with access to community spaces associated with identifiable groups, including religious institutions, schools, and cultural centres, while ensuring consistency with constitutional protections.
Recommendation 20: That the Government of Canada review existing Criminal Code provisions relating to hate propaganda and hate-motivated offences, with particular regard to Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, in order to ensure that the law clearly addresses conduct that promotes the intense and extreme detestation and vilification of identifiable groups.
Comments: These three recommendations have already been implemented through introduction of Bill C-9 with several appropriate amendments. ALCCA took a lead role in putting these amendments forward in collaboration with many of our member organizations and legacy organizations. This same Senate Committee is now reviewing Bill C-9 and has commenced its hearings into its provisions. On behalf of ALCCA, I appeared before the Committee this week, and hope that it will speedily endorse the legislation.
-30-
Endnotes
1. Heightened Antisemitism in Canada and How to Confront It | Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
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.