Day Care for Every Child

RE: Day care was designed for military families. (Nugget, Oct 25) 

Linda Harvie responded to an article in the Nugget, the subject of which was the fact that civilian families in North Bay, are losing their day-care provider on the base.  

She points out, that military families take precedence over civilian families when it comes to day-care on the base. She says that any civilian family with a child in day-care on the base should be prepared to relocate that child when the child of a military person requires that space in the day-care facility. 

The justification for this outlook is that since military personnel protect and serve our country, they should not be worried about finding suitable child care.  

I have 3 things to say to that: 

1) No parent should have to worry about whether or not they will be able to find suitable day-care for their child. Quality day-care should be one of the nation’s highest priorities, in my opinion, as a spending priority, day-care ranks above military spending. Why bother protecting a nation that doesn’t properly care for its children? 

2) Civilians are very valuable contributors to the military, because they pay for it using their hard earned tax dollars. Every gun a soldier carries is paid for by civilians. Every pair of boots worn, every plane flown, boat sailed, bullet shot, grenade thrown, tank driven, and base lived on, is paid for by civilians. Therefore, so long as we have a volunteer army, let the gratitude flow in both directions.  

3) Every citizen does and will play a role in protecting this country. Currently, the only protective service rendered by the forces is one of deterrence. However, civilians provide another form of deterrence to our enemies. The population of this country, by virtue of its attitudes, actions, and the governments it elects, prevents Canada from having serious external threats. Civilians and military people can thank each other for the fact that no one has a very good reason to attack us.

Should She Stay or Should She Go?

Maureen Boldt has inadvertently provided this community with some interesting fodder for debate.

 

Due to recent legal entanglements which have been known to the public since well in advance of the last election, Ms. Boldt will require city council to approve a request for a short leave of absence in order to retain her seat. 

 

The decision will be based on either political or on ethical considerations.

 

If the vote is based on politics, then the only thing we will learn is how many allies Ms. Boldt has on council.

 

For that reason it would be far more interesting if each councilor made his or her decision based on the ethical considerations. One of those ethical considerations would be, should council even have the power to make such a decision?

 

Should the reasons that a councilor asks for a leave be considered when deciding whether to grant it? The question is a little more complicated than it initially sounds, because in one instance a councilor could ask for a leave due to a medical condition that prevents attendance at meetings, and in another, a legal entanglement could prevent the councilor from being at meetings. If, in the instance of a medical condition, the leave of absence is granted, and not in the instance of legal entanglement, city council has in effect sat in judgment, and dismissed a democratically elected official in favour of someone who has not been elected.

In the case of Ms. Boldt, city council would be piling punishment on top of what has already been handed down by the courts. Is it appropriate for city council to engage in such forms of extra-judicial punishment?

Any governing body has to be very careful when subverting the will of the electorate in such a drastic way as this. These issues were well known to the public for years leading up to the last election. What, in the public mind, has changed since she was elected?

Some people regard Ms. Boldt’s conduct as an important form of social activism. It is very possible that some people might have voted for her specifically because of this conduct, and if the votes of those people are nullified in mid-term, it could be seen as a violation of democratic principles.

If the decision could be separated from the politics that might influence it, for example, if it were made according to a clear set of rules rather than at the discretion of politicians, we don’t have anything worth debating. If the rule that calls for a councilor’s seat to be vacated after a certain number of missed meetings could not be superceded by a vote by other councilors, then by extension, a situation in which the will of the electorate can be superceded by a council vote would also be avoided.

It will be very interesting to see how city council handles this issue, and hopefully some meaningful public discourse emerges from this process.