Mr. Speaker, last September there was a great deal of debate in this Assembly about the need for a public inquiry into the administration and quality of medical services at the Fort Smith health centre.
The debate was prompted by a review of medical services at the health centre in June of 1992 by two doctors from Saskatchewan and the subsequent report of those physicians, the Saskatchewan Report.
Much of the discussion in the Assembly was initiated by concerns over: the suspension of Dr. Uma Viswalingam's privileges to practice medicine at the Fort Smith health centre; the referral of the Saskatchewan doctor's report by the government to a medical board of inquiry established under the Medical Profession Act; and, public concern over the future status of Dr. Viswalingam's practice in Fort Smith.
After a lengthy debate, a motion was passed in the Assembly requesting a public inquiry into the issues surrounding the administration and quality of medical services provided by the Fort Smith health centre to the residents of Fort Smith.
In considering the motion passed by the Legislature and the debate that took place in the House, the government came to the decision that a public inquiry would be established. It arrived at this decision because of the growing demand that a public procedure would help to resolve various issues surrounding Dr. Viswalingam and the operation of the health centre.
As a result, the Honourable Ted Hughes accepted a Cabinet appointment to conduct the inquiry. He in turn appointed Mr. Brian Barrington-Foote as inquiry counsel. Together they undertook the preliminary investigations and organizational planning required to begin the public inquiry Monday of next week.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a recent and significant turn of events that places the need for the inquiry into question.
Earlier this week the government, the Fort Smith health centre and Dr. Viswalingam resolved a number of outstanding issues and have signed a settlement agreement that has resulted in Dr. Viswalingam's resignation as an employee of the Fort Smith health centre. He has been paid a sum of $195,000 which is consistent with his years of service with the government and his professional status.
In return, Dr. Viswalingam has agreed to undergo the assessments recommended in the Saskatchewan Report. The assessments will be conducted by McMaster University in accordance with its physician review and enhancement program. They will include both a medical competency and psychiatric assessment.
Following the assessments, Mr. Speaker, the medical board of inquiry will conduct its investigation under the authority of the Medical Profession Act.
Upon successful completion of the McMaster's assessment and compliance with any treatment and upgrading that may be required, and subject to the results of the medical board of inquiry, the doctor will be allowed to practice in Fort Smith as a private practitioner.
Mr. Speaker, with the settlement of these issues, the government believes that one of the primary reasons for establishing a public inquiry has been satisfied.
In addition, there have been problems associated with introduction of the Saskatchewan Report as evidence before the public inquiry because it falls under the protection of the Evidence Act.
As Members know, we were invited by Mr. Hughes to consult with his inquiry counsel about the Evidence Act, and have done so.
Mr. Speaker, when the inquiry was established it was hoped the events surrounding the preparation of the Saskatchewan Report could be introduced into evidence with the consent of all counsel involved. It was subsequently learned that this simply was not possible without an amendment to the Evidence Act.
In addition, as Mr. Barrington-Foote conducted his investigation and gathered evidence, it became increasingly apparent that a significant portion of proposed evidence would be inadmissible as a result of the protection afforded by the Evidence Act.
This is something that would have been difficult to determine at the beginning of the inquiry as, at that time, we did not know what the evidence would be.
After careful and serious consideration, Mr. Speaker, the government is not prepared to amend the act in order to gain access to the report for the purpose of the public inquiry. That would be a dangerous precedent.
The section of the Evidence Act in question is in place to foster candid disclosure of information in quality assurance activities by hospitals. These statutory provisions are not unique to the Northwest Territories and similar provisions can be found in the Evidence Acts of other jurisdictions for the same reasons.
In discussing this matter with Mr. Barrington-Foote, he confirmed that exclusion of the Saskatchewan Report would make it extremely difficult for the inquiry to fulfil its terms of reference. He added that evidence he had collected indicated there was no conspiracy or wrong-doing in the preparation of the report.
Mr. Speaker, the settlement with Dr. Viswalingam and our position in respect to the Evidence Act leaves little, if anything, to examine under the auspices of a public inquiry that could add a further $400,000 to the estimated $80,000 in costs that we have incurred to date.
As a result, I am informing Mr. Hughes that the government does not intend to proceed with the public inquiry. The Minister of Health and the Member for Thebacha will meet with the residents of Fort Smith and, if requested, the government will use a more conventional process to settle any remaining concerns about the quality of health services and its administration in that community. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.