Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, when I first came to this session, the first week, I did not think I was going to be involved in a matter of this nature, in fact, if anything I probably would have stayed away from dealing with this particular issue, and allow my colleague to work out a solution with the honourable Minister. Unfortunately, that has not been the case and what is interesting in this whole debate, Mr. Speaker, is that there is, it seems, at times, significant confusion about what it is, what the intentions are, and what accomplishments are being made in terms of the review of the inquiry that has been suggested by the Minister, and on behalf of this government.

Mr. Speaker, I think that what I want to talk about with regard to this motion, is simply that there is a principle that most Members agree with, and that is the right of the people who we represent, to be involved in decisions that affect them. We are one of those institutions, and we have rights and privileges as Members to, in fact, represent our constituents. That we represent them as an institution, we do not take their place when they see it in their interests to represent themselves. We do not ignore, Mr. Speaker, their right and their responsibility for ensuring that they themselves, are being served by the institutions that they allow us to set up. We do not take their place, in fact, we are their representatives.

In this whole debate Mr. Speaker, it seems that we are not interested in hearing the views of those people, that we are not interested in listening to the concerns that they have about the service or program that is being brought to them, on behalf of this government, and on behalf of this Assembly. They are concerned about the manner in which their body of authority, I refer to their body of authority, not ours, but their body of authority, is delivering services to them.

Many of us here have worked diligently trying to ensure that the people in the communities have responsibility, authority and powers to make decisions for themselves. Unfortunately, in this particular case, that seems not to be happening.

I had not thought, Mr. Speaker, that I would be rising at any time during the session to challenge a decision of a Minister. What concerns me most, is the confusion and the kind of interpretation that are being given by our Cabinet Members with regard to legislation. I see this process, the public inquiry, as an opportunity for the people of Fort Smith, to present their concerns and to present their views about this particular matter.

I know that in some instances, there will be some limitations, because even the Public Inquiries Act does not allow every Member interested in making presentations to do so, but that is the nature of the legislation and it must be adhered to.

I think that the principle that I would argue for is, that the people must be heard, the people that are affected by the program, the service that is being delivered to them, and not simply to argue that the matter before the people is an administrative one. It is far more than that. I hope that the principle that we are going to vote on, is the matter of the people being involved. I know that the Minister will rise and say we are concerned about the costs, Mr. Speaker, government and Cabinet does not have the monopoly on the concern for cost. I think in our own comments we have made in this House, this side of the House has had as much concern about the over expenditure of government funds. If over expenditure of government funds challenges the principle that the people should be heard, the people have a right to be heard, then we are in the wrong business. They have every right to tell us what is wrong with this system, what is wrong with the services that are being delivered to them. If money is the basis on which we allow that principle to be protected, then I think, God help democracy in the right to elect people, because I think we are at risk and the peoples right to speak is at risk.

All of us here in this Assembly understand the matter of expenses. My first question was to ask the Minister, not in any way to be difficult, but to ask the Minister if there was any indication of no justice being seen, or being done, that he could consider a public inquiry? I did not challenge his ability to make a decision, initially, to have the Medical Professional Act to guide his decision, yet, he chose to say, "no" that would not be considered. So, Mr. Speaker, I have risen to speak on behalf of the motion, and second the motion, because I think that the fundamental principle we are arguing here, is a matter of the people being heard, and I think that principle is very important. That principle is applicable in Yellowknife Centre, in MacKenzie Delta, in Sahtu, as it is in every constituency, and every region. If we forget that is the principle, I think that we have lost sight of what we are trying to accomplish. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.