What does Bill C-63 propose and how would it impact citizens and institutions?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Bill C-63 — the Online Harms Act — proposed a new regulatory regime that would force designated online services to reduce exposure to seven categories of harmful content (including child sexual exploitation, non‑consensual intimate images, bullying of children, self‑harm inducement, hate and violent extremism) and to face penalties or orders for non‑compliance [1] [2]. The bill also included major Criminal Code and Canadian Human Rights Act changes — creating new offences and civil penalties for hateful content — and would have created a Digital Safety Commission to enforce platform duties [3] [4] [5].
1. What the bill proposed: a new Online Harms Act and duties on platforms
Bill C-63 sought to enact an Online Harms Act that would impose a duty of care on social media and other regulated services to actively reduce users’ exposure to harmful content and to provide clearer reporting, blocking, child protections and transparency reporting requirements [6] [2] [3]. The government described the core idea as creating a regulatory framework to hold platforms accountable for seven defined types of harmful content, and to modernize mandatory reporting of online child pornography by internet service providers [1] [6] [7].
2. Enforcement architecture: a Digital Safety Commission with coercive powers
The bill would create a Digital Safety governance system — including a Digital Safety Commission of a small panel (3–5 people) tasked with reviewing platform risk‑mitigation plans, issuing takedown notices for certain sexual harms, and overseeing compliance — shifting enforcement beyond existing criminal or civil routes [4]. For specified sexual‑victimization content the regulator could compel removal within tight timeframes; other categories would mainly rely on strengthened self‑regulation and reporting obligations [8] [4].
3. Criminal and human‑rights law changes: new offences and civil penalties for hate
C-63 proposed amendments to the Criminal Code to create or expand offences tied to hateful motivation and to increase penalties for hate‑related crimes; it would also re‑empower the Canadian Human Rights Commission to address hate speech by issuing fines for “hateful messages,” representing what legal commentators call a significant expansion of Canada’s hate‑speech regime [5] [3]. Critics warned the package included proposals that could impose fines up to tens of thousands of dollars and revive civil penalties long debated in Canada [9] [5].
4. Impact on citizens: protection for victims, risks to expression, and procedural questions
Proponents argue C‑63 would improve protections for children and survivors of non‑consensual intimate images and make it easier to get harmful sexual content taken down quickly [2] [8]. Opponents — including civil‑liberties defenders and some political voices — raised that expanded civil penalties and broad hate provisions could chill legitimate expression, risk administrative overreach, and re‑introduce contested enforcement tools that previously drew criticism [9] [10]. Available sources note concerns about transparency, youth representation, and the impartiality of the regulator [11].
5. Impact on platforms and institutions: compliance costs, recordkeeping and penalties
Designated services would face new duties to preserve records, act quickly on takedown orders, and maintain risk‑mitigation measures; failures could lead to orders, fines, and other enforcement steps by the Digital Safety Commission or through criminal/human‑rights remedies [12] [4] [5]. Commentators cautioned that the bill’s “teeth” were strongest for intimate sexual harms while much of the rest of the regime resembled a modified self‑regulatory status quo — raising doubts whether regulators could compel large, multinational platforms to comply effectively [8] [1].
6. Political fate and contestation: split, pause, and a bill that died on the order paper
Bill C‑63 stalled amid political crisis and was prorogued and removed from the Order Paper in January 2025; the government announced plans to split the bill (separating child‑protection measures from hate‑speech provisions) to expedite parts before an election [13] [1] [7]. Civil society and advocacy groups were split: some welcomed a split to preserve child protections while others criticized inadequate consultation and problematic speech provisions [10] [11].
7. Competing readings and what to watch next
Analysts differ: some see real gains for survivors and children in the bill’s focused takedown powers [8]; others view the hate‑speech and civil‑penalty elements as a dangerous expansion that risks censorship and administrative abuse [9] [5]. Future drafts or successor bills will likely test whether policymakers keep child‑protection measures while narrowing or reworking criminal and CHRA changes — the government itself signalled splitting the bill to salvage less contested elements [13] [1].
Limitations: reporting here relies on available summaries, government statements and commentary supplied in the sources. Details of specific penalty levels, evidentiary standards, or final regulatory rules would depend on later regulations or amendments and are not fully specified in these documents [6] [4].