Editor’s note: This article examines how Canadian policy can shape what people see, publish and access online. Government regulation, platform moderation and direct censorship are different mechanisms—but each can damage free expression when power is opaque and appeals are weak.
The government keeps calling control “regulation”
Ottawa’s preferred language is safety, fairness and support for journalism. The public-interest question is simpler: who gets power over speech, what rules do they use, and who can challenge them?
Bill C-11
The Online Streaming Act expanded the CRTC’s role over online undertakings. That creates a serious discoverability and editorial-control concern: regulators can influence what content is promoted, prioritized or made visible even when officials deny that they are censoring individual posts.
Bill C-18
The Online News Act changed the bargaining relationship between platforms and news organizations. Meta responded by blocking news content for Canadian users. The result was not a theoretical policy debate: Canadians lost access to news on major platforms, while Ottawa claimed the law would strengthen journalism.
Bill C-63 and the danger of vague harm
The proposed Online Harms Act raised concerns about broad definitions, severe penalties, surveillance and weak due process. A government that can define “harm” loosely can turn political pressure into content control. Bill C-63 should not be described as enacted law unless Parliament actually passes it—but its proposed architecture deserves public scrutiny.
The minimum safeguards
- Precise definitions that cannot be stretched to target political criticism.
- Independent decisions, not ministerial direction.
- Notice, evidence and meaningful appeals before penalties.
- Protection for journalism, satire, research and dissent.
- Public data on takedowns, referrals and recommendation changes.
- Sunset clauses and judicial review.
Canadians should not surrender speech rights because officials attach the word “safety” to a bill. If the government believes its policies are harmless, it should publish the evidence and accept independent scrutiny.
