Peter Menzies has a practical warning in The Hill Times about the federal government’s latest attempt to regulate social media for children. Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act, would ban access for anyone under 16 and place a duty of care on platforms. On paper it sounds like a meaningful response to parental concerns about addiction, predation, and the darker corners of the online world. The problem is timing.
Even if the bill passes quickly, the real work of implementation will take years. A new Digital Safety Commission has to be created, staffed, funded, and given directions from cabinet. Regulations will need to be written, consultations held, and inevitable legal challenges fought through the courts. By the time the rules are settled and enforced, many of the children currently in elementary school will already have spent years navigating social media under the existing system. The legislation may eventually help younger cohorts, but it will come too late for the kids who are already deeply online.
Menzies notes that public pressure and lawsuits in other countries are already pushing tech companies to improve their own tools. Apple’s recent parental controls are one example of the industry responding to market and political signals. That kind of voluntary adjustment may deliver more immediate protection than a slow-moving regulatory apparatus. The bill also leaves important details — including potential exemptions for certain companies — to future cabinet decisions and the still-uncreated commission, which is why some observers have called it “the law to be named later.”
Parents dealing with video game addiction or the growing presence of sports betting promotions aimed at young people will find little help here either. Those issues fall outside the current legislation. For families trying to manage screen time and online risks right now, the most realistic short-term tools remain the ones they already control: household rules, device settings, and the parental features companies are finally improving under public pressure.
The impulse to protect children from online harms is understandable. The question is whether a lengthy legislative and bureaucratic process is the most effective way to deliver that protection to the kids who need it most. Menzies’ timeline suggests that by the time Ottawa’s rules are fully operational, a significant part of the current generation will already have grown up under the old ones.
