Lemieux's Logic...Illogical??

Just a few short days ago I wrote about the fact that the Firefighters, Peace Officers and Other Workers Memorial Foundations Act had been amended, and if passed would now make it possible for "paramedics and other specified groups of workers" to establish memorial foundations. I also suggested that while Minister Lemieux had not been able to bring himself to change the title or the intent of the legislation, that really didn't matter. What was important was that we had won a small battle and would be entitled, with some work ahead of us yet, to honour our fallen colleagues just as the other emergency services groups could.

The facts haven't changed over the course of time since I made those comments. But as I review the recent goings on in the Legislature and review the Hansard documents from the Standing Committee meeting that I attended earlier this week, I can't help but shake my head.

Following my presentation to the Legislative Committee reviewing Bill 17, Conservative members of the committee asked Minister Lemieux on multiple occasions to consider amending Clause 2 of the Act...the clause that specified the three Memorial Foundations that would automatically be set up by law (Firefighter, Peace Officer and Workers Foundations). They suggested that the clause should include Paramedics. In response, Lemieux consistently answered that the clause didn't matter...what mattered was the fact that he was amending the Act to allow Cabinet to approve Foundations for other groups, including Paramedics. His Government was being more inclusive.

When the Committee report was brought back to the House, PC Larry Maguire introduced another amendment for consideration. It was an addition to what Minister Lemieux has presented in Committee, and in essence it stated that the Paramedic Foundation would automatically come into being within one year from the proclamation of the Act. So instead of having to work to receive Cabinet approval for a paramedic foundation it would be a given within one year.

Not surprisingly Minister Lemieux rose in the House to say that the Government would be unable to support the proposed amendment. In his words it was redundant. There was no requirement to ensure the formation of a Paramedic Foundation because his earlier amendment already allowed for it to be taken into consideration by Cabinet. The motion to amend the Act accordingly was defeated. Mr. Maquire then attempted to place a date on the table for consideration...that too was defeated, again called redundant by Minister Lemieux.

Throughout the arguments made by Minister Lemieux for not more firmly embracing Paramedics in his legislation, remarks made both in Committee and the House, he talks of already being inclusive. And he insists that naming paramedics in the title and intent clause is unnecessary and redundant. If that's the case, Mr. Lemieux, why is any group named in these sections? Why is the legislation not simply entitled the Memorial Foundations Act? Why not allow Cabinet to approve each Foundation separately?

Your logic, Mr. Minister, escapes me. But your words speak very clearly.