Why Social Media Legislation in Canada Isn’t as Simple as It Sounds, & Why Parents & Caregivers Can’t Afford to Wait!
- The White Hatter
- 2 hours ago
- 4 min read
When headlines call for “stricter laws” to hold social media companies accountable for the harms young people face online, it sounds like a clear solution. However, in Canada, the reality is far more complicated. Unlike Europe, where countries can pass sweeping online safety and “child protection by design” laws with relative independence, Canada is bound by a trade agreement called “The Canadian, United States, Mexico, Agreement” (CUSMA) that quietly limits how far it can go. (1)
Understanding this helps explain why meaningful child protection legislation here in Canada has been slow, and why parents shouldn’t wait for laws to fix what can be addressed at home right now given the current political environment between Canada and the United States.
The Hidden Challenge: CUSMA’s Source Code Clause
Buried deep in CUSMA’s Chapter 19: Digital Trade, Article 19.16 deals with source code and algorithms, the very systems that power social media feeds, recommendations, and engagement tools. The clause says that no government can force a company to hand over or give access to its source code or algorithms as a condition for doing business.
A Canadian lawyer, who we connected with who specializes in this type of online law, also brought to our attention CUSMA’s Article 19.17, related to liability for user generated content that would come up in the context of online harms legislation, which states:
“To that end, other than as provided in paragraph 4, no Party shall adopt or maintain measures that treat a supplier of user of an interactive computer service as an information content provider in determining liability for harms related to information stored, processed, transmitted, distributed, or made available by the service, except to the extent the supplier or user has, in while or in part, created, or developed the information”
In non-legal terms, this basically means that a social media vendor can not be held legally libel for what others post on their platform. Similar to section 230 in the US Communications Decency Act.
CUSMA was meant to protect intellectual property and prevent unfair competition. However, it also means that if Canada were to pass a law requiring social media platforms to disclose or submit their algorithms for regular safety audits, those companies could argue the law violates CUSMA. If you believe major U.S.-based social media and AI companies won’t use this as their legal “trump card,” (excuse the pun) think again. After all, it was during Donald Trump’s first administration that CUSMA was negotiated and brought into force.
Many of the most promising laws around the world that aim to make digital spaces safer for kids rely on algorithmic transparency and safety-by-design principles. These include:
The UK’s Age-Appropriate Design Code, which requires platforms to minimize data collection and risky design features for minors.
The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which gives regulators and researchers access to how platforms recommend, rank, and moderate content.
These frameworks allow European governments to directly inspect or regulate the algorithms that shape what children see online.
In Canada, however, such direct access could clash with CUSMA. Unless the disclosure happens as part of a specific investigation or court case, the government cannot compel companies to reveal or share their underlying algorithms. As a result, our ability to hold platforms legally accountable for how they design their systems is limited by trade law, not just political will.
So what can lawmakers still do?
CUSMA doesn’t make oversight impossible, it just narrows the path. The Canadian governments can still:
Demand algorithmic access during specific investigations or enforcement actions, such as cases involving privacy violations or exploitation.
Require risk assessments, transparency reports, and child-safety impact audits without directly demanding the source code itself.
Create independent auditing frameworks, where vetted researchers can examine algorithmic outcomes instead of internal code , similar to what Europe’s Digital Services Act allows.
However, all of these take time, political consensus, and careful legal wording to avoid trade disputes with the United States, which remains Canada’s largest trading partner and continues to be a significant friction point with the new Trump administration.
While policymakers debate trade implications, children continue to grow up in algorithmically curated worlds. Waiting for the perfect law won’t protect them in the short term. Even the most well intentioned legislation will take years to draft, review, negotiate, and enforce.
This is why parental involvement remains the strongest form of child protection online. Laws can shape corporate behaviour, but they can’t replace the daily influence of parents and caregivers who talk with their kids about what they see, share, and experience online.
Practical steps parents can take right now include:
Encouraging open conversations about digital literacy, internet safety, AI, and what algorithms do and how they influence attention and emotion.
Teaching children to critically question why certain content is suggested to them.
Using built-in safety and privacy tools on each platform rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all law.
Staying informed about digital literacy resources and community education programs.
Be your child’s best parent or caregiver, rather than their best friend, when it comes to their use of technology, the internet, and social media
The tension between CUSMA and child protection laws isn’t about Canada choosing not to act, it’s about how trade law intersects with digital governance. CUSMA was negotiated to protect innovation and cross-border commerce, not to handle the complex social issues emerging from social media’s influence on children. Yet, that’s now where the two worlds collide.
Europe can move faster because its trade agreements don’t contain similar digital clauses. Canada, on the other hand, must tread carefully to avoid breaching an agreement that underpins much of its economy. This makes national reform slow, but not impossible, especially as CUSMA comes up for review in 2026, where Canada could seek adjustments or clarifications around algorithmic accountability for child safety.
Parents often ask, “Why isn’t the government doing more?” The truth is, Canada’s hands are partially tied by international trade law. CUSMA’s Article 19.16 and 19.17 protects corporate source code, and also protects vendors from liability specific to user posted content, in ways that make sweeping “child protection by design” regulations legally problematic.
That doesn’t mean we give up. It means recognizing that laws alone won’t protect our kids, informed and engaged parenting will. Until Canada can renegotiate or reinterpret CUSMA’s digital trade clauses, the most immediate defence against online harm isn’t legislation, it’s parenting, education, conversation, and connection at home.
Digital Food For Thought
The White Hatter
Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech
References:
