Mr. Speaker, the honourable Member for MacKenzie Delta is quite right, I was going to point out that this will be a very expensive undertaking. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think there should be very good, compelling, clear reasons for spending a half a million dollars or more. Money that is not budgeted, that will have to come from somewhere else, whether it is the H.A.P. program, or whatever else. Mr. Speaker, the reason this will be a very expensive undertaking in contrast to the board of inquiry under the Medical Profession Act, is that under the Public Inquiries Act, the board shall accord by section seven, "to any person who satisfies the board that he or she has a substantial and direct interest in the subject matter of an inquiry, an opportunity to not only give evidence, but also to call and examine or cross-examine witnesses." I think it is quite conceivable that many citizens, including patients from the centre, might well wish to seek standing. This inquiry could go on for months, and the costs could easily run to sizeable amounts. The recent so-called Bourassa Inquiry, even though it has a fairly narrow focus, cost over $500,000. Part of the reasons for these costs, Mr. Speaker, is that under this Act, the Member is recommending, parties who are compelled to testify would likely want legal counsel, and if past precedent is followed, our government will be asked to bear those costs, and at rates of easily $100.00 and hour, the cash register can ring up quite a bill rather fast.

This is in contract to the board of inquiry under the Medical Profession Act, which is predicted to cost $50,000 - $100,000, and has the power to order costs. So, Mr. Speaker, in light of the high cost involved, I wish we had the luxury to say money does not matter, we should set aside the costs, and the precedent. I would say again, I think this House must be satisfied that there are good reasons. I think that with the greatest of respect, it is incumbent on the honourable Member moving this motion to show that those compelling and good reasons exist.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate a point I have tried to make in the debates in this House over the last week, and it is simply this, the president of the board of inquiry has been asked by myself, to inquire into allegations with respect to the medical practice of a certain physician at the Fort Smith Health Centre. Dr. Covert has also been invited to advise and recommend on whether other aspects of medical services at the Fort Smith Health Centre also require further investigation. Honourable Members have expressed concern that the report will have possibly too narrow a focus, that the other broader issues may not be dealt with. I want to, again, assure the House that Dr. Covert has been asked to advise on other aspects of medical services, and therefore, the board will have the broader mandate, sought by the honourable Member. So I would recommend that we let the medical inquiry run its course, as laid out in Legislation, and then let us see where we are, and respond accordingly. Mr. Nerysoo stated in his comments, if natural justice seems not to be done, or appears not to have been done, which, as I understand, natural justice includes the right to be heard, and the right to be given the reasons for a decision, then certainly further investigation, and further inquiry, should be held. I do not know what impression I gave Mr. Nerysoo in answer to a question earlier this week, but let me say right here and now, I agree entirely with Mr. Nerysoo. If the result of this procedure, which is laid out in the legislation, where there is an issue of medical practice involved, raises further questions, if there are matters that appear obviously necessary to pursue, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the honourable Member from Thebacha will let me know of such matters that arise, that are still outstanding, following the conclusion of the board of inquiry. Then I will be prepared to take further steps, and those steps might well include a public inquiry. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it is premature at this stage, and I will use the word I used when I was confronted in Fort Smith, whether it is premature at this stage to set in the works, another expensive public inquiry, when we have not even got the result of the one that has been put in place. Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the particular physician the Member is speaking about, that is concerned about, has a strong following in Fort Smith, and has support from the patients. I understand that, Mr. Speaker, but I hope the Honourable Member also understands that as Minister of Health, when I am presented with information that leads me to question the adequacy of the medical practice, I have a duty, Mr. Speaker, under the Act, to take further action to inquire, and to satisfy myself, that the highest standards of public health care are being followed in that community, whether the physician is popular or not. Mr. Speaker, a suggestion has been made by the honourable Member that the board was intimidated, pressured into resigning, or otherwise pressured by the Minister. I will be forthright with the House, Mr. Speaker, yes, I became impatient with the Board of Management of the Health Centre. Why, Mr. Speaker, because I knew that they had received this information of serious concerns about medical practice at the Fort Smith Health Centre, and for whatever reason, they were not doing anything. The problem I had with the board, Mr. Speaker, was that they were not acting, and, yes, I wrote a strong letter to the chairman of the board, saying here are issues that have been raised in the Saskatchewan College of Physicians and Surgeons Report. Either you deal with them, and exercise your responsibility for the adequacy of health care in the Fort Smith Health Centre, or you must resign. Either do your job or resign. So, there was pressure and there were deadlines extended, upon which I wanted action taken, and I did have in mind that the particular physician was going to be returning from holidays, and that the issue should be resolved one way or the other, before that time as to whether he should continue to have privileges at the centre pending an inquiry into those serious questions.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that I think we should take the first step and determine whether the matter is dealt with and, of course, the physician in question may be exonerated by the board of inquiry. I have made no judgement in any way about that physician's competence. I told the honourable Member that I was confident that his rights would be respected and I would note that the Medical Profession Act refers to the need to pursue natural justice, and I would hope that inquiry follows that imperative set out in our legislation.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that if the matter of public concern, the Members refer to, are still not cleared up following the board of inquiry which has now been set up and is underway, under the Medical Profession Act, then I would be open to taking further steps. Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said, I think that the Member has to have compelling reasons to persuade this Legislature that the significant step of having another inquiry, I presume the Member would want a parallel inquiry, at great cost should be taken.

It is incumbent upon her to present reasons. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have just noted some of the reasons that the Member has laid out, and I would like to just make a few comments. The Member is concerned that there were only two Saskatchewan physicians, the terms of reference called for four or five members to be established. Now I have taken that question as notice earlier in this session, but I believe that there are adequate explanations for why the original terms of reference were revised. When the information comes forward, this House will get proper explanation as to why the original terms of reference were revised. I expect that there was a cost factor, and I expect that the board authorized the administrator to deal with this matter and to make alternative arrangements in light of the costs of bringing in four or five physicians, a burden to a small health centre, as opposed to two.

The Member suggested questions of the validity of the Saskatchewan College investigation. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important that the House get more questions about validity. I would like to know if she is suggesting that eminent doctors, who are on the panel of the Saskatchewan College, which is the physician's home college for registration, were unqualified or biased. We need something more than her saying that there are questions about the validity.

Mr. Speaker, she talks about the poor communications between my office and herself with respect to this matter. I will acknowledge that communications were not ideal, that there could have been better consultation, particularly about the decision to name a board of inquiry, for which I have offered my regrets already in this House. But, Mr. Speaker, I do believe that it is fair to point out to the honourable Member, that in our discussions, I pointed out to her very clearly that there were serious concerns about medical practice in the Fort Smith Health Centre with respect to a particular physician, and I did point out to her very clearly that I believed that these concerns could not be ignored by me.

To me, and I believe I told the honourable Member this at the time, it has some analogy to the tainted tuna fish. If a Minister is given information, with a responsibility for public health, that Minister refuses to act on because of political pressure or because of public pressure of one kind or another, then that Minister is not just discharging their responsibility. I think it is only fair for me to say that I think that the honourable Member knew that a board of medical inquiry, and a peer review, was certainly a possibility.

That is why we had discussions about her encouraging the physician to voluntarily agree to accept an evaluation, and an assessment by professionals, so that he could voluntarily clear his name. Unfortunately, he was not willing to do that. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying that it is up to this House to decide whether the compelling reasons have been presented, that I think are required to be presented, in order to undertake this extremely expensive inquiry which I think will start at $.5 million and could easily cost $1 million.

In light of the costs, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call for a recorded vote, and I would also like to state that this matter has been considered by Cabinet, and in order to appear objective and to preserve our objectivity, Cabinet will abstain on this motion. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that we will be guided by the direction from this Assembly. We will be putting the matter under active consideration from here on in. It is a dynamic consideration, I have received notice this morning that another court action will be initiated on this matter later this week, so the situation is rapidly changing.

I want to reiterate, Mr. Speaker, that the government is not ruling out a public inquiry. What we are suggesting is that, at this time, we should let the peer review process take place. When a client complains about a lawyer's conduct, an abuse of funds for example, the Legal Profession Act springs into action. You do not hold a public inquiry, when there is a complaint about the competence of an engineer, if a bridge collapses or a building collapses, the engineers deal with their peer review, and you do not hold a public inquiry.

The same occurs with a pharmacist. Now, I think we should follow the procedure laid out in our Act, Mr. Speaker. I will reiterate again, once that is done, if the Member comes back and says that there are still concerns, there are still matters at issue, my constituents are still asking questions, or still in the dark, then that avenue would be open to us. It is the view of government, at this time, that we should take the course that is laid out in our own legislation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.