There was a time when being a parent meant, among other things, telling your child what they could and could not do.
Want to stay up until midnight? No.
Eat a family-sized bag of chips for supper? Absolutely not.
Ride your bike without a helmet? Prepare for a lecture that somehow begins with, “When I was your age…”
It was a simple system. Parents made decisions. Children complained. Society continued to function.
Apparently, that arrangement is no longer sufficient.
Governments increasingly seem determined to become the collective parent of the province, deciding what children can watch, where they can go, what they can ride and, presumably, how much fun they are legally permitted to have.
Take the debate over social media and youth.
The Nova Scotia Liberals have proposed banning social-media use for anyone under 16, while the provincial government has acknowledged there is no provincial “off” switch for social media and federal action would be required for such a ban.
The concerns are legitimate. Social media can be terrible for young people — bullying, misinformation, unhealthy comparisons and algorithms seemingly designed to ensure nobody puts their phone down until civilization collapses.
But here’s the funny part.
If the solution to kids spending too much time staring at screens is to get them outside and physically active, perhaps we should let them do that.
Enter e-bikes and e-scooters.
Nova Scotia prohibits children under 14 from operating electric kick-scooters, while parents and owners are also prohibited from allowing it.
So the conversation becomes:
“Get off your phone and go outside!”
“OK! Can I ride my e-bike?”
“No.”
“Can I take the e-scooter?”
“No.”
“Can I go for a walk?”
“Absolutely. But stay where I can see you.”
Obviously, safety matters. A 12-year-old flying down a sidewalk at 30 km/h without a helmet isn’t exactly responsible transportation.
But there is a difference between sensible safety regulations and government deciding every potentially risky activity requires legislative intervention.
Parents should still be allowed to make some decisions.
After all, Nova Scotia apparently trusts a 14-year-old with something considerably more substantial.
At 14, a young Nova Scotian can obtain a Class 8 farm tractor licence with parental consent and, after meeting the appropriate requirements and training, operate a tractor on provincial roads.
Think about that.
At 13, you’re apparently not mature enough to operate an electric bicycle.
At 14, you can potentially climb onto a machine weighing thousands of kilograms, attach farm equipment and head onto a public roadway.
But somewhere in between, government has decided the appropriate response to children spending too much time indoors is to regulate the bicycle.
This isn’t an argument against safety. We need traffic laws, helmet requirements and rules governing where certain vehicles can operate.
It is an argument against treating parents as though they are incapable of making decisions about their own children.
If Mom and Dad decide their 13-year-old is mature enough to ride an e-bike to school, wear a helmet and follow the rules, perhaps they should have some say in that decision.
Otherwise, we’re going to need a whole new government department.
The Department of Childhood Fun Enforcement.
Eight o’clock bedtime for Grade 3. Eight-thirty for Grade 5. Nine o’clock for Grade 7. Exceptions available by notarized parental exemption.
And if we continue down this road, the only safe activity left for children will be sitting on the couch.
Probably watching television.
Which, naturally, someone will eventually have to ban.
And then there is the inevitable emergency call.
“911, what’s your emergency?”
“Yes, I’d like to report a youth under 14 operating an e-scooter.”
“Is anyone injured?”
“No.”
“Is there an accident?”
“No.”
“Is the child in danger?”
“No.”
“Then what exactly is the emergency?”
“He’s having fun.”
Somewhere, a police dispatcher quietly puts the phone on mute.
Ten minutes later, an officer arrives to find a 13-year-old standing beside an e-scooter, wearing a helmet and looking increasingly confused about why adulthood is apparently this ridiculous.
“Son, do you know why I stopped you?”
“Because I was going 35 in a 30?”
“No.”
“Because I didn’t signal?”
“No.”
“Because I was on the sidewalk?”
“No.”
“Because I’m under 14?”
“Bingo.”
The officer sighs.
“I’m going to need you to step away from the dangerous contraband.”
The kid looks at the scooter.
“This?”
“Yes.”
“My mom bought it.”
“I’m sure she did.”
“She told me to ride it to my friend’s house.”
The officer pauses.
“I’m going to need to speak with your mother.”
And somewhere behind a curtain, a neighbourhood Karen watches with the satisfaction of someone who has finally restored order to the streets.
The officer, meanwhile, is left to complete the paperwork.
Incident: Youth under 14 operating e-scooter.
Victim: Nobody.
Injuries: None.
Property damage: None.
Public threat: Apparently, the scooter.
Action taken: Child sent home.
And where does the child go?
Probably back inside, picks up his phone and spends the next three hours watching TikTok.
But hey – at least he wasn’t riding an e-scooter.
Maybe before governments rush to become Mom and Dad for the entire province, they should remember that Mom and Dad are still pretty good at the job.