Canada has become an unusually permissive environment for Muslim Brotherhood-aligned networks seeking long-term influence inside government, civil society and universities, according to a new report by the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy.
The report, Assault on Democratic Values and Principles: How Islamist Entryism Weakens Civil Society and Higher Education in Canada, argues that the phenomenon should not be viewed as a collection of isolated organizations or incidents. Instead, ISGAP describes it as part of a broader transnational strategy of institutional embedding, political mobilization, narrative influence and legal protection.
Muslim Brotherhood networks exploiting gaps in Canadian oversight
The authors stress that the report examines Islamism as a political ideology, not Islam as a religion, and say their conclusions do not amount to findings of criminal wrongdoing by the individuals or organizations discussed.
At the core of the report is the concept of “entryism”: the gradual effort to gain influence from within existing democratic institutions rather than through direct confrontation. ISGAP argues that Muslim Brotherhood strategic documents from the 1980s and 1990s explicitly identified North America, including Canada, as an arena for such long-term institutional work.
The report identifies four principal arenas in Canada: federal institutions and electoral politics, civil society and charities, higher education and the shaping of public narratives around Islamophobia, Israel and the Palestinians.
One focus is political mobilization. ISGAP points to groups including The Canadian Muslim Vote and the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council, arguing that they have sought to mobilize Muslim voters in dozens of closely contested constituencies around issues including Gaza and Islamophobia. The report cites leadership and organizational connections that it says link some of those groups to broader Brotherhood-aligned networks.
It also examines activity inside the federal public service, including the Muslim Federal Employees Network, an internal advocacy group founded within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s federal policing branch. According to the report, the office of Canada’s former special representative on combating Islamophobia, Amira Elghawaby, advocated on the network’s behalf with senior government and security officials.
Another major argument concerns regulation.
ISGAP says Canadian authorities have investigated some organizations but that oversight has been inconsistent and often followed by lengthy legal and political battles. It highlights the Canada Revenue Agency’s multi-year audit of the Muslim Association of Canada, which raised concerns including the organization’s relationship with the global Muslim Brotherhood network and entities with possible links to terrorist groups.
The audit ultimately resulted in a compliance agreement and financial penalties rather than the loss of charitable status. ISGAP argues that the case illustrates a broader gap between regulatory findings and enforcement, while organizations facing scrutiny have sometimes continued receiving government funding.
Universities and Qatari funding
Higher education occupies a particularly prominent place in the report.
ISGAP examines the University of Toronto, University of Waterloo, Toronto Metropolitan University and York University, arguing that foreign funding, anti-Israel activism, faculty networks and institutional decision-making increasingly intersect on Canadian campuses.
A central concern is Qatar.
The report says Canadian universities lack a national disclosure system comparable to US requirements that force institutions to report significant foreign gifts and contracts. As a result, it argues, Canadians often cannot determine the terms attached to foreign-funded research, including intellectual property rights, research access or student data.
At the University of Toronto, the report identifies at least six projects funded through the Qatar National Research Fund, with an estimated combined value of C$2.7 million to C$4.2 million. The research includes secure communications, energy technology and advanced materials. ISGAP does not allege that the research itself was improper, but argues that the absence of disclosure makes it difficult to determine what contractual rights were granted to Qatari institutions.
At the University of Waterloo, the report estimates Qatari state-linked research funding at more than C$3.8 million and total investment, including sponsored students, at more than C$10.5 million. It contrasts those continuing relationships with Waterloo’s decision to end its academic partnership with Israel’s Technion following sustained campus pressure.
The report argues that this represents a broader asymmetry: Israeli academic relationships have faced intense activist scrutiny while Qatari-linked funding has often received far less attention.
What the report wants Canada to do
ISGAP calls for a much stronger government response, including a formal investigation into Muslim Brotherhood-linked organizations in Canada, broader intelligence cooperation with the United States and tougher scrutiny of charities and nonprofits.
It also recommends a national foreign-funding disclosure regime for universities that would reveal not only the amount of money received but also contractual terms involving intellectual property, research access and student information.
The authors further call for national-security reviews of sensitive academic partnerships and greater transparency surrounding foreign-linked organizations operating on campuses.
The report’s central argument is that Canada’s problem is not an absence of laws or regulators, but a lack of systematic scrutiny.
While other Western countries have launched government investigations into Muslim Brotherhood networks, the report notes that Canada has never conducted an equivalent inquiry despite being specifically referenced in historical Brotherhood planning documents.
For ISGAP, that gap is precisely what has allowed political advocacy, foreign funding, campus activism and institutional influence to develop largely as separate public debates.
The report argues they should instead be understood as parts of the same picture.