Canada’s Online Harms Bill Could Include a Social Media Ban for Children Under 16

Canada may be moving toward one of its most significant youth-tech policy shifts yet. The federal government plans to propose a ban on social media use for children under 16 as part of its upcoming online harms bill, according to reporting from Global News, which cited a government source familiar with the plan. Culture Minister Marc Miller told reporters he could not comment on the bill’s contents before formally tabling it in the House of Commons.

The proposal, if introduced as reported, would place Canada inside a growing global debate over whether governments should restrict children’s access to major social platforms or force companies to redesign those platforms around stronger youth protections. The planned measure would apply to children under 16 and would be part of a broader online harms bill expected to be introduced in Parliament. The proposal would follow similar moves abroad, including Australia’s under-16 social media restriction, which took effect last December.

The key word here is proposed. Until the bill is tabled and its text is public, major details remain unclear. That includes which platforms would be covered, how age verification would work, whether there would be exemptions for educational or messaging services, what obligations would fall on companies, and how privacy concerns would be handled. That uncertainty matters. A youth social media ban sounds simple as a headline, but the enforcement questions are complicated. Modern platforms blur lines between entertainment, communication, education, search, video, gaming and creator tools. Any legislation would have to define what counts as “social media” before it could regulate access.

The idea has been building for months. In April, Global News reported that Marc Miller said Ottawa was “very seriously” considering a youth social media ban after Liberal Party members passed a non-binding resolution calling for age 16 to become the minimum for social media accounts. Miller also said a ban could be “an important layer,” but not a complete solution to online harms.

Public opinion may be helping push the conversation forward. A March 2026 Angus Reid Institute survey found that 75% of Canadians supported a full ban on social media use for anyone under 16, while 87% supported banning certain apps for those under 16. At the same time, Angus Reid also found that 72% of Canadians said parents, not governments, should be primarily responsible for regulating teen social media use.

That contradiction is the heart of the Canadian debate. Many people are worried about youth exposure to harmful content, cyberbullying, misinformation, privacy risks and mental-health pressure. But many also hesitate when the solution shifts from parental guidance to government restriction.

Canada has already tried to legislate in this space. In 2024, the federal government introduced Bill C-63, which would have created an Online Harms Act and set baseline responsibilities for online platforms. The Government of Canada said that earlier proposal targeted seven categories of harmful content, including content used to bully a child, content that sexually victimizes a child, content that incites violence, and content that foments hatred. The previous bill would also have placed duties on social media services, including a duty to act responsibly, a duty to protect children and a duty to make certain harmful content inaccessible.

The new bill appears likely to revive and reshape that debate. The biggest shift is that an under-16 social media ban would move the conversation from content moderation alone toward access itself. Instead of only asking platforms to reduce harmful material, the government would be asking whether some users should be kept off certain platforms altogether.

Supporters argue that stronger restrictions are needed because voluntary platform safety tools have not done enough. They see an age limit as one part of a broader safety system that could include design standards, transparency requirements and stronger duties for companies.

Critics worry that a ban could be difficult to enforce, could push young users toward less regulated spaces, or could require age-verification systems that raise privacy concerns. Any system that asks users to prove their age creates a second policy problem: how to confirm identity without collecting too much sensitive information. That is why the bill’s final wording will matter more than the political headline. A broad under-16 ban would be one thing. A narrower restriction on specific platforms or features would be another. A platform-duty model, where companies carry the legal burden, would also look different from a parent-focused enforcement model.

---

Enjoyed the read? Consider showing your support by leaving a tip for the writer

---

Featured

Follow Us

---

---

---

---

---

Realated

---