Canada’s Proposed Online Harms Act (Bill C-63)

Sara Santos-Vigneault
23 hours ago
5 min read

Written by: Sara Santos-Vigneault

Date: March 16, 2026

This image showcases the Canadian "Online Harms Act Bill C-63" and a laptop screen depicting a parliamentary debate on online harms, symbolizing legislative action and public discourse. A gavel and padlock, alongside national symbols and digital threat icons, underscore the legal and security considerations surrounding this legislation.

Overview of the Proposed Legislation

In February 2024, the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-63, commonly referred to as the Online Harms Act, as proposed legislation intended to regulate certain forms of harmful content on digital platforms. The government stated that the bill aimed to make online environments safer, particularly for children, and to impose legal responsibilities on large social media platforms that host user-generated content. [1]

The bill was formally introduced in the House of Commons on February 26, 2024, during the 44th Parliament of Canada. Following first reading and early debate, the legislation was referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for further study and public testimony. Throughout 2024, the committee heard from civil liberties organizations, legal scholars, technology experts, and advocacy groups regarding the potential impacts of the proposal. [2]

However, the bill did not complete the parliamentary process. When Parliament was prorogued on January 6, 2025, all unfinished legislation, including Bill C-63, died on the Order Paper. As a result, the proposed Online Harms Act did not become law. [3]

Although the legislation was never enacted, the proposal remains significant because it illustrates how the federal government has attempted to address harmful online content and regulate the responsibilities of digital platforms. The debates surrounding Bill C-63 also continue to influence discussions about future online safety legislation in Canada.

Legislative Background

Bill C-63 proposed creating a new federal statute called the Online Harms Act, alongside amendments to existing legislation including the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act. [4]

The proposed framework focused primarily on online services that host user-generated content, including major social media platforms. Under the bill, these platforms would have been required to take steps to address certain categories of harmful material appearing on their services.

The legislation identified several types of online harm that could trigger regulatory obligations:

• content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes survivors

• non-consensual sharing of intimate images

• content that incites violence• material encouraging self-harm

• certain forms of hate speech

Rather than regulating all forms of online expression, the bill targeted specific categories of harmful content that Parliament considered to present serious risks to individuals and public safety. [1]

Proposed Regulatory Institutions

The legislation proposed establishing a new federal regulatory system responsible for overseeing compliance by digital platforms.

Digital Safety Commission

The Digital Safety Commission of Canada would have served as the primary regulator responsible for enforcing the Online Harms Act. The Commission would have had authority to investigate complaints, issue compliance orders, and impose administrative monetary penalties on platforms that failed to comply with their legal obligations. [1]

Digital Safety Ombudsperson

The proposed Digital Safety Ombudsperson would have assisted individuals reporting harmful online content and provided guidance about complaint procedures and regulatory processes.

Digital Safety Office

The Digital Safety Office would have supported the administrative functions of the regulatory framework and assisted the Commission in implementing enforcement measures.

Together, these institutions would have formed the central enforcement structure for the proposed legislation.

Amendments to Existing Federal Laws

In addition to creating a new regulatory statute, Bill C-63 proposed amendments to several existing federal laws.

One set of amendments concerned the Criminal Code, including new legal tools addressing hate-motivated conduct and provisions allowing courts to impose peace bonds where a person feared that another individual might commit a hate propaganda offence. [5]

The bill also proposed amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act allowing complaints related to online hate speech to be brought before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

This aspect of the proposal attracted attention because Parliament had previously repealed section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act in 2013, which had addressed hate messages communicated through telecommunications systems. Critics of the earlier provision had argued that it raised concerns about freedom of expression and procedural fairness in human rights proceedings. [6]

Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Canada, with its Gothic Revival architecture, green copper roofs, and the Peace Tower rising above the grounds..

Civil Liberties and Academic Criticism

Bill C-63 generated substantial debate among legal scholars, civil liberties organizations, and policy commentators.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) stated that although protecting individuals from online harm is an important policy objective, the legislation required significant amendment to ensure that it respected the constitutional protection of freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The organization warned that some provisions of the bill were broadly framed and could risk limiting lawful speech if not carefully defined. [7]

Legal scholars specializing in digital policy also raised concerns about aspects of the bill. Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa and a widely cited commentator on Canadian technology law, argued that the provisions amending the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act should be removed from the legislation. Geist wrote that combining multiple forms of speech regulation within a single bill created serious civil liberties concerns and risked expanding government authority over lawful expression online. [8]

Supporters of stronger online regulation, however, argued that digital platforms should bear greater responsibility for harmful content distributed through their services. Advocacy groups focused on online safety emphasized the need for more effective responses to material involving child sexual exploitation, non-consensual image sharing, and severe online harassment.

Constitutional Context

The debate surrounding Bill C-63 frequently focused on the relationship between online content regulation and freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression is protected under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right to express opinions, ideas, and information. However, the Charter also permits governments to impose limits on rights where those limits are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under section 1. [9]

Canadian courts have previously examined the constitutionality of hate speech restrictions.

In Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld certain restrictions on hate speech contained in provincial human rights legislation while emphasizing that legal definitions must remain carefully limited to avoid restricting lawful expression. [10]

Because Bill C-63 did not become law, its provisions were never tested in court. However, many commentators anticipated that aspects of the legislation could face constitutional challenges if enacted.

Current Status

Bill C-63 represented one of the most comprehensive attempts by the federal government to regulate harmful online content and establish responsibilities for digital platforms operating in Canada. Introduced in February 2024, the proposed Online Harms Act would have created new regulatory institutions, imposed obligations on online platforms, and amended existing federal laws addressing hate speech and online conduct.

The bill did not pass Parliament and died on the Order Paper in January 2025 when Parliament was prorogued. Although it never became law, the debates surrounding Bill C-63 continue to shape discussions about how Canada may regulate harmful online content while maintaining constitutional protections for freedom of expression.