Criminal Code

Honourable senators, I rise today because hatred continues to find a foothold here in Canada, not in every heart, nor even in most, but in enough hearts to shatter lives, silence voices and cause people to wonder whether they truly belong in this country.

In March of this year, a 22-year-old Sikh man named Birinder Singh was on a road trip near Leduc, Alberta — laughing with his friends, living his life — when someone extended what appeared to be a peace sign from a passing truck. Birinder returned the gesture. Moments later, shots rang out. A bullet struck him in the neck. The truck sped away. He did not survive.

The RCMP ruled the motive unclear. The investigation has not classified his killing as a hate crime. And so a family buries their son, a community mourns one of its own and a question none of us can answer with confidence hangs in the air: Did he die in part because of who he was? That uncertainty — where accountability should be — is precisely why we are here today.

I want to begin by acknowledging the government’s intention in bringing forward Bill C-9. I also want to acknowledge Senator Kris Wells, who is leading this work with a seriousness and conviction that long predates his arrival in this chamber.

The purpose of this legislation — to confront the rising tide of hatred that is, too often, violent enough to take lives or break spirits — is urgent.

Colleagues, I know what it is to live as a visible minority in this country. I know what it is to walk through the world wearing your faith on your head, literally.

I know the weight of an unwanted stare. I know the sting of words directed not at who you are but at what you look like. And I know the particular exhaustion of existing in a society that asks you again and again to prove that you belong.

Experiencing hate because of perceived differences is personal to me. And I suspect it is personal for many people in communities across this country who are watching us today.

Colleagues, April is Sikh Heritage Month in Canada. This past weekend, I had the privilege of attending the launch of the first‑ever seminal report on anti-Sikh hate in Canada, produced by the World Sikh Organization of Canada.

More than 1,600 Sikhs were interviewed across this country. Nationwide town halls were convened. The findings were not surprising to those who live this reality, but it should be galvanizing to all of us who govern. Let me share them with you.

Over 80% of respondents said that hate and discrimination against Sikhs have increased in the past five years. Nearly two thirds reported experiencing verbal harassment. And over 70% of victims chose not to report those incidents at all, citing futility, fear of retaliation or a complete absence of institutional support.

Let that number settle in, colleagues: 7 in 10 victims of hate remain silent because they don’t believe that anything will be done. This silence is not unique to the Sikh community. Anti‑Black hate, anti-Indigenous hate, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia and transphobia are all rising.

Official statistics almost certainly undercount the true scale of the problem. Every unreported incident is a person who has quietly accepted that the law will not protect them. That is what hatred does to a society. It wounds individuals and teaches entire communities to expect less.

Consider another case. In 2023, a 21-year-old Sikh student named Gagandeep Singh was brutally assaulted at a bus stop in British Columbia. His dastaar — his turban, a sacred article of his faith — was violently removed. He was dragged, punched repeatedly and suffered a concussion.

The BC Prosecution Service ultimately declined to approve charges because a conviction was not considered likely.

Gagandeep’s friend said something afterward that has stayed with me:

I don’t think it matters if you’re black, brown, grey, or yellow. At the end of the day, you should feel safe taking public transportation . . . .

Colleagues, I support the intention of this legislation. But good intentions still warrant scrutiny. I have some thoughts I wish to offer to this chamber and to our colleagues on the Human Rights Committee who will examine this bill closely.

The first is about making the new hate crime offence truly implementable, giving those who must enforce it the tools to do so.

The second is about the Attorney General consent provision and whether there is another way to achieve its underlying purpose.

Let me address each in turn.

The new hate crime offence created by clause 5 of Bill C-9 is a meaningful and welcome addition to our criminal law. Hatred will not merely be an aggravating factor at sentencing — it will be the offence itself. That is a signal worth sending.

But a law is only as strong as the institutions that enforce it. And to enforce this law well, our police services and Crown prosecutors will need to be equipped in ways they currently are not.

Proving hate motivation is not straightforward. It requires investigators who understand the cultural, social and ideological contexts in which hate operates. It also requires a shared institutional framework across jurisdictions so that this offence is applied consistently.

The case of Birinder Singh is instructive here. The RCMP investigation determined the shooting was a “one-off” and not hate-motivated. The suspect has been charged with second-degree murder. And perhaps that is the right outcome on the evidence that is available.

But we must ask: Do our police services have the training, the cultural competency and the investigative frameworks to recognize hate motivation when it presents itself in unfamiliar forms? Do they know what to look for? Do they know how to document it?

The World Sikh Organization of Canada’s report speaks directly to this. Among its recommendations is a call for Justice Canada to issue prosecution guidelines and training on effectively proving hate motivation using anti-Sikh cases as concrete examples.

I would go further. Those guidelines should be national in scope, adequately funded and subject to regular review as the nature of hate evolves.

Passing this legislation is step one. Investing in the capacity to enforce it is step two, and it deserves as much attention in this chamber as step one.

My second thought involves clauses 3 and 4 of the bill, which preserve the requirement for Attorney General consent before prosecuting hate propaganda offences.

The original version of this bill removed the Attorney General consent provision entirely. That change was recommended by former provincial attorneys general and also featured in a 2024 House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights report on heightened anti-Semitism.

Following further consultations, and concerns from religious groups, the decision was made to reinstate the provision. Senator Wells explained that the rationale for keeping it was to prevent frivolous prosecutions, which is a genuine concern.

However, is Attorney General consent the right way to preserve judicial independence? For communities already skeptical of institutional protection, a pathway that hinges on a political decision maker may feel as if their safety depends on whoever holds office.

The underlying purpose of Attorney General consent — to evaluate complex, sensitive cases carefully and ensure that doing so is in the public interest — is sound. But that purpose is better served by independent provincial prosecution services or the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Crown counsel already make these complex judgments daily, weighing public interest, assessing conviction thresholds and exercising discretion free from political direction.

I would ask my colleagues in committee to consider whether transferring this function to those independent bodies would better serve both judicial independence and the confidence of the communities this bill is meant to protect.

Colleagues, once a police officer, always a police officer, so allow me to speak for a moment about deterrence, which is central to the objectives of our criminal justice system.

In the 1980s, Canada confronted another form of serious, under-reported, cyclical violence: intimate partner violence. The response was not only legislative; provinces adopted what became known as pro-charge and pro-prosecution policies: directives that required police to lay charges when there were reasonable grounds to believe an offence had occurred in a domestic context.

The purpose of those policies was to increase victim safety, improve reporting, reduce reoffending and send a clear societal message that intimate partner violence is a public safety matter, not a private one.

The evidence suggests they worked. For instance, research in London, Ontario, found that police-laid charges in intimate partner cases rose from 3% in 1979 to 89% by 1990. Studies in both Canada and the United States found that arrests produced significantly lower rates of reoffending. Policy and accountability changed behaviour.

I am not drawing a direct equivalence between intimate partner violence and hate crimes. Intimate partner violence is uniquely pervasive, and its dynamics are distinct, but the underlying logic for policy intervention is the same: It is a serious crime that was severely under-reported, deeply under-enforced and cyclical, with victims who did not believe the system would act on their behalf.

Does that sound familiar?

That cycle of hate, silence and impunity will not be broken by legislation alone. We need to think boldly about what the signal of enforcement looks like.

One idea worth considering in cases where a hate crime charge is proven is whether the cost of prosecution — the investigative work and the Crown’s resources — should be recoverable from the offender. We impose financial consequences on offenders in other contexts. Where hatred is the animating force behind a serious crime, requiring an offender to bear some of those costs would be a signal that a community’s safety should not be taken for granted.

We should also consider the civil dimension. In wrongful death cases or civil lawsuits stemming from hate-motivated offences, the financial and legal burden on surviving families and victims can be immense. Where the Crown determines a case meets the threshold of a serious hate crime, Crown support for civil proceedings could ensure that justice does not depend solely on a family’s private capacity to pursue it.

I understand these ideas may not belong in this bill, but they deserve a place in our national conversation about what real accountability for hate looks like.

As our colleagues examine this legislation in committee, I ask that they explore these questions:

First, what additional resources, training and guidelines will be provided to police services and Crown prosecutors across the country to equip them to investigate, charge and prove hate-motivated offences?

Second, on Attorney General consent in clauses 3 and 4, would that gatekeeping function be better served by independent provincial prosecution services — to preserve both judicial independence and public confidence — than by the current political model?

Third, beyond this bill, what else can increase enforcement of hate-motivated offences? Would pro-prosecution and pro-charge frameworks be appropriate? Should offenders bear the cost of prosecution in proven hate crime cases? I believe we must be comprehensive in our approach and utilize every tool available in combatting hate crimes.

Honourable colleagues, I want to return to where I began: Birinder Singh. He died near Leduc on March 14 of this year. He was 22 years old and on a road trip with his friends. He saw what he thought was a peace sign and returned it because that was the kind of person he was. Regardless of whether his death is ever classified as a hate crime, it revealed that the systems we have built to recognize, investigate and prosecute hate are incomplete. Our communities feel unprotected. Too many people in this country have learned, over time, to expect less.

This bill is a step, a sincere and meaningful one, but the test of legislation goes far beyond Royal Assent. Only time will tell whether we are building institutions worthy of the promise of diversity that we keep making or whether we fall short.

I will be following the Human Rights Committee’s deliberations closely. I am grateful to colleagues in this chamber who are engaging this legislation with the seriousness it deserves.

Thank you.

Senator Dhillon, your time allowed for debate has expired. Do you want more time to answer questions?

If my colleagues will allow.

Is leave granted?

Thank you, Senator Dhillon, for your heartfelt message, your service and the lessons your speech taught us.

My question is for you as a former police officer. I would like to know whether you have heard of racial profiling. If so, how can this bill incorporate that aspect into the legislation?

Thank you for the question.

I think that’s a conversation to be had at the Human Rights Committee. Profiling has been an issue over the years, and education certainly helps. Understanding and having a deeper and greater knowledge of all the people whom we serve in this country is where all of this starts. That is why I say education is critical. For this bill to be successful, it is critical that we lift the levels of education, awareness and experience of our law enforcement and front-line officers, because they are the ones who will be facing these questions first.

While we dedicate time, resources and thought to combatting hate crimes, in a similar manner, we also have to ensure that our institutions guarding and protecting us have the same level of understanding, experience and willingness to enforce these laws. Hence my recommendation on following some examples of the past — namely, what has been put in place for intimate partner violence — to ensure there’s not only one person reviewing that particular investigation but also a system and that decisions are not made by one police officer but, rather, a process and a framework.

Senator Dhillon, thank you very much for your speech. It’s hard to comprehend the personal nature of your speech because one can’t separate this from oneself.

The context of the legislation speaks to hate. As we know, in this society, none of us is born with hate in our heart or in our head. We learn it. How can a country that is so rich in diversity, culture and people continue to see the Sikh community in a certain way, despite the fact that they have been here as long as many other communities that have occupied this country?

For the Sikh community, hate cannot be separated from race. So how can you fight hate in this legislation if it doesn’t also acknowledge that hate is a fundamental part that forms the belief of how certain people are treated?

Senator Dhillon, would you like more time? We had five minutes for the answer. We’re down to 30 seconds. I saw Senator Ataullahjan also standing to ask a question. Would you like more time?

Once again, Your Honour, if it’s the will of my colleagues, then I’m happy to answer questions.

Is leave granted?

Thank you, senator, for that question. It’s a complex question, and it’s part of how we, as a nation, continue to confront these issues. The work is not yet done.

I don’t want to lose sight of the fact that we have come a long way, and we have made gains. I’m standing in the Senate.

I have colleagues on the other side who also serve. We occupy different places in institutions and organizations across this country and commit and contribute every day. As you said, the Sikh community has been here for over a century. I’ve been dedicated to making this country better for all of us.

To the question of race and hate and religion and faith, I think we all need to do more work on bettering ourselves and learning about each other. Hate thrives in places where ignorance thrives. Hate thrives when we don’t make the effort to reach across, lend a smile or shake another person’s hand. Hate thrives when we don’t stand with each other when someone is being attacked.

The work is on all of us. These bills, this legislation — this is a small step. This is just part of it. Collectively, as a nation, as a community and as leaders, I think there’s a lot we can accomplish and a lot we can do that will go beyond this bill. We do need to be consistent in continually monitoring, as I’ve said in the past, and keeping an eye on how this bill will serve us and Canadians. If that falls short, well, I guess we’ll come back to Senator Wells.

Yes. Thank you.

Thank you for the question. I think you’ve covered a lot in there.

I would say, from a policing perspective, I’ve been one of those trainers providing cultural training and race relations training over the years. It helps, but it’s a continuous effort. We can’t just stop. There’s so much more that we need to learn and do when we have to carry both the responsibility and the duty of protecting those we’re serving.

To that end, we had a conversation with retired investigator Stephen Camp yesterday, who is a pre-eminent investigator in hate crimes, provides training to the Canadian Police College and has lent his voice in the development of this bill. He will tell you, as he told me, there’s more work to be done, and it is not enough to just have legislation. Training is important. Resources are important. It is important that we continue to pay heed to those spaces where we’re asking so much of our police officers on the front lines and that they are provided with training and also oversight in how they show up to address some of these crimes.

I have examples of situations where the hakenkreuz was drawn on cemeteries and other places, and they were written off as mischief. That’s the risk of not having a process that has oversight within it to ensure that those crimes aren’t under-reported or misreported.

If I understood your other question, within the community itself, I think there’s a responsibility for accountability on the part of law enforcement agencies and organizations to be providing regular reporting, having interactions with the community and building out systems and networks that can hold them and their work accountable and that their efforts ensure they include that type of training for themselves and they respond in a meaningful way.

I hope that answers your question.