Thank you. Mr. Patterson.

Mr. Speaker, I too, have been reviewing the differences between a board of inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act, and a board of inquiry under the Medical Profession Act. Mr. Speaker, I think we are really talking about the same kind of process. The Member was concerned about, as I understood it yesterday, the public having access to the process and being able to participate and hear what is going on. In fact, on reviewing the provisions in both the Public Inquiries Act and the Medical Profession Act about taking evidence, they are virtually the same. There is a possibility of in camera evidence being taken where privileged matters are being discussed, such as a patient's treatment. Both inquiries can take evidence in a public manner, Mr. Speaker. From the Member's concern, yesterday, about her constituents being able to know what is going on, I believe that the Medical Profession Act Board of Inquiry would provide the same kind of public process, at the discretion of the president, as you would find in a person heading a public inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act. Mr. Speaker, from the point of view of the public being able to see what is going on, we are really talking about the same kind of process, albeit under the Medical Profession Act and not the Public Inquiries Act. I believe that the Member's concern about public input and public involvement in the process may well be dealt with as easily under the Medical Profession Act as under the Public Inquiries Act. Therefore, I think we are dealing with the same kind of process under a different name. The powers are different and the results are different, but the process, I believe, is substantially the same under both forms of inquiry. Thank you.

Thank you. Supplementary, Member for Thebacha.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister said, himself, the powers are different. That is exactly the difference in the public inquiry versus the board of inquiry. Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Minister again, and I think the Minister is missing the key fundamental principle. The board of inquiry is mandated to look at the College of Physicians report that was developed by the College of Saskatchewan. The public inquiry that I am seeking is to look at the whole Fort Smith Health Centre, which assisted in developing that report. I would like to ask the Minister, again, will he reconsider my request in conducting a public inquiry, taking into account that he stated that the powers are different and the results are different. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Patterson.

Mr. Speaker, one important matter at issue in the Fort Smith Health Centre is medical practice, the practice of a particular physician in working in that centre. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the powers of the board of inquiry under the Medical Profession Act are different. I would submit to the honourable Member that they are different because they are very appropriate to an inquiry into a medical professional's practice. The board of inquiry under the Medical Profession Act has the power to remove a physician's license or practising privileges, or put qualifications on that physician's license or practising privileges following a hearing which follows the principles of natural justice and respects all the rights of that particular physician, or that board could find, after listening to all evidence, that there is no reason to be concerned about that particular doctor's practice. I am aware many of that doctor's patients feel there is no reason to be concerned, exonerate the physician, and put no restrictions whatsoever on the practice. That is appropriate to this kind of hearing, Mr. Speaker. That is a power that would not be available under the Public Inquiries Act. That is why I said, yesterday, this legislation is tailor- made for this particular situation.

To the Member's other point, Mr. Speaker, which was that there may be other issues arising out of the operation of the Fort Smith Health Centre that the public inquiry could look into that would not be available under the board of inquiry under the Medical Profession Act. I would like to assure the Member, and restate what I believe I said yesterday, in response to Mr. Nerysoo's question, that, in fact, and without getting into detail of the Saskatchewan College report, because the physician in question has, in fact, initiated court proceedings, I think the Member is aware, seeking an injunction to restrain release of that report. I must be careful about discussing its details to protect his interest. Mr. Speaker, without getting into the detail, the Saskatchewan College report raises a number of broad issues about the operation of the Fort Smith Health Centre, unrelated to a particular doctor's medical practice. These, I think I called them "broad issues", yesterday, cover all aspects of the operation of the Fort Smith Health Centre. Therefore, I would like to insure the honourable Member that Dr. Covert does have the authority in looking into the matters raised by the Saskatchewan College with regard to the Fort Smith Health Centre, and does have the authority to give advice and recommendations on all those other matters that may be concerning the Member. It is not just focused on medical practice, Mr. Speaker, it is focused on many wide aspects of the operation of the Fort Smith Health Centre, therefore, it will be, I believe, the very thorough and comprehensive review that the Member is seeking. Thank you.

Thank you. Supplementary, Member for Thebacha.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In respect to the Minister's response on broader issues, I would like to ask the Minister, according to his press release, issued last Thursday, which I found out from C.B.C., did not even have the courtesy to advise me as a Member that he was considering a board of inquiry. I quote from the press release, "he has a further report from the Saskatchewan College of Physicians and Surgeons to the board of inquiry, established under the Medical Profession Act. The report deals with medical procedures at the Fort Smith Health Centre, and it was commissioned by the health centre's board of management." Is the Minister telling me, now, that board of inquiry is going to look at broader issues other than the College of Physicians report?

Thank you. Mr. Patterson.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge to the honourable Member that, as I believe she knows, I was leaving to go on the land, last Thursday. I told you earlier today. She did not know at the time, she knows now, I hope.

---Laughter

Order, please. Order. Mr. Patterson.

Mr. Speaker, I was just trying to explain that I was leaving to go down the bay, last Thursday, and I had asked my staff to get hold of the honourable Member and let her know of the decision that was about to be taken. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, my staff was unable to get a hold of Mrs. Marie-Jewell. I guess they should have known she was in Yellowknife. They were looking for her in Fort Smith. I do apologize to the honourable Member that she was not informed of this action, and had to hear it through the media. Mr. Speaker, to answer the honourable Member's question, the short answer is "no", but I would like to clarify, again, that the Saskatchewan College of Physicians and Surgeons review of the operations of the Fort Smith Health Centre, which was a broad-based review, did deal with broader issues than the medical practice of a certain doctor. What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that this board of inquiry will be able to look at many other issues than the particular issue of the particular practice of a particular physician. I would assure the honourable Member, that if there are matters that come up in the course of that inquiry that are matters of concern and should be looked into, then, at that time, I will look at all possible means to pursue those matters. In may, indeed, be that a further inquiry, and, perhaps, even a public inquiry, may emerge as an appropriate method of dealing with issues that arise from this board of inquiry under the Medical Profession Act. Thank you.

Final supplementary, Member for Thebacha.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Obviously the Minister has not read this act. The Medical Profession Act, Mr. Speaker, indicates that the only appeal process, as a result of the board of inquiry is through the courts, through the Supreme Court of Canada. So how can he tell me in this House today that he would consider looking at maybe a public inquiry after, if the results were to be looked at? Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister, as I stated in this House earlier, the Medical Profession Act indicates that a Board of Inquiry does not have to justify their reasons for their decisions. They do not have to do that. However, a public inquiry does.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister also stated that he cannot look at broader issues because the report looked at the broader issues. What I am asking for is the total issue to be looked at under the Fort Smith Health Centre in respect to a public inquiry. So therefore, recognizing that there is a total difference between public inquiry and Board of Inquiry, will the Minister reconsider his decision?

Thank you. Mr. Patterson.

Mr. Speaker, I have read the Medical Profession Act. My understanding of it may not be as great as that of the honourable Member, but I have read the Act, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, what I am gathering from the honourable Member's questions, and those of Mr. Nerysoo yesterday, is that they believe that in addition to the concern about the practice of a particular physician, there may well be other issues of concern about the operation of the Fort Smith Health Centre.

Mr. Speaker, what I have tried to clarify today is that those broader issues are, in fact, referred to in the Saskatchewan College Report which Dr. Covert will be responding to in the inquiry he is going to head. This Board of Inquiry will be able to deal with those broad issues.

As far as the Right of Appeal is concerned, Mr. Speaker, as I understand the Act, the section the Member refers to, deals with a physician's appeal to a decision of the majority of a Board of Inquiry about whether or not that physician may continue to practise medicine. And that decision, indeed, can only be appealed to the Supreme Court. However, Mr. Speaker, if there are matters that arise in the Board of Inquiry that should be dealt with, that are issues of concern to the people of Fort Smith and issues of health care of concern in that community, then obviously I will give the Member my undertaking to do everything in my power to see that those matters are addressed.

I want to assure the Honourable Member that I am as concerned about the quality of health care in that community as she is. I believe that I have a responsibility to safeguard the quality of health care and I am willing to take whatever steps that are required once the Board of Inquiry is concluded.

I have not examined the matter of how it reports, and what reasons might be given, I would have to take that part of her questions as notice. I think that it is a matter that will have to be reviewed by lawyers. But I will assure the Honourable Member that if there are matters that arise out of that inquiry that merit further attention, I will give it that attention, by whatever means are appropriate.

I think we should take the first step, have the review that is required by legislation designed for that purpose and designed for this situation and once the results are evident, then I will take whatever steps that are appropriate, relying on advice from the Honourable Member and her constituents. Thank you.

Thank you. Item 6, oral questions. Mr. Todd.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Social Services. Fourteen months ago the Honourable Jeannie Marie-Jewell tabled in the 11th Assembly a comprehensive strategy plan for the delivery of alcohol and drug services. The document stated that it was important that the wage and benefit structure of the counselling profession at the community level makes it attractive for a good many trainees to remain in the counselling careers so that good people are not lost as a result of real, or perceived, low wages.

Can the Minister of Social Services advise the House why the Department is being so slow to follow the advice of its own consultants and address the deficient salary schedule for the addiction counsellors before we lose too many good people at the field level.

Thank you. Mr. Patterson.

Well, a short answer, Mr. Speaker, is that the Department has been unable to identify the resources in this difficult financial climate. But I do want to assure the Honourable Member that I am well aware of the issue. I have discussed it with the Minister of Finance and the Financial Management Board. It is under active consideration at this moment and I believe that, even though we are in a period of restraint, this government will place a priority on addressing that issue. Thank you.

Thank you. Item 6, oral questions. Mr. Nerysoo.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of Health whether or not the Board of Inquiry that he has established to address the Report of the College of Physicians and Surgeons in Saskatchewan on the matter of medical services and, in particular, the specific Doctor, if evidence is given from either board members or members of the Government that might, in fact, be libel, as can be used in the Court of Law to, in fact, challenge those individuals.

Excuse me. Asking the Minister's legal opinion is not a proper question to the Minister. Mr. Nerysoo.

Mr. Speaker, I am not asking for the honourable Member's opinion. In fact, the legislation says that section 30, of the Act clearly says that the witness may be examined under oath on all matters relevant to the investigation and shall not be excused from answering any questions on the grounds that the answer may: a) tend to incriminate the witness; b) subject the witness to punishment under this, Act or; c) tend to establish the liability of the witness. Under c(i), to a civil proceeding at the instance of the commissioner of any person to the prosecution, but any incriminating evidence so given might not be used to incriminate that person in any other proceedings.

Now, I am not asking for a legal opinion, the law says that, in fact, evidence can not be used for libellous charges and I wanted to clarify that because in a public inquiry, an individual could not hide behind that kind of libellous evidence. So, even though I am ruled out of order, the fact is that the law is there and I am not sure how to deal with it.