The right to express religious beliefs in Canada remained in jeopardy after lawmakers declined to include a religious belief defense in a hate crime bill, rights advocates said.
The Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights on June 1 defeated a motion by Conservative Sen. Yonah Martin to restore the “good faith” religious belief defense to the Criminal Code under Bill C-9, also known as the Combating Hate Act.
The full Senate subsequently debated and passed Bill C-9 on Thursday (June 4) without adding the protections for religious expression. The bill now heads back to the House of Commons for a final vote on an unrelated amendment regarding hate symbols.
“We would welcome an approach that says upfront that good faith and expression and practice of religious belief is not a hate crime under any circumstance,” Julia Beazley, director of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada’s Centre for Faith and Public Life, told the committee on May 28.
Beazley added that the clause in the legislation related to defense against hate crime charges does not provide the upfront interpretive clarity that officials discussed and promised, calling for a crucial amendment at a minimum.
Martin’s motion sought to reverse a previous House of Commons amendment that deleted Section 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code. The deleted section protected people from hate speech convictions if they expressed an opinion on religious matters in good faith.
Senators opposing the motion argued that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms already fully protects ordinary religious expression without the specific clause.
The committee defeated Martin’s motion in a 4-3 vote. The bill then advanced to the wider Senate floor without the restored religious defense.
The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) lobbied heavily alongside Martin for the changes before the committee vote. Following the vote, the EFC asserted in a statement that the committee failed to add clarity and protection for religious expression to the bill.
“Please pray as the bill returns to the Senate and there is a final opportunity for changes to be made,” the EFC added.
The Christian Legal Fellowship (CLF), representing 800 Christian attorneys, law students, retired judges and others in the legal profession, also expressed concern about the bill.
The CLF previously called on policymakers to clarify the meaning of “hatred,” to maintain and clarify protections for good faith religious expression and to refine a proposed offense from motivation by hatred to one committed with the intent to incite hatred.
In its May 2026 brief to the committee, the CLF warned of the dangers of labeling speech found controversial and offensive as hateful. The legal group also expressed disquiet over the potential lack of protections to prevent majorities from consciously or unconsciously silencing unpopular minorities in the public square.
“The protection of free expression and the fight against hatred are not conflicting goals but share a common objective: that of upholding human dignity,” the CLF stated in its brief. “Canada’s efforts to uphold human dignity in one context must not undermine those efforts in another.”
Ultimately, the CLF said commitments to human dignity require the pursuit of truth to be guarded, even when that pursuit is messy and difficult.
“Challenges to our truth claims can sometimes be (mis)interpreted as an attack on us. It can be tempting to label such speech as ‘hate,’” the CLF stated. “But if we are serious about the search for truth – and upholding our core commitments to human dignity – we must preserve freedom to dialogue, examine and even challenge and criticize one another’s claims without fear of sanction or censure.”
The CLF argued that the bill must draw a clear line between expression seeking to mobilize others to vilify groups and expression which simply challenges ideas.
“Such protections ensure that all Canadians, especially minority communities, are protected from the ‘tyranny of the majority,’” the group added.
