Key takeaways
- The House of Commons Heritage Committee studied influencers and social media effects on children for a year, then recommended banning targeted ads to minors and the collection and use of minors’ data. The government’s response this week declined that recommendation, the only one of 13 it merely “acknowledges” rather than supports.
- The same government is legislating the ban the committee did not recommend: no social media accounts for under-16s under Bill C-34, with exemption criteria unwritten and a regulator that does not exist yet.
- The government’s own response names personalized algorithmic feeds as a central driver of harm, and the OPC’s Children’s Privacy Code already says no marketing profiling of children. Privacy teams should plan for ad-targeting rules to arrive through those routes anyway.
The reversal, stated plainly
Two bans were on the table. The committee picked one. The government picked the other.
The Heritage Committee’s report, released in June after a year-long study of influencers and social media effects on children and adolescents, produced 13 recommendations, including a legally enforceable duty of care, an independent regulator, and safety-by-design duties. One recommendation called on the government to “implement a ban on targeted ads as well as the collection and use of minors’ data.” The government declined it. Bill C-34, now in second reading debate, bans accounts for under-16s instead, a ban the committee never recommended. The committee had asked instead for monitoring of age-restriction policies elsewhere, an assessment of whether they work, and published findings.
Why the committee wanted the ad ban
The ad-ban recommendation drew on testimony from Tiana Sharifi of the Center for Exploitation Education and a brief from Children First Canada, plus a warning from UQAM’s Maude Bonenfant that data harvested in childhood can follow a person into applications for insurance, housing, and work. A child’s clickstream becomes an adult’s risk file.
The expert evidence on the account ban pointed the other way. Holly Wood of Defend Dignity told the committee that banning social media “doesn’t work and can actually make things worse by driving kids toward unregulated, dangerous spaces.” MediaSmarts’ Matthew Johnson warned that “excessive restriction can backfire,” and Concordia’s Fenwick McKelvey cautioned that enforcement would require “a fairly invasive privacy or data collection regime.” A 12-year-old witness, Zachary Fathally, put it simplest: “kids can find workarounds.”
What the government answered
| The committee asked for | The government response |
|---|---|
| Ban targeted ads to minors, and the collection and use of minors’ data | Declined, the only recommendation merely “acknowledged”; pointed to existing and proposed privacy protections instead |
| Monitor age-restriction policies elsewhere, assess effectiveness, publish findings | Supported “in principle,” but pointed to the ban already chosen and a statutory review three years after the Act takes effect |
| A duty of care, an independent regulator, safety-by-design duties | Endorsed in large part, and reflected in Bill C-34’s design duties and the proposed Digital Safety Commission |
The government says existing and proposed privacy protections do the work, with Bill C-36 treating children’s information as sensitive under a higher consent standard. That is a consent-based answer to a collection-based recommendation. Consent from whom, for a child, through which interface, is the question the committee’s ban would have avoided.
The sentence that gives the game away
Its response states that “personalized algorithmic feeds based on user data play a crucial role in the addictive design of social media platforms.” The data-driven business model is named as a central driver of the harm. The recommendation that would have restricted that model was refused.
And the ad-targeting rules are arriving anyway, through other doors. The OPC’s Children’s Privacy Code, launched October 20, says no profiling of children for marketing purposes. I covered the Code when it launched. Bill C-36 would harden the consent standard for children’s data. Reading the government’s “no” as permission to keep profiling minors misreads the file. The ban lost the vote; the principle is winning everywhere else.
The counterargument is fair: parents support restrictions, the ban stops at holding an account rather than browsing, and the design duties may do more practical work than an ad ban alone. The government’s position is a bet: that design duties plus a future regulator beat a prohibition on the business model. The Heritage hearings will test that bet.
What to watch next
Second reading debate began October 21, with the government pressing opposition MPs on whether they support creating the Digital Safety Commission, before any of those exist. The hearings are where the two bans meet: the one the committee recommended, and the one the government chose. Whether the MPs who wrote the study stand by it when the bill arrives is the open thread, and nobody can answer it yet.
Actionable takeaway: Treat the ad-targeting question as live, not settled. If your service touches Canadian users under 18, audit every flow that profiles minors for advertising or recommendation, and treat the OPC Code’s no-marketing-profiling rule as your floor, because that is the standard an OPC finding will measure you against. On the account ban, do not build to a ban that may change at committee: build to the age-assurance conditions that survive any scenario, collect only for age purposes, protect until verified, destroy when done. Read the Heritage Committee’s report before the hearings.