Canadian Heritage Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2025

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon South, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to start first with you, Ms. Paul, because you're in Washington, D.C.

In the last month, we're starting to see more news from the United States. We're seeing court filings now coming out, talking about increased depression and anxiety among users. We're seeing more information that social media platforms were maybe hiding. All of a sudden they're in front of the U.S. Congress, and now we're seeing, in the last month, some reports out of this.

I would like your thoughts on that. I'm not going to name the platforms because they're all covering up. I just want your views since you are in that nation's capital.

[Katie Paul]

One of the things our organization focuses on, beyond just the harms of these platforms—as you mentioned, the court cases really have shown how these platforms are covering it up—is the influence these platforms have, the lobbying they are engaging in and how they use third party groups that they pay to launder their influence and to appear to have more voices in support of policies that keep them free from liability for any of the harms they're profiting from.

This is something that I think has been an issue not just in the United States. We see it all around the world with these companies and their vast influence, not just on politicians but also on global economies. It is something they wield in order to push for particular policies. As you mentioned, yes, all of these platforms do have something to hide. I think one of the things that is critical is to see which ones have undertaken efforts to address issues and which have not.

For instance, about a decade ago, Google was fined half a billion dollars for illegal online pharmacies that were trafficking opioids. It's much harder to see that kind of content in sponsored ads in Google Search, whereas Meta has faced none of those financial repercussions, and we see the company, as of today, continuing to run and approve ads explicitly for dangerous and deadly drugs.

These are the kinds of things where we can see that pressure and repercussions have made a difference in how the companies operate. Making that a consistent policy across how all of these companies are dealt with is very critical in ensuring safety for all users online.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon South, SK]

Regarding occurrences of the exploitation of children, on which social media platforms are youth most vulnerable? We've had a ton of articles on this in the country. A big one is the sexual extortion of children. Money is on the rise.

What are your thoughts on that?

[Katie Paul]

To understand that, we need to look at the data and understand which platforms are the most heavily used by children. Instagram, for instance, remains one of the most popular platforms, so much so that, several years ago, it tried to create an Instagram Kids platform for children under the age of 13, when it has yet to solve any of the harmful problems with regard not just to its existing platform but also to the teen platform it has since been promoting. It's now facing civil and regulatory repercussions, or the potential for those repercussions.

Looking at the platforms kids go to the most is important, as is looking at how widely spread these platforms are used. For instance, Kick was mentioned earlier. While there are issues with that platform, it's of much less consequence in terms of penetration of usage, as opposed to those of much better-resourced companies like Meta's Instagram and Google's YouTube. The private messaging aspects of platforms like Instagram—which are, largely, not moderated at all—tend to be where a lot of these types of sextortion cases take place, not just for young people but also for adults.

Seeing which platforms kids are gravitating towards the most, and how these platforms are trying to further capitalize on children's attention by creating platforms for kids under the age of 13, is where regulators really should be looking in order to ensure they're keeping children safe.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon South, SK]

Thank you.

Regarding disinformation and loss of trust, I want to move to Ms. Carignan because she joined us late.

The former head of the CBC, Catherine Tait, was in committee. She admitted that her organization held a forum in Toronto on loss of trust.

Traditional media has a loss of trust—she admitted that here—and now you're telling me so does social media. Who can you trust these days? Is there anybody?

[Marie-Eve Carignan]

That’s a good question.

The data on trust shows that Canada is still more privileged than other democratic countries. We have a higher level of trust than other countries. So trust is not as bad as we might think. However, we are still seeing a decline in trust. My colleague Marc‑François Bernier and I conducted a study in 2023 on the relationship between Canadians and the media. We found that there is still a sense of mistrust regarding the independence of the media and economic and political power. We also see a lack of understanding of the difference between traditional media, which have journalistic practices and must adhere to a code of ethics, and online influencers who claim to be journalists but do not adhere to a code of ethics, promote a social and political ideology, and comment on economic issues.

To restore trust, it may be necessary to better define the difference between how traditional media operate and the work of online influencers who claim to be journalists and exploit this confusion among the public.

Indeed, these influencers often fuel mistrust. Our chair observes the convergences between different ecosystems. Regardless of the underlying ideology of influencers, many of them are currently coming together in a discourse promoting mistrust toward current authorities. They thus give themselves legitimacy by presenting themselves as a reliable voice against government, researchers and media outlets that they claim are unreliable. This mistrust is fairly widespread in the discourse of all the online influencers we observe.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Baker, welcome to the heritage committee. I'm glad to see you here.

You now have the floor for five minutes.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to be here.

Thank you to all the witnesses for their testimony.

I'd like to start with Mr. Cooper.

If I heard you correctly, you spoke about eating disorders, earlier. Am I right about that?

[Michael Cooper]

Yes, sir.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

If so, could I ask you to speak about how prevalent eating disorders are and what the consequence of that is, to the extent you can?

[Michael Cooper]

As it pertains to the general population, about 10% of Canadians have a high risk of eating disorders. When we look at the 16- to 17-year-old population, approximately 21% have a high risk of eating disorders on the ODES-Y screener. It is higher among young women. It's closer to a quarter of young women having a high risk of eating disorders.

When you look at social media specifically on that, the biggest indicator driving negative mental health is comparisons with others. It is being driven significantly by social media. The other indicator we typically look at is suicide.

We see that there's an onset of these disorders. When you study these at the international level, which is where you start getting enough data, you see that there's a high spike of eating disorder deaths in and around that 16- to 17-year-old grouping. Actually, risk significantly falls off after that. If you're not addressing eating disorder issues in the 12-, 14- or 15-year-old range, you're missing the vast majority of those who would be affected by that.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you very much for that.

In full disclosure, I used to be a member of the provincial parliament in Ontario, and I introduced a private member's bill on this very topic in 2017. I spoke with experts like yourselves and others on this.

Mr. Cooper, the statistic in 2017, from the National Initiative for Eating Disorders was that an estimated one million Canadians had an eating disorder and that eating disorders have the highest death rate of any mental illness. One in 10 people with an eating disorder will die from their disorder. Does that sound about right to you, Mr. Cooper, based on what you know?

[Michael Cooper]

I work with NIED as well—the group you are talking about—on these studies. It is accurate. The challenge is that there isn't great death data for a lot of these indicators, so it's really hard to validate that.

It's hard to ascertain exactly how many people have an eating disorder. There isn't a really great tracker for it, so we use a risk screener, the ODES-Y, to ascertain the potential risk for it. It's not a great screener, to be honest with you, but I have seen the numbers you're quoting. I have talked with them about that, and yes, they do seem correct to me.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Based on that data from 2017—and I'm just going to rely on that—if one million Canadians were to have an eating disorder in 2017 and if one in 10 were to die from that disorder, then about 100,000 Canadians would die from an eating disorder, if those statistics bear out.

I'm sharing this only to say that it's a big problem, and it touches a lot of people. Very often, I think, for understandable reasons, people do not talk about it, but it's an element of what has been discussed at this committee that is really important for us to consider.

The private member's bill I had then, Mr. Cooper, was endorsed by a bunch of folks in the sector. The intention of the bill then was to require commercial content—paid content, advertising content—which was in any way manipulated or distorted, to have a disclaimer on it so that people knew the image was distorted. Specifically in the context of eating disorders, the idea was that a lot of young people, especially, would see images of unattainable beauty and it would contribute to their eating disorder. That's what the experts told me, and that was the intention of the bill.

Mr. Cooper, I don't know if you have thoughts on that type of measure. However, I would welcome your thoughts on that measure or any types of measures you would recommend to help us deal specifically with how social media is influencing young people in the context of eating disorders.

[Michael Cooper]

Again, I'll point to data that suggests that it's not just about seeing these ads. It's the volume and the number you consume. If you're consuming a lot of ads over a period of time, then this is where we actually start seeing the high numbers of depression and of comparing yourself with others. It's not just about getting that one ad; it's about getting dozens of ads because the algorithm will keep feeding you those sorts of pieces. You get one bad thing—and people click not only on the things they like but also on the things that make them feel bad—and that starts a doomscroll of getting more and more of this negative content on this front.

I'm not a policy-maker, so it would be hard for me to say exactly what we could do to address this particular issue. There is an inherent need to want to compare yourself. We have lots of research on why young people specifically want to engage in that sort of activity. It's a part of growing up. It's a part of trying to understand themselves and their own bodies. They're trying to understand these things, and it's really taking advantage of those sorts of things.

The other piece that was mentioned and that is critically important is the generation of wealth and profit as a result of these sorts of activities as well. A lot of these are not just showing these images but also generating money by selling this makeup or selling this product. It's a revenue generator. They're not only showing these influencers doing this but also making money off these young people who are starting to have body dysmorphia and other issues, which is, quite frankly, atrocious.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

That's a very good point. Thank you.

Mr. Diotte, you now have the floor for five minutes.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

This is for Ms. Paul.

I was very fascinated when you talked about Meta and Google being aware of the harm they are doing to kids and actually profiting from it. You also mentioned that there is widespread drug trafficking on Instagram. Can you go into that a bit more and tell us how it's done? What are your concerns, and how do you track it, and so forth?

[Katie Paul]

When it comes to Instagram, there are several different studies we've done focusing on the drug trafficking on that platform. For instance, we created a teen user who searched for things like the word “Xanax”, and before even fully typing it, Meta's autofill recommendations would recommend accounts called “Xanax For Sale”, “Buy Xanax” and things like that, which would just feature profile photos full of pills. It took very little effort for teen users to connect on the platform.

It's important to keep in mind that the way these companies' profit is through advertising, and the way that they can get more spend on ads is to keep eyeballs looking as long as possible. That's why you see things like AI slop proliferating, because that is one of the ways to keep people looking at the platform, whether it's in disbelief, shock or genuine interest.

When it comes to the advertising mechanisms, Meta's ad library is one of the ways we've been able to look at the drug trafficking ads, and we actually have a running hashtag on our X account—#MetaDrugAds—where we frequently post videos and photos of the ads while they are actively running after they have been approved by Meta.

The important thing to remember here is that even when the company's executives go before committees like yours and say that it's not allowed and they remove those ads after they become aware of them, they don't refund the drug dealers. They keep the money, and they clean up after they've been caught.

There are also several whistle-blowers recently, regarding issues with children, who have come out from Meta. There was a congressional hearing a few months ago where two whistle-blowers, who were tasked with internal investigations regarding harms to children, detailed how the companies very narrowly directed what they were allowed to research, how they were allowed to write their reports and what they couldn't research, even though they knew it was causing harm to children. Those things are also important to keep in mind.

The advertising mechanism is very important. One of the things about the Meta ad library is that ads that are not labelled as political are only viewable while they are actively running. The exception to this is that in the European Union, thanks to the Digital Services Act, that law has required Meta to leave every ad that runs on the platform available for view in the ad library for a year. That is one of the ways we were able to see the scale of drug trafficking ads on the platform, because at any given time, there is such a high volume of ads that the average researcher is not going to be able to simply scroll and see them. Because Meta is now required by law in Europe, and in the U.K. now as well, as a result of the Online Safety Act, to keep those ads in the library for a year, we can actually see the scale of the harm they're creating, and the fact that they profit directly from that content, don't remove those ads in many cases and let them run to completion.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

You've seen illegal activity. Do you report this to law enforcement?

[Katie Paul]

Our organization is an open-source research and investigative organization. In many cases, these are outside U.S. jurisdiction if they are users in foreign countries. One of the things to keep in mind is that many of these drug-trafficking ads or weapons-trafficking ads direct users to a private encrypted messenger, as opposed to a clothing website. One thing that we've seen with regard to those messengers.... In some cases, Telegram, for instance, whose CEO was recently arrested in France, is actually moderating more effectively before Meta ever takes down the ad. You can go to a Telegram account that is in an ad that is actively running, and it has already been removed for violating. However, Meta is continuing to collect money from the ads and actually promoting that harmful content.

Those Telegram accounts are not able to reach users. They are not searchable on the platform; they have to buy that reach from Meta. In these scenarios, Meta is the kingpin, and in terms of any whack-a-mole of these individuals, their ability to reach a broad swath of the North American population is only possible because of the failures in moderation by Meta and its advertising platform.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

What would be your top three solutions to this?

[Katie Paul]

For any country where Meta is operating—and that is pretty much every country in the world— regulations from national bodies are incredibly important, particularly in holding the companies accountable not just for algorithmically promoting illegal content but for actively profiting from it. Meta is a facilitator in this trafficking process and not just a passive host. They have said that ads are 97% of the way that the company makes its revenue. In any other world, the quality control of a product at this rate would bankrupt a company, but we've seen no repercussions for Meta. They are allowed to continue collecting millions of dollars from explicitly illegal content that you could never see on a news station, in a newspaper or on a television station. At the very least, starting with their main profit mechanism and how that is being driven by illegal content is critical to beginning to get these platforms moderating more effectively and following the law.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Mr. Myles, you have the floor for five minutes.

[David Myles, Liberal, Fredericton—Oromocto, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for this fascinating testimony today. It's been really well delivered.

I want to continue on the regulation conversation that MP Diotte was just speaking about. It seems to me that there are three elements here now. We have the possibility to regulate access, which they've done in Australia. Nobody under 16 has access. There's also regulating the content. We've talked about certain users and certain influencers being considered too dangerous, or whatever, and trying to regulate the content from that side. There's also regulating the algorithm. Therefore, it's access, content or the algorithm itself and how it behaves, because that has changed.

Mr. Bridgman, you were speaking about suggested content, and Ms. Paul was speaking about advertising. We know the behaviours of these algorithms. Do you sometimes feel that the access question is a cop-out? You can't touch it, so we just have to say that no one can use it.

I'm trying to figure out what the right balance is here. It is obviously very disconcerting. I have young kids. Sometimes I want to say there's no access, but at the same time, I'm looking at the algorithm and thinking, at the same time, why can't we regulate how that algorithm behaves? We know it's driving people towards radicalization. We know what it's causing. These are facts that we know through academics, through study after academic study. We know about screen time alone and the relationship to mental illness and the addictiveness of the algorithm.

Maybe I can start with you, Mr. Bridgman. Where do you think our weight is best placed from a regulatory perspective—on access, content or the algorithm itself?