The Demise of the Special Envoy’s Office – What Comes Next
- Mark Sandler
- Feb 11
- 8 min read
Updated: Feb 12
On February 4, 2026, the federal government announced it was closing the Office of the Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism, having failed to fill the vacancy triggered by Deborah Lyons’ resignation last July.
There has never been a more pressing time for advocacy to combat antisemitism within and outside government. Or a more troubling time to have left the position vacant.
Hate crimes and discriminatory conduct targeting Jews are at unprecedented levels. Despite representing only 1% of the population, Jews are the victims of about 70% of religiously motivated hate crimes in Canada. Antisemitic incidents at universities, colleges, and K-12 schools are disturbingly high (see for example, the levels of antisemitism in Ontario’s K-12 space). Even these numbers understate the problem, due to underreporting explained by either fear of reprisal or scepticism that the authorities will do anything. As well, a number of Jews, although targeted, do not self-describe based on their religion, but instead based on their ethnicity, culture, or ancestry.
When the government announced the closure of the Special Envoy and Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia’s offices, it indicated it was creating a new Advisory Council on Rights, Equality and Inclusion to provide advice to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, the Hon. Marc Miller.
The Council’s mission is said to foster social cohesion, rally Canadians around shared identity, combat racism and hate in all their forms, and help guide the efforts of the Government of Canada. The government said it will be composed of prominent academics, experts, and community leaders. One of its key responsibilities will be “consulting and partnering with communities from coast to coast to coast to build bridges between communities and combat all forms of racism and hate including antisemitism and Islamophobia.”
My preference would have been for the government to retain both offices, appoint a worthy successor to Ms. Lyons, and replace the current Special Representative with someone prepared to work closely with the Special Envoy to fight antisemitism and anti-Muslim hatred together. I fear that our community and Canadian society will pay a steep price for the absence of a designated voice within government to combat antisemitism.
I am equally concerned about the impact of this decision on Canada’s participation in the global network of Special Envoys who collectively work to combat antisemitism. It was through that network that our Alliance was able to provide expertise to the Special Envoy’s office in Australia on potential legislative reform and training for law enforcement.
So how did we get here?
Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia
Some members of our community applauded the government’s decision to close the Special Envoy’s office largely because it was coupled with the closure of the Office of the Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia.
For some time, many of us have expressed deep concern that Amira Elghawaby, the Special Representative, used her office to advance an anti-Israel political agenda on the Middle East and recklessly promoted the inclusion of Anti-Palestinian Racism (APR) as part of anti-racist strategies, without disavowing the widely-used definition of APR, developed by the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association, that effectively demonizes all Zionists as racist. APR, so defined, is incompatible with Canada’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s definition of antisemitism.
Canada adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism and its illustrations, together with 42 other countries, and many others, including eight provinces. Canada also published a Handbook explaining how IHRA can best be used as a non-binding tool, to guide decision-making.
However, the IHRA definition is under attack – not merely by those who debate some of its language or scope, but by those who refuse to acknowledge, contrary to IHRA, that contemporary antisemitism is most often manifested by antizionist fervour: for example, by demonizing everyone, without distinction, who supports Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish democratic state or by collectively holding Canadian Jews responsible for the actions of Israel, a foreign government. These antizionists oppose IHRA because they oppose any acknowledgement of Israel’s right to exist.
In November 2024, I wrote to Ms. Elghawaby, asking that she clarify her position on campus speech targeting Zionists, publicly denounce the demonization of all Zionists as racist, and affirm that respectful dialogue must include those who support Israel’s right to exist. She did not respond to my letter. These suggested, simple gestures could have made a significant difference in reducing incitement against Jews and promoting civil discourse.
Let’s be clear. APR has obtained support within the federal government, despite its incompatibility with official government policy. As first reported by ALCCA, Canadian Heritage agreed to provide:
$99,950 to the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association for a project entitled, “Understanding Anti-Palestinian Racism: Educational Resources and Training for Inclusive Practices.” The duration of the contract extends from January 1, 2025 to March 31, 2026. It is this Association’s definition of APR that is so toxic, by treating 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 Arab Canadian Lawyers Association for French translation of its report: “Anti-Palestinian Racism: Naming, Framings and Manifestations.” The project took place in 2023. This is the report that promotes the toxic definition of APR.
$99,500 to Toronto Palestinian Families for a project entitled, Combatting Anti-Semitism and Anti-Palestinian Racism for All 2024. The duration of the contract extended from January 1, 2025 to March 31, 2025. This project raises similar concerns about how antisemitism and APR are being defined and addressed in government-funded projects.
Over and above this specific funding issue, marginalizing and delegitimizing those who support Israel’s right to exist (the overwhelming majority of Canadian Jews) must be identified as a systemic problem when it is taking place within the federal government’s bureaucracy and agencies.
Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism
Deborah Lyons’ voice within government was an important one, even though much of her quiet diplomacy was unknown to the community. Her stewardship of the Canadian Handbook on IHRA was impressive, despite the obstacles her office encountered. The government’s failure to replace her, when she departed over five months ago, especially given the divisiveness sowed by her counterpart, was troubling.
The New Advisory Council
I take no issue with the creation of an Advisory Council as a vehicle to build bridges between communities and combat all forms of racism and hate. Indeed, in 2023, we began a national respectful dialogue in the legal profession that was inspired by Muslim and Jewish students at the University of Ottawa. Promoting respectful dialogue, in partnership with all those who reject hatred and extremism continues to represent one of our organization’s animating principles.
However, my position comes with three important caveats.
The Council’s composition: divisive or truly inclusive?
The government’s announcement stated that “the Council will build on and support continued implementation of Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy, and its Action Plan on Combatting Hate.” The IHRA Definition and accompanying Canadian Handbook are an integral part of the strategy and action plan. One of the core commitments made by the federal government at the National Forum on Combatting Antisemitism, held in March 2025 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 government’s implementation of this commitment has been poor to date. I have critically commented on a disappointing report just released by Public Safety Canada that purports to outline the initiatives undertaken by the federal government and other government stakeholders to meet their commitments made at the National Forum.
Simply put, if the Advisory Council is populated by those who reject Canada’s own anti-racism strategy, including implementation of IHRA, it will soon descend into divisiveness in the same way that Ms. Elghawaby inflamed the Muslim-Jewish relationship rather than working with Ms. Lyons to combat antisemitic and anti-Muslim hatred together. Nor can it be populated by those who would exclude Jews while ostensibly promoting inclusiveness.
Advisory Councils: Where good ideas can go to die
The second caveat relates to the very nature of an Advisory Council. Advisory committees can be a place where good ideas go to die. If the Advisory Council is mired in bureaucracy, has no access to information about what is truly happening within government, or has limited influence on government decision-making, it will not only be ineffective, but harmful. I fear that its existence will be cited as proof that action is being taken, when it is not.
Special Attention Must Be Afforded Disproportionately Affected Communities
Some communities, such as the Jewish community, are disproportionately impacted by hatred and discrimination. The statistics on antisemitic hate crimes, and the number of thwarted terror attacks planned against Jews speak volumes.
While it is important to recognize and address hatred against all affected communities, as contemplated by the Advisory Council’s mandate, special attention still needs to be given to those communities disproportionately affected. If, for example, the Advisory Council simply subsumes antisemitism under hatred more broadly or invariably pairs it, for political reasons, with anti-Muslim hatred, regardless of context, it will fail.
The Way Forward
The Honourable Irwin Cotler has urged the federal government to reconsider its decision to close the Office of the Special Envoy. As Canada’s first Special Envoy, he is well situated to understand how critically important this role is. Especially now. But failing that reversal, the Prime Minister, Minister Miller and Minister Anandasangaree, the Minister of Public Safety can do much to alleviate some of our concerns. This should start with:
Immediately revisiting Canadian Heritage’s funding of projects antithetical to the stated objectives of the new Advisory Council.
Unequivocally acting on the government’s commitment to ensure that legal and policy frameworks across jurisdictions incorporate the IHRA definition.
Unequivocally declaring that there will be a zero-tolerance policy within and outside government for those who demonize and attempt to delegitimize anyone who supports Israel’s right to exist, including the vast majority of Canadian Jews
Ensuring that federal funding for training and education on antisemitism is compatible with Canada’s adoption of the IHRA definition and the companion Handbook
Ensuring that the Advisory Council is populated by those who seek to unite, not divide, who recognize the disproportionate impact of hatred on certain communities, including the Jewish community, and prioritize accordingly, and ultimately whose advice is timely, well-informed and acted upon by government
Ensuring that Canada continues to participate in a meaningful way at the international level in the network of Special Envoys combatting antisemitism
If you agree, let the government know. The stakes are high. For all of us.
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.