What impacts would bill c-63 have on journalists, researchers, and academic 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This fact-check may be outdated.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) would both expand platform obligations and create a new Digital Safety Commission while also opening limited pathways for accredited researchers to access platform data anonymously — measures that supporters say improve child safety and research transparency and critics say risk chilling journalism and free expression [1] [2] [3]. Opponents — civil liberties groups, legal experts and some journalists — warned the bill’s hate‑speech and human‑rights provisions could be weaponized against reporters and institutions; the government later split the bill and C-63 died on the order paper in January 2025 [4] [5] [6] [1].
1. What the bill would change about platforms and oversight — “A regulator at the centre”
Bill C-63 would establish a Digital Safety Commission with powers to set standards, investigate complaints, publish accreditation lists, and enforce platform duties to develop risk‑mitigation plans for seven categories of harmful content — creating a new regulatory apparatus that fundamentally alters how social media companies operate in Canada [7] [8] [3].
2. Direct effects on researchers — “Access, but under commission control”
The bill specifically authorizes the Digital Safety Commission to accredit researchers and permit anonymous access to inventories of platform data so scholars can verify platform behaviour and algorithms; the Commission may publish who is accredited and descriptions of their projects [2] [9]. Analysts describe this as one of the bill’s most tangible benefits — improving researcher access and transparency — but access would be mediated by a regulator rather than granted as an open right [10] [9].
3. Risks for journalists and academic freedom — “From takedowns to tribunal complaints”
Civil liberties groups and legal observers warned that broad criminal and human‑rights provisions could chill journalistic reporting and be weaponized against reporters, clergy or academics; critics cite past misuse of human‑rights mechanisms and fear new complaint pathways and monetary remedies could be used to silence investigative work [4] [5] [11]. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the BC Civil Liberties Association argued the bill “risks censoring a range of expression including journalistic reporting” and noted complaint processes could permit anonymity and monetary awards that create incentives for misuse [4] [11].
4. Tension between evidence access and investigative policing — “Preserve vs. purge”
Justice Canada’s Charter statement acknowledges platforms removing content can impede law‑enforcement and national‑security investigations and therefore the bill contemplates obligations to preserve content and enable regulators or accredited researchers to access material — a technical win for research and investigations — but it also formalizes state oversight of what content must be retained or removed [3].
5. Two competing narratives — “Child protection vs. free‑speech alarm”
Supporters framed C-63 as a necessary step to protect children and vulnerable people from predatory behaviour and online abuse, a position underscored by government and advocacy groups focused on online safety [1] [12]. Opponents — including Amnesty International Canada, the CCLA and constitutional advocates — argued parts of the bill could disproportionately affect free expression and were drafted without adequate consultation of affected communities, including researchers and civil‑society actors [13] [4] [5].
6. Practical impacts on academic institutions — “New compliance and collaboration dynamics”
Universities and research units gaining accredited access would need to navigate the Commission’s accreditation, possible publication of their projects, and confidentiality provisions that could impose new institutional compliance and privacy safeguards; those dynamics could encourage platform collaboration but also raise academic‑freedom and data‑governance questions for institutions [9] [3] [10].
7. Political outcome and lingering uncertainty — “Died on the order paper, not resolved”
Parliament prorogation in January 2025 ended C-63’s parliamentary progress; the government announced plans to split the bill and later move hate‑speech components into other legislation, leaving unresolved which provisions will return, in what form, and how concerns raised by journalists and researchers will be addressed [6] [14] [1].
Limitations and caveats: available sources focus on the bill text, government commentary, civil‑liberties analyses and legal briefs; they document likely mechanisms and stated risks but do not contain empirical studies of how similar frameworks affected journalists or researchers in practice in Canada — such outcome data is not found in current reporting [3] [4].