Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What is the main purpose of Bill C-63 in Canada?
Executive summary
Bill C-63 is the federal government’s proposed Online Harms Act aimed chiefly at promoting online safety in Canada by reducing specified harmful content on major social media platforms and creating new institutions to enforce rules — including a Digital Safety Commission and Ombudsperson [1] [2]. The bill targeted seven categories of harmful content (children’s sexual exploitation, non‑consensual intimate images, bullying of children, induced self‑harm, fomenting hatred, incitement to violence, and violent extremism/terrorism) and also proposed changes to the Criminal Code and Canadian Human Rights Act; it did not become law before Parliament was prorogued [3] [4] [5].
1. What the bill says it seeks to do: legislate online safety and accountability
Bill C-63 would have enacted an “Online Harms Act” whose stated purposes include promoting the online safety of people in Canada, reducing harms caused by harmful content online, and ensuring operators of social media services are transparent and accountable for duties under the Act; it proposed creating a Digital Safety Commission of Canada, a Digital Safety Ombudsperson, and a supporting Digital Safety Office to administer that framework [2] [1] [6].
2. The specific harms the bill targeted
The government framed C-63 around seven types of harmful content: content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor; intimate content shared without consent (revenge porn); content used to bully a child; content that induces a child to self-harm; content that foments hatred; content that incites violence; and content that incites violent extremism or terrorism [3] [5].
3. Criminal‑law and human‑rights changes bundled into the bill
Beyond platform regulation, C-63 included amendments to the Criminal Code (introducing a new “offence motivated by hatred,” new peace-bond powers related to hate crimes, and increased maximum penalties for hate propaganda) and changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act and mandatory reporting rules for child sexual content — signalling the government’s dual focus on online safety and hate/harm prevention [1] [7].
4. Enforcement design: a regulatory body with broad powers
The bill proposed a regulatory architecture that places substantial authority in a new Digital Safety Commission and associated officials to create standards, enforce duties, and oversee social-media operators — a structure civil liberties groups warned could centralize interpretive and enforcement power in government-appointed bodies [2] [8].
5. Supporters’ rationale: protect children and reduce online hate
Government and some advocates argued C-63 would deliver stronger protections for children and better safeguard Canadians from online hate, filling gaps left by platform self-regulation and offering victims routes to redress [5] [3]. Proponents also cited expert advisory input used to shape the bill’s measures [6].
6. Critics’ concerns: free expression, scope, and institutional power
Civil-liberties groups (e.g., Canadian Civil Liberties Association) and other critics cautioned that the bill’s criminal and human‑rights amendments, plus the concentrated regulatory authority, risk chilling legitimate speech, stifling journalism and activism, and granting an unelected body sweeping enforcement discretion [8] [9]. Amnesty Canada and others welcomed splitting the bill to prioritize child protection while addressing rights concerns separately [10].
7. How significant was the change proposed? Competing expert takes
Some commentators saw C-63 as a careful, measured regulatory approach focused on large platforms (government framing) while others said it was one of the most significant expansions of hate‑speech regulation in North America and could create a rigid environment for media and platforms [6] [11]. Policy analysts argued the platform-regulation portion was relatively “light touch” in practice, even as other elements were legally consequential [12].
8. Political fate and next steps in the record
C-63 stalled in Parliament and “died on the order paper” after prorogation in January 2025; officials signalled an intention to split the bill (prioritizing child-protection measures) and reintroduce components later, and some hate‑speech elements later appeared in subsequent legislation [4] [3]. Available sources do not mention whether an exact reworked successor fully restoring C-63’s package has become law (not found in current reporting).
9. Bottom line for readers: purpose versus controversy
The main purpose of Bill C-63 was to create a statutory Online Harms Act to make platforms and harms explicitly accountable and to strengthen protections for children and targets of online hate, backed by new institutions and criminal‑law changes [2] [5]. However, the package combined platform regulation with far‑reaching criminal and human‑rights amendments that prompted concerns about free expression and concentrated regulatory power, producing significant debate about trade‑offs between safety and rights [8] [9] [11].