This article originally appeared in The Hill Times.
By Peter Menzies, July 24, 2026
Before you get too excited about Online Harms 3.0, consider that it’s unlikely any child currently in school will directly benefit from it.
That doesn’t mean they won’t be more protected from the addictions Big Tech prompts, and the predation that lurks in the dark corners of the internet. They will.
Expensive United States lawsuits, legislation in several other countries, and generally widespread public concern is already forcing companies to up their game. Apple’s recent announcement of a smorgasbord of tools for parents to use to manage their offspring’s introduction to and management of the online world is just one example of the so-called web giants trying to transition and respond to public—and, therefore, political—concerns.
The Safe Social Media Act (Bill C-34) tabled on June 10 by Culture Minister Marc Miller is in fact the Liberal government’s third kick at the can.
The first effort, in 2021, was a flawed and clumsy piece of legislation primarily focused on patrolling the internet for “hate speech.” Panned by civil rights organizations, social media platform operators and free speech advocates, it died on the Order Paper when then-prime minister Justin Trudeau called the 2021 election.
The second effort—Bill C-63—contained some truly menacing hate speech provisions via Criminal Code amendments, including the possibility of life sentences. It also contemplated expansion of “hate” speech complaints to within the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It, in turn, would have had the power to impose fines of up to $20,000.
It did, however, wrap these ambitions within the far more palatable concept of holding social media companies to a duty of care, a Digital Safety Commission to enforce compliance and a Digital Ombudsman. The government eventually split the bill to prioritize the child safety aspect, but, by that time, the Trudeau regime was crumbling. After Mark Carney won the Liberal Party leadership, he soon called an election and Online Harms 2.0 slipped under the waves.
The good news about the 3.0 version—the Safe Social Media Act—is that it has dumped the hate speech amendments (Bill C-9 having covered that off), and abandoned the menacing idea of turning the human rights commission into a social media hall monitor with bite. Most satisfying for parents, it has retained a focus on child safety in terms of sexual exploitation, terrorist recruitment, and other evils. Also, in addition to maintaining tech companies’ duty of care, it will ban social media access for anyone under 16 years of age and restrict pornography to adults only.
Most social media companies currently impose an age limit—as best they can—of 13 years, but they will certainly be expected to apply more vigorous and dependable enforcement methods. One important caveat, however, is that the legislation contemplates exempting certain companies from its direct oversight. Who, how, when, and why is yet to be determined, as are the specifics of any regulations. That responsibility will be left up to cabinet, by order-in-council, and a whole new bureaucracy: the Digital Safety Commission. Its job will be to develop the specific rules and guidelines by which Meta—assuming it doesn’t get a waiver—and others must abide.
Little wonder Bill C-34 has already been dubbed by internet law expert Michael Geist as “The Law To Be Named Later.”
That’s because the ticklish particulars of how to manage the bill’s aspirations (Miller’s concerns involve social stability) are being left up to the Digital Safety Commissioner and her or his staff.
So, first of all, the legislation has to pass and come into force. Then, at some point in 2027, the new commissioner will need to be hired. They, in turn, will have to establish structure, recruit/hire staff, determine a budget, find office space, and get some specific directions via orders-in-council from the federal cabinet before launching a consultation process of some kind. Expect another year after that before appropriate regulations are defined and put into place, and then throw in the likelihood of two to three more years before legal challenges are heard, ruled upon, appealed, and finally settled. Then, expect that Ottawa will agree to an implementation period of at least a year.
All of this means that if you are currently the parent of elementary school children, don’t expect the Social Media Safety Act to be their guardian angel. The best-case scenario in the short term is that it will motivate helpful changes in social media’s self-management.
Oh, and as for your kids’ obsession with video games and professional sports’ vigorous efforts to instil within them a debilitating gambling habit, you’re on your own. Neither of those are covered.
At least not yet.
Peter Menzies is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, and a former vice-chair of the CRTC.
