Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess during the health transfer one of the basic principles was community and aboriginal control over the delivery of health services. This should mean that the community has a right to ensure the appropriate action is taken when it becomes concerned about the operations of a health facility.
There is more at stake here than an investigation into the performance of a single doctor. It has to do with the administration, and the operation, of the entire investigation into the performance of a single doctor. It has to do with the administration and the operation of the entire health centre and with the health centre's role in the community. The people of Fort Smith, particularly aboriginal people, have every right to be fully involved in all aspects of this operational review. That was a guaranteed condition of the health transfer.
The motion before the House is calling the Members to request that an inquiry be held under the Public Inquiries Act. The Minister seems to have taken a position that this should not occur, because it has decided to refer a report on a doctor's competency, to a board established under the Medical Profession Act.
I believe that the only appropriate framework in which to consider this matter is in a public inquiry established under the Public Inquiries Act. Here are the advantages of a public inquiry, it is stated clearly that the proceedings should take place in public, although there is a provision that if a board wishes, it can go in camera to deal with a very personal and private matter. The history of public inquiries in Canada has been that there has always been the best way to ensure that the public has an opportunity to provide input. For example, an inquiry earlier this year into the death of a prominent Manitoba native leader at the hands of police officers, dealt not only with the circumstances surrounding the misuse of power at that situation, but also with the larger concern of the aboriginal communities.
Two inquiries into the Alberta justice system, highlighted the short coming of European justice in terms of meeting the needs of aboriginal people. Again, the conclusion was reached with ample input from the public at large, and especially aboriginal organizations in that province.
Purely, Mr. Speaker, public inquiries have proven to be useful and efficient ways to get information out into the open in all Canadian jurisdictions. We should not be afraid to make full use of this vital approach in dealing with community concerns in the Northwest Territories.
There are many disadvantages to the Medical Profession Act. It is a form of peer review, no public review. By definition that means that it will focus on what the doctors think are important, not the people. There is far more to the trouble that the Fort Smith Health Centre, than the activities of a single doctor, whom the department seems to want to scapegoat.
---Applause
I have always been suspicious of the process of peer review. It is alright in a situation where there is a very narrow question to be considered. In this complicated situation, there must be an open and public process. The public inquiry is the only suitable approach.
I have publicly expressed, Mr. Speaker, my concerns over peer review approaches, used to override community concerns with respect to the Nursing Profession Act, the Engineering, Geologists, and Geophysicists Profession Act. In both these cases, there were commitments made when the legislation was reviewed under review, that there is an opportunity for community input and review of their findings. Even then, I am not entirely satisfied. However, in the case of the Medical Profession Act, there is not even a requirement that the board of inquiry has to submit a report. It can issue an order, but it does not even have to report its findings. How on earth is that going to answer the questions that members of Fort Smith community have on the working of their health centre?
A public inquiry is better. Further, the question on whether or not inquiry under the Medical Profession Act should not be misunderstood. The Act is silent on this issue, it does not say that the inquiry should be open, it does not say the inquiry should be closed.
The Minister has stated that this could mean that the medical board of inquiry hold a public process. However, we should not forget that the report referred to the board of inquiry, was that the commission on it, was on a strictly confidential basis. How on earth can the Minister expect the board to meet in public, when it will be dealing with a confidential report?
The public inquiry in the health centre is absolutely necessary. I must say that I found the Minister's comments on the inquiry very confusing. I must also say that I have received copies of the correspondence tabled by the honourable Member for Thebacha, including the Minister's correspondence of September 10, 1992. I find that his allegation that Mrs. Marie-Jewell has been working to prevent the successful resolution of the matter, is unfair and not accurate in my view.
I also find that the tone of his correspondence to be not becoming of a Minister of this government. A public inquiry is a must, and it is a culturally appropriate approach. The most important thing that honourable Members should ask themselves, in voting on this issue, is that when problems arise over the years, about aboriginal communities, how did our elders of the generations deal with them? Did they appoint a group of professionals to hold a private inquiry, or did they bring the community together as a whole to talk about the problems?
Honourable Members will know that through history, Dene and Inuit people have always dealt with community problems by bringing the communities together. Everyone had the opportunity to have input into how to resolve a community problem. Everyone knew what decisions would be made to solve the problem. These are the principles that we, as modern leaders, should be striving to achieve as well.
We will not achieve these with a board of inquiry under the Medical Profession Act. We will achieve this with an inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.