INQUIRY RE MINISTRY OF
HEALTH INFORMATION
SUSAN COLLEY
CONTENTS
Thursday 20 February 1992
Inquiry re Ministry of Health information
Susan Colley
Stephen Kosar
Susan Colley
STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Chair / Président(e): Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président(e): Miclash, Frank (Kenora L)
Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South/-Sud ND)
Christopherson, David (Hamilton Centre ND)
Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)
Eves, Ernie L. (Parry Sound PC)
Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)
Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND)
Mills, Gordon (Durham East/-Est ND)
Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)
Owens, Stephen (Scarborough Centre ND)
Scott, Ian G. (St George-St David L)
Substitution(s) / Membre(s) rempliçant(s):
Elston, Murray (Bruce L) for Mr Scott
Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND) for Ms S. Murdock
Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND) for Mr Bisson
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Cavalluzzo, Paul, counsel, Cavalluzzo, Hayes and Shilton
Clerk / Greffier: Arnott,Douglas
Staff / Personnel: Jackson, Patricia, Committee Counsel
The committee met at 1008 in room 151.
INQUIRY RE MINISTRY OF HEALTH INFORMATION
SUSAN COLLEY
The Chair: Good morning. We will call the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly meeting to order. This morning we have Ms Susan Colley, the executive assistant to the Minister of Health, before the committee. Good morning, Ms Colley.
Ms Colley: Good morning, Mr Chair and members of the committee.
The Chair: As you may be aware, prior to responding to questions by counsel and caucus there has been the administration of oath or affirmation. At this point in time I would like the clerk to do that oath or affirmation.
Susan Colley, affirmed.
The Chair: Thank you. Just prior to us commencing, Ms Colley, there has been a warning which I have given to all people who have appeared before the committee, and that is that in the event that you are asked a question which you cannot answer without divulging confidential information, could you please advise the committee, and if there is not a way to disclose that information without divulging such confidential information, then the matter may be addressed in an in camera proceeding.
For the benefit of committee members, counsel is now going to be asking questions of Ms Colley. In the event that that questioning is not completed by noon today, together with rotation -- our understanding is that it would not be -- we are going to go at 2 o'clock to the calling of Dr Stephen Kosar. This breaking up of the question and answer by Ms Colley has been cleared by herself and counsel, and certainly by subcommittee members. I note that Mr Cavalluzzo is here today, and I understand that you are aware of this possibility which is required because of the scheduling for Dr Kosar. So, I thank you, Ms Colley and Mr Cavalluzzo, for permitting this type of questioning and the potential breaking up of the questioning to proceed so that we may meet with the scheduling requirements of Dr Kosar. Having said that, I would now invite Ms Jackson to commence with questioning.
Ms Jackson: Ms Colley, you are the executive assistant to the Minister of Health?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And you, I understand, have held that position since April 1991?
Ms Colley: As executive to the Minister of Health, yes. I have been the executive assistant to the minister Frances Lankin in her role as Chair of Management Board and Minister of Government Services since October 1990.
Ms Jackson: And before that, before becoming executive assistant to Ms Lankin in October 1990, as I understand it, you were for a number of years the director of the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care?
Ms Colley: That is right.
Ms Jackson: During the period in which you were the executive assistant to Ms Lankin when she was with Management Board, as I understand it her responsibilities at that time included the responsibility for the negotiation of the agreement that we have heard so much about in these proceedings between the Ontario government and the Ontario Medical Association?
Ms Colley: The famous framework agreement, yes.
Ms Jackson: Yes, and therefore, before you and Ms Lankin moved into the Ministry of Health you had already acquired some extensive familiarity with that agreement and the policy issues underlying it?
Ms Colley: Some, yes.
Ms Jackson: All right. I guess in particular you would have been familiar by the time you became the executive assistant to the Minister of Health with the concept of the threshold as it is contained in that agreement and the government's intention, to the extent it had developed one, as to how that was to operate?
Ms Colley: Yes, very much so. It was one of the key components and elements of the agreement with the Ontario Medical Association.
Ms Jackson: Now before we sort of go through the events of the fall of 1991, which are clearly going to take some of the committee's attention this morning, can I just have you review in general terms the number of people and the structure of the minister's office? As I understand it, in addition to yourself, she has five policy assistants?
Ms Colley: Yes. Shall I just describe it for you?
Ms Jackson: Certainly.
Ms Colley: The structure of the minister's office is really divided into four components: policy advice to the minister, customer service, communications and legislation. We have 14 people altogether who serve in various capacities to provide that kind of support to the minister.
Ms Jackson: Just in general terms, approximately how many assistants or people are there in each of those four areas?
Ms Colley: Right. Five policy assistants, one communications assistant, one legislative assistant, the customer service coordinator in those areas, and then there are general assistants that provide additional support in various capacities like scheduling and helping out with the thousands, actually, of appointments that we have to make or the minister has to make every year as the Minister of Health, and assisting with her tours and general office administration, correspondence, etc.
Ms Jackson: The customer service coordinator is, of course, Mr Corea, from whom the committee has heard?
Ms Colley: That is right, yes.
Ms Jackson: Can you tell us what position is occupied by Paul Howard?
Ms Colley: Paul Howard is a special assistant with responsibility for communications.
Ms Jackson: And you, as I understand it, are the senior person in the minister's office. In effect, you are in charge of all of those people you have just described?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Now may I turn to the events of the fall of 1991 and in particular start with the process of implementation of the OMA-government agreement. As I understand it from the discussion that members of my office had with you before, by the early fall you and the minister and the ministry were working on a refinement of the question of what is included in the technical fees that we have heard are to be deducted from a doctor's income in implementing the threshold. Was that about the right time for that?
Ms Colley: Yes. I mean, I think that in general there has been a regular monitoring of the implementation of the OMA agreement, you know, from its inception, from its signing in June. As we approached the fall, obviously various doctors were beginning to become anxious about the fact that they may have reached the threshold limit with regard to their earnings, and so consequently the issue became more prominent than it had in July, when the agreement had just been signed.
Ms Jackson: Another issue that I understand assumed some prominence was the question of who and on what basis doctors might be exempted by virtue of the provision in the agreement allowing the minister to exempt doctors on the basis of region or specialty?
Ms Colley: That was a discussion. I mean, I think that in the course of the implementation there had been various decisions made by ministry staff to exempt certain technical fees and the area that had not received full attention was the issue of the specific specialties or regional distribution. On November 4 the minister did have a discussion at the minister's policy committee about threshold exemptions at which she concluded basically that there should be no exemptions to the threshold, although she was very keen to make sure that both the quality and access to service continued and that therefore, if there were real problems, she wanted them examined and she wanted creative approaches taken to that situation.
Ms Jackson: Now the committee has seen correspondence that went out to members of the public and to doctors and so on, dated I think November 13, announcing that the government had decided not to grant any exemptions by region and specialty. You are saying, I think, that that decision was in fact taken on November 4. Is that correct?
Ms Colley: That is right, yes.
Ms Jackson: Now you have made reference in the answer that you just gave to the prospect of there being, I think you said, creative alternatives. What do you mean by that? First of all, was that language used by somebody?
Ms Colley: It is a favourite term of the minister, I think you will find. I mean, I think that on her agenda one of the most important things for her is to look at how we can as a government effectively deliver quality services, reform the health care system, at the same time as we become more and more conscious about the fiscal situation and making sure that expenditures do not skyrocket out of control. So this of course requires an incredibly delicate balance, and when the agreement with the Ontario doctors was envisaged, it was certainly that balance that was intended, the balance that would in fact make sure that doctors' fees did not continue to increase, but at the same time that patients would have access to services. So consequently I do not think we were talking about exceptions, but looking more at how the implementation could be effected in a way that ensured that access was there. At the same time, also --
Ms Jackson: Excuse me, Ms Colley. I am really just wanting to focus on this one phrase.
Ms Colley: Right.
Ms Jackson: You have indicated that there was reference, in the course of this decision not to grant exemptions, to the use of creative alternatives, correct?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And I think you have said that is a favourite phrase of the minister's, is that right?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Was it used in the context of this discussion about exemptions?
Ms Colley: It was referred to, yes.
Ms Jackson: And in that context, was there any elaboration of what was meant in that particular context?
Ms Colley: No. What I meant was that the minister did instruct ministry staff to make sure that they engaged in creative activity to make sure that, you know, no stone was left unturned in making sure that the issues of access and quality were realized.
Ms Jackson: All right. Now during the course of this evolution of issues in relation to the threshold agreement, particularly in the period of November that you are now talking about, can you identify for the committee when you first became aware of a controversy in Sudbury, in relation to the impact of thresholds on doctors there?
1020
Ms Colley: I think the first time I was really aware of it, other than the general kind of awareness about the problem of physician retention and specialist retention in the north, was around the 12th of November when I was copied with a memo from Larry Corea to Eugene LeBlanc asking specifically about the practice of Dr Donahue and why it was that he was going to have to close down his practice.
Ms Jackson: I am going to take you to that memorandum in just a minute, but do I understand that you are saying until you saw that memorandum you do not have any recollection of being aware of any controversy in Sudbury at all in this area that was in any way different from the rest of the province?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Is it fair that once you became aware of it you were aware of a sensitivity within the ministry generally? That is an area where there are a lot of government members, is it not?
Ms Colley: In Sudbury?
Ms Jackson: Yes.
Ms Colley: There are lots of government members all around the province, but in Sudbury, yes, there are three.
Ms Jackson: Did that make it a particularly sensitive issue for the ministry in your recollection?
Ms Colley: No, I do not think that is correct. I think that Frances Lankin, as minister, has given very strict instructions to make sure that all the people of Ontario are served, that all members who request assistance and information are given the most support possible. I think that is a basic tenet of the minister, that she actually does believe that we should be dealing with health issues in a very non-partisan way.
Ms Jackson: You say that you first became aware of this when you saw a memorandum on November 12. There should be beside you, Ms Colley, a book of exhibits. Could you turn up exhibit 28?
Ms Colley: Is that the memorandum you are referring to?
Ms Jackson: That is it, yes. When did you receive that?
Ms Colley: The 12th of November.
Ms Jackson: Shortly after the time that is on the memorandum?
Ms Colley: I imagine it arrived in my machine at that point. I usually read my e-mails in the evening, so I probably -- I think I remember reading it that evening.
Ms Jackson: All right. I should say of course the e-mail that you received I assume did not have this big black mark in the middle.
Ms Colley: Right.
Ms Jackson: Subject to that, it is the e-mail you received, right? Prior to receiving it, what information, if any, do you recall having concerning Dr Donahue?
Ms Colley: Prior to receiving this memo?
Ms Jackson: Yes.
Ms Colley: I had never heard of Dr Donahue before receiving this memo.
Ms Jackson: You had not heard of a dermatologist in Sudbury at all?
Ms Colley: No.
Ms Jackson: Do you know or did you know when you received the memorandum what the source of the information in the second paragraph of the memorandum was?
Ms Colley: Yes, because also in my job, as I think has probably been described, the day-to-day activities are extensive. We are extremely busy all the time. We have lots of piles of paper to go through. I have an in-tray that high every day, I get about 100 e-mails on my machine every day, on average, I get about 50 telephone calls a day and I have 14 staff I am responsible for, so that it is sort of an impossible situation. But what I actually do try to do is to sort of touch base with each of the special assistants throughout the day, to try and flag and work with them on what the issues are.
So actually I had talked to Larry about this before I had even read this memo, and he had told me that he had received a phone call from Nuala Doherty and that he had received some information about -- what he basically said was: "We've got a problem because it looks as if the dermatologist in Sudbury is going to close down. I can't understand why that is. He's apparently got a lot of staff and has an extensive practice. He's the only dermatologist serving the whole of northeastern Ontario and Mr Laughren's office has a lot of concerns about it." Larry told me that he was writing to Dr LeBlanc to get some briefing notes to find out why this dermatologist was going to have to close, whether he was affected by the threshold or what the situation was.
Ms Jackson: So in terms of the process that you describe, of flagging issues with your assistants, this issue has now been flagged?
Ms Colley: It has, yes.
Ms Jackson: And the information, you understood from your conversation with Mr Corea, that is contained in his memorandum about Dr Donahue came from Ms Doherty?
Ms Colley: I understand, yes.
Ms Jackson: Did you have any view at the time as to whether that information was personal or confidential in nature or whether it was generally available, or did you think of that issue at all?
Ms Colley: I was told by Larry Corea that the information had come from, the details had come from Mr Laughren's office.
Ms Jackson: But did that cause you to think at all about whether the information was or was not confidential, personal information?
Ms Colley: Not really, because it came directly from Mr Laughren's office and --
Ms Jackson: So the fact that it -- sorry.
Ms Colley: Yes, so I had assumed that this was information -- I mean, this is quite a common situation, that somebody will go to his MPP and tell him his circumstances and the MPP will call us to try and seek resolution to a problem or an issue. This happens quite extensively. So if you are asking me whether we actually ask all the MPPs whether they have got the consent of their doctor or their constituent, we do not do that. We assume that they have got that permission and therefore are relaying information that they can relay to us.
Ms Jackson: Is it fair that you would assume as well that since this is information coming to the ministry from outside, you do not have a duty to protect it as confidential?
Ms Colley: I think we have a duty to protect the information that we retain in our records, absolutely, yes.
Ms Jackson: Even if it comes from outside in the first instance?
Ms Colley: Oh, yes.
Ms Jackson: Now, I have asked you what you think. Is this something you actually thought about at the time, whether it was or was not personal, confidential information?
Ms Colley: Yes, it was, because in fact Larry and I did have a discussion about -- in the course of this I do remember us having a discussion about being aware of the fact that information relating to doctors and their practices was confidential information.
Ms Jackson: Did you have that discussion in the course of discussing the content of this memorandum?
Ms Colley: Well, we were not really discussing this memorandum; we were discussing the situation. But yes --
Ms Jackson: I mean that -- sorry, the information -- because you said you discussed it perhaps before you got the memorandum. But was it in the context of the discussion of the information that is in this memorandum that you had this discussion that you have now mentioned about personal information?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Do you remember how that issue came up, or why?
Ms Colley: I think it was because Larry had not actually had a situation like this before and he is very serious and responsible. I mean, I think that basically he was -- something in his mind had alerted him to the fact, probably the fact that this is an issue of course within the Ministry of Health, but something in his mind did alert him to the fact that we were going to be dealing with issues of confidentiality in this case, which is a bit different perhaps than when we are dealing with a hospital, where workers are being laid off and so on. That is a bit of a different issue. So he was conscious of it. I am not trying to say that this was a big deal. I just do remember him flagging the fact that we had to be careful about personal information.
1030
Ms Jackson: So he raised the issue?
Ms Colley: He raised the issue, yes.
Ms Jackson: What did he say about it, specifically?
Ms Colley: Well, I just -- I mean, all I remember is that he -- let me think if I remember exactly what he said. He has a bit of a -- I mean, basically that figures were coming across about Dr Donahue. I think just what I have said really, which is that, "If I get information, I'm going to have to be careful about what I do with it." It was not quite those words, but that was the sentiment.
Ms Jackson: Did you say anything about that issue?
Ms Colley: I think I said, "Absolutely, yes."
Ms Jackson: All right. What was your understanding, then, of the purpose of this memorandum?
Ms Colley: My understanding was that the purpose of the memorandum was to establish whether we had a problem with supplying dermatology services in the north and, you know, if in fact Sudbury no longer had a dermatologist and what would that mean in terms of the patients in the north, how would they have access to dermatology services? Would this mean that we would have to actually send people down and pay for them to come to Toronto through the program of northern health travel grants?
Ms Jackson: Why was the memorandum sent to you? Do you know?
Ms Colley: Well, I think -- yes, because I am copied on most of these kinds of things, just to keep me involved and informed about what is going on.
Ms Jackson: You say you are copied on most of "these kinds of things". What do you mean by "these kinds of things"?
Ms Colley: Most e-mails that the special assistants or general assistants send to ministry staff requesting information I am usually copied on.
Ms Jackson: All right. Did you, at the time that you had this discussion with Mr Corea and read the memorandum, all of which, I take it, occurred on the same day --
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Did you at that time have any questions or concerns in your mind about Dr Donahue and his practice?
Ms Colley: No, I actually -- and Larry too, because he was communicating this information to me -- was very concerned about the fact that we might be losing dermatology services in the north. This seemed to me to be a serious issue. We did not understand why that was, so basically our approach was to find out how to resolve the problem.
Ms Jackson: So seeing what you were told about his practice in this memorandum and the questions that were asked in the memorandum, you had no concerns or questions in your mind about Dr Donahue or his practice?
Ms Colley: About him specifically, you mean, him personally?
Ms Jackson: Or the nature of his practice beyond the --
Ms Colley: Well, yes. I mean, I was concerned about dermatology, but at the same time, in my mind, I also knew that we were deinsuring epilation on the 15th of November, which happened to be the next day, and of course --
Ms Jackson: Did you say on the 15th of November?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: This is the 12th.
Ms Colley: Oh, okay. Well, the next -- right. Within the week, anyway, that week. Because I knew that he was employing 14 staff and so on, it did occur to me that there was a possibility that Dr Donahue might be affected by the decision to deinsure epilation.
Ms Jackson: Why did that occur to you in light of the 14 -- you are saying the occurrence of that thought was related to the fact that he had 14 staff?
Ms Colley: Mm-hmm.
Ms Jackson: Can you explain to the committee what the relationship is, in your mind at least?
Ms Colley: Only that I knew that epilation was a service that was often set up in doctors' offices and much of the work was delegated to electrologists to do on the premises of the physician.
Ms Jackson: How did you know that?
Ms Colley: Because we had been discussing this issue even going back to actually management. When Ms Lankin was at Management Board, it had been an issue that had been raised. Ms Lankin had been lobbied by the electrologists and by women who were in receipt of the services, and we were aware that it was an issue under discussion within the Ministry of Health going way back. So when she became the Minister of Health, it was an issue that she obviously got briefed on, and I knew there had been an advisory committee looking at whether or not epilation should be considered to be a service that was one that should continue to be insured. There had been a lot of discussion about that, there was a lot of lobbying about that and a lot of the details of how it functioned, both from the point of view of the electrologists and their practices and physicians who actually did epilation in their practices.
So I got quite familiar with that and quite familiar with the debate about whether it was a cosmetic service that should be deinsured and about the fact that there was no real fair criteria for assessing whether or not certain women should have access to the service and others should not. So it became an increasingly --
Ms Jackson: I understand from what you are saying that as a result of this having been an issue in the province, you had become somewhat familiar with what epilation services were.
Ms Colley: Yes. One of the things I suppose --
Ms Jackson: Let me just take you through the stages and make sure we understand your thinking. You knew something about epilation?
Ms Colley: Mm-hmm.
Ms Jackson: You knew it was often done by delegated staff in a doctor's office? Is that what you are saying?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Of course that would typically be in association, I take it, with a dermatologist's office? Is that right or is that not so?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: So you see you have a doctor here with a lot of staff, a dermatologist with a lot of staff, and based on the experience you have described, you conclude that he may well be doing a lot of epilation. Is that right?
Ms Colley: That is right.
Ms Jackson: By this time, the government has already decided to delist epilation from the insured benefits under OHIP?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: That, as I understand your evidence, is because by that time the government had concluded that epilation was essentially cosmetic rather than medical?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Therefore, in your mind, you are saying, "Here's a doctor who seems to be doing a lot of epilation, which is a service we have concluded is not medically necessary."
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: So that is the concern you get in your mind when you read this memo?
Ms Colley: Right.
Ms Jackson: Okay. Did you have any other concern or question about Dr Donahue's practice as a result of reading this memorandum or for any other reason at this time?
Ms Colley: Well, yes. I was very concerned that the only dermatologist in Sudbury was threatening to close his practice and was very critical of the government for causing him to do that. So it was a concern. I mean, that was the concern I had: Can we resolve this problem? Is this something that is going to cut off services to people in Sudbury or not, or are they going to be able to get it in the marketplace, if it is epilation, or how will these services be replaced, basically?
Ms Jackson: And if the service that he is providing turns out to be in large measure or predominantly epilation, I take it from what you are saying the closure of his office would not be something the ministry would be concerned about. Is that right?
1040
Ms Colley: That is right, because if in fact his practice was largely epilation, then it would not be a service that would be insured under OHIP anyway and it would mean that it could be provided either by the physician directly or by electrologists in the community, the marketplace.
Ms Jackson: But if it is not a medically necessary service, you are not so concerned, as the Ministry of Health, as to whether it is or is not provided anyway. Is that fair?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: So I take it if that is at least the concern that is identified in your mind, one of the things you want to know then when you see this is, "Is he in fact, as I suspect, doing a large amount of epilation?" Is that fair?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: So that is one piece of information that you think is important to know to deal with the issue as you understand it.
Ms Colley: That is right.
Ms Jackson: Now, I asked you just about concerns and questions in your mind. Let me just deal with this question and we can put it behind us. Did you at any period until you read a press report/statement on this point in January 1991 ever hear any indication that Dr Donahue's practice was being reviewed within the ministry or at the MRC?
Ms Colley: No, I did not. I did not know that until I read it in the Toronto Star.
Ms Jackson: That is the Toronto Star of January 26?
Ms Colley: That is right, yes.
Ms Jackson: Mr Donovan's article?
Ms Colley: Yes. And, I mean, one of the things that was happening of course is that -- I, and everybody else on our staff, was still on a very intense learning curve. There is an incredible amount to know and understand and learn about the Ministry of Health. To be quite honest, I did not really know at that point what the Medical Review Committee even was.
Ms Jackson: Now, we have covered the fact that you have discussed this issue with Mr Corea. Then that night probably you read the e-mail. Did you have any further discussion with Mr Corea about the e-mail after you read it?
Ms Colley: Oh, you mean after I read the e-mail?
Ms Jackson: Yes.
Ms Colley: No, I just flipped it. I had talked to him so I just flipped it.
Ms Jackson: You just what, sorry?
Ms Colley: Flipped through it in my masses of e-mails every night.
Ms Jackson: All right, flip it, you said, okay.
Ms Colley: I recognized the discussion that happened and carried on.
Ms Jackson: Now then, let's go then to November 13, the next day. Did you become aware that day of a broadcast by Dr Donahue indicating his intention to close his office?
Ms Colley: I did, yes, and I became aware of this through two sources. One was that I became aware he had been on the radio or TV, I think. I got a clipping anyway, and second, because -- what happens is that basically the way that we work in ministers' offices, and I think this applies to all MPP offices actually, is that designated people in our office deal with problems and concerns that arise from constituents. If it becomes a more serious issue, then what clicks in is what we call the EA-to-EA relationship. So on the 13th I received a memo from Betty Notar, who is the executive assistant to the Treasurer, Mr Laughren. She sent a fax to me asking to investigate this.
Ms Jackson: Okay. I will come to that in a minute, but my question was a little simpler than that. I take it you did become aware of a broadcast by Dr Donahue on that day.
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Now, could I ask you to turn to exhibit 11 in the book before you and tell us, if you can, whether that is the broadcast you became aware of.
Ms Colley: I think so. I mean, I think there was another one too. I mean, there were two. One was discussing epilation and the deinsuring of epilation, and the other one was --
Ms Jackson: Can you turn back then to exhibit 10 --
Ms Colley: Oh, okay.
Ms Jackson: -- which is a broadcast five days previously on epilation.
Ms Colley: Right.
Ms Jackson: Had you heard about that broadcast when it was given?
Ms Colley: I do not remember. I mean, I remember being aware of a broadcast on this day and I remember being aware of the doctor closing his office, or the threats to close his office, and I do not really specifically remember which broadcast I read.
Ms Jackson: The committee has heard some evidence that there is within the ministry a meeting in the morning which I think has variously been described as a contentious issues meeting or a priority briefing meeting.
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: That, we understand, is a meeting that takes place every morning to highlight the things that look like they are going to, if I may put it colloquially, blow up during the day. Is that a fair description?
Ms Colley: Pretty well, yes.
Ms Jackson: Do you go to that meeting?
Ms Colley: No, I do not. We actually have two meetings. There is a meeting of the contentious issues unit, as you have described. That is followed by our own staff meeting, where we review those issues and other information items and a report from our customer service unit and the schedule for the day. So we deal with all those things after the contentious issues meeting between the ministry staff and our minister's staff.
Ms Jackson: On that morning do you recall the question of Dr Donahue and the broadcast he had just given or Dr Donahue and the closure of his practice being raised at either the meeting you attended or the contentious issues meeting. Did you hear a report of its being raised?
Ms Colley: I do not remember whether it was raised or not, no.
Ms Jackson: Just while we are dealing with what you are aware of as it comes in, could I ask you to turn up exhibit 48, which is a fax that Mr Corea has indicated was sent in to him that morning, enclosing a notice of Dr Donahue's office closure. Do you know if you saw that?
Ms Colley: Yes, I did see it, but I actually do not know when I saw it -- in that time period some time.
Ms Jackson: All right. You said a few minutes ago that I think as a result of this broadcast, as I understood it, the EA-to-EA relationship clicked in. Did I correctly understand what you were saying?
Ms Colley: I do not know whether it was a result of the broadcast. It is quite possible that it was. All I know was that Ms Notar -- Betty -- had sent me a fax because she was becoming increasingly concerned about the problem.
Ms Jackson: If you were to flip over to exhibit 49, can you tell the committee if that is the -- you called it a fax, but it does not appear to be -- the memo you are referring to?
Ms Colley: That is it, yes.
Ms Jackson: Is that just an interoffice memo, or how does it come to you?
Ms Colley: Right, usually things are faxed, but this does not look like it was faxed. I mean, it came to me on my desk in my in-tray. It is a memo. How it came, whether it came in an envelope or a fax I do not usually pay much attention to actually.
Ms Jackson: May we take it that what looks like an innocuous black and white sticker was probably red at the time? It says "Rush Urgent" twice over.
Ms Colley: That is right, yes.
Ms Jackson: So the EA-to-EA relationship has really clicked in.
Ms Colley: It has really clicked in, yes.
Ms Jackson: This is something that needs your immediate personal attention.
Ms Colley: That is right.
Ms Jackson: That, I take it, was in part because Mr Laughren was planning to be in his constituency on the 15th.
Ms Colley: On the weekend, yes, and --
Ms Jackson: You knew that.
Ms Colley: Whether I knew that specifically or whether I just knew that because I know that Mr Laughren nearly always goes home on the weekend and, you know, would be in his constituency, I do not remember.
Ms Jackson: Had you heard that or did you in the days leading up to the 15th learn that there was to be some kind of meeting with doctors on the 15th, between doctors and Mr Laughren?
Ms Colley: Yes, I think I did learn that.
Ms Jackson: And that would be an additional reason for the urgent request for information on Dr Donahue?
Ms Colley: Right, yes.
Ms Jackson: Now, in this memo -- had you talked to Ms Notar about this issue, do you know, before you got this "Rush Urgent, Rush Urgent" memo?
Ms Colley: I do not remember talking to her about it, but I could have done.
Ms Jackson: In any event, you do not recall any fleshing out of this issue beyond what is in the memo?
Ms Colley: No.
Ms Jackson: All right. Now she, in the memo, asks for "briefing notes on Dr Donahue's actual position."
Ms Colley: Mm-hmm.
Ms Jackson: What did you think she meant by that?
Ms Colley: Whether he was actually going to close his office or not and whether there was anything the Ministry of Health could do to basically prevent the closure of dermatology services in Sudbury.
1050
Ms Jackson: To know whether or not Dr Donahue was actually going to close his office, you would have to know, I take it, something about the financial structure of his office to understand whether the threshold posed a financial threat to him or not. Is that fair?
Ms Colley: Sorry, what did you say?
Ms Jackson: To know whether Dr Donahue was actually going to close his office, would you not need to know something about the financial structure of his office to know if he was truly threatened by the threshold or not?
Ms Colley: I think so. One of the things we had been encouraging was for ministry staff to do a more hands-on kind of investigation of these kinds of situations. I think that is how we understood the direction coming out of the meeting of November 4: to seek creative solutions, to actually sort of look at what really is going on here. Is this a problem or is it not? Is it something we can redress? There had been other instances where there has been some sort of exploration of a problem and solutions had been found through a grant structure and so on.
Ms Jackson: If you knew Dr Donahue's actual financial position, you might be able to make an assessment of whether he was likely to close or not, and I think you are saying that if he was, you would be in a position to see if there were solutions to that problem. Is that right?
Ms Colley: Yes. I think it is looking at his practice, what it involved, whether it involved epilation, whether his practice was subject to the threshold or not, whether he was in the underserviced area program. All those questions would have been involved, I think, in figuring out what the actual position here was.
Ms Jackson: So you would need to know what kinds of services he performed?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: What kind of moneys he was taking in for those services? Yes?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Then you could figure out whether that was a threshold problem or not, and if it was, if it was all epilation, you might conclude you did not care.
Ms Colley: Yes. What we were concerned about, which is probably different from what Mr Laughren was concerned about, was whether or not our policies here were working; you know, whether or not there was some policy glitch that meant we should be looking at changes to policy.
Ms Jackson: We have talked about this question of actual position. She wants a political response from the Ministry of Health. What did you think she meant?
Ms Colley: I think the political response here was really a political response to say, should exemptions be applied to Sudbury as in the north or not? I assumed that is what she was talking about.
Ms Jackson: In particular, whether there should be an exemption of Dr Donahue?
Ms Colley: Yes. I think that was implied.
Ms Jackson: I beg your pardon?
Ms Colley: I think that was what was implied.
Ms Jackson: So that would go back to the question of what his actual position was, as we have just been discussing that.
Ms Colley: Mm-hmm.
Ms Jackson: So you want the information that would enable you to answer those questions. Is that right?
Ms Colley: I am looking for the information that basically says, do we have a policy problem here? Is Mr Laughren right in his assertion that perhaps this is not a cost-effective way of delivering services in the north; that by creating the closure of a doctor's office and forcing people to use northern health travel grants, is this the way we should be doing things? That is the piece I am really looking at.
Ms Jackson: I understand from your evidence, Ms Colley, that to answer those questions, and you do want to answer -- your objective now is to answer those questions?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: I understand from your evidence that to answer those questions, you concluded you would need to know what kinds of services Dr Donahue was doing and what his revenue from those services was -- is that correct? -- among other things.
Ms Colley: Yes. That might help, yes. We might need to know that. I mean, I do not know whether I was aware that we actually needed to know the specifics of that to know the answer to the political questions. Right?
Ms Jackson: I think you have told us that it would seem to be significant to answering those questions, for the reasons we have just been through.
Ms Colley: Yes. I think what I am trying to do here is to figure out what in my mind I thought I needed to know at the time, compared to what I realize I needed to know now. Do not forget that I did not understand all of what was going on at that point, and what I was concerned about was the fact that services were being threatened.
Ms Jackson: I understand. It is moving quickly.
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: You are saying you may not have stopped to think about it in quite the detail I have put you through right now. Is that right?
Ms Colley: Right, yes.
Ms Jackson: But if you had, what you have told us is what you would have thought.
Ms Colley: Yes. I do not know whether I would have needed to have known all the particulars about his billings. I think I might have needed to know particulars about how much he did of a certain thing, which I suppose implies financial information.
Ms Jackson: Financial information and practice mix information.
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Okay. Can you turn to the memorandum that has been marked as exhibit 29 in these proceedings, which appears to be your first step in responding to this urgent EA-to-EA request.
Ms Colley: Mm-hmm.
Ms Jackson: Is that in fact a memorandum that you sent?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Was that in fact the thing that you did in response to the memo we have just been looking at?
Ms Colley: Yes, and in fact it is pretty much cribbed from the memo that comes from Betty.
Ms Jackson: So when you use the words "actual position" and "requiring a political response," you are picking up exactly what you have been asked.
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Then you say you want this to fit "within one of the `creative' scenarios that the minister asked for suggestions on." That would be a reference, I take it, to the creative alternatives or creative scenarios that you described earlier in your evidence.
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: At the time you sent this memo, you knew that Larry Corea was already working on this issue. Is that right?
Ms Colley: Right.
Ms Jackson: What happened is that because of your urgent request from Ms Notar, the issue has acquired more prominence. Is that right?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: This is an effort by you to get a more urgent answer. Is that right?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: I take it if the point of answering the question is to have Mr Laughren in possession of the information when he goes to his riding on the 15th, you want the information by the 14th at the latest.
Ms Colley: Hopefully, yes.
Ms Jackson: Or the 13th, if you can get it.
Ms Colley: Right.
Ms Jackson: Not any later. Is that right?
Ms Colley: As soon as possible, yes.
Ms Jackson: Do you know if a copy of this memo would have been sent by you to Ms Notar?
Ms Colley: It would not be, no.
Ms Jackson: Were you aware of similar information requests coming in about this time from the other members in the area, namely, Ms Martel's and Ms Murdock's offices?
Ms Colley: Yes. Larry had mentioned that their offices were also concerned about the issue, and not just about the dermatologist but also about the problem for doctors in Sudbury who were facing a possible threshold situation.
Ms Jackson: So the information you collect for Mr Laughren, is it fair, would be information that you would intend to be passed on to them as well?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: As far as you know, they all have the same concern on this issue at this time?
Ms Colley: Right.
Ms Jackson: Did you in fact receive any response to this memorandum on the 13th?
Ms Colley: Not a word.
Ms Jackson: We move to the 14th. Is it fair that, because of the timing, you would be getting a little more anxious to get an answer to this memorandum?
Ms Colley: I cannot say that this was actually at the top of my mind, even at this point. It is not something that is occupying all my waking hours.
Ms Jackson: Clearly not.
1100
Ms Colley: It was just one of those things that seemed to be getting a little more urgent and that I basically pursued. I think basically what happens here is that if our policy assistants cannot retrieve the kind of information that they need in the time lines, then -- I have a regular working relationship with the deputy minister, Mr Michael Decter. I will go to him and say, "Michael, could we get some action on this one, please?" and that triggers another kind of response. That is what I had intended by the memo the day before. But, in fact, the issues that were occupying us at that point were much more important, in my view. We were going through estimates and --
Ms Jackson: I do not mean to suggest it was the most important thing in your mind that day.
Ms Colley: Right.
Ms Jackson: I think you are saying that is not so.
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: But my simple point was, if it was urgent on the 13th and it is still hanging around unanswered on the 14th, it is a little more urgent then.
Ms Colley: Yes, of course.
Ms Jackson: All right. Taking yourself as best you can through your recollection of November 14, do you recall during the day receiving any further information in answer to this request?
Ms Colley: No.
Ms Jackson: Do you recall hearing from Mr Corea whether he had received any information?
Ms Colley: No. I talked to him in the evening on the telephone.
Ms Jackson: In the course of that conversation, do you recall hearing from him whether he had received any documents in relation to this matter during that day?
Ms Colley: No. Actually, the reason we talked about this issue was -- I mean, he was actually driving this, not me, and he reminded me that he still had not had a response from the ministry staff in order for him to prepare a response to Mr Laughren's office. At that point, he was asking me to step on it.
Ms Jackson: At this point, when we talk about a ministry response, the response you are looking for on the 13th is essentially the same response that he was looking for on the 12th. Is that right?
Ms Colley: Yes, that is right.
Ms Jackson: He is now driving this, you say, and he is getting more concerned because he has not got an answer.
Ms Colley: Right.
Ms Jackson: Do you recall whether you were talking to him because he phoned you about it, or did you phone him? How did you come to be talking?
Ms Colley: I do not remember whether I phoned him or he phoned me. As I say, I tend to try to touch base with everybody throughout the day, and sometimes it is by phone, sometimes it is during the day, sometimes it is in the evening. All I remember was talking to him about this and a couple of other things.
Ms Jackson: In any event, you discerned at least that you had been successful in communicating to him the sense of urgency that this is a request that must be answered. Is that right?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And he was now pressing for an answer?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: What, if anything, did you decide to do as a result of this conversation to get an answer?
Ms Colley: Right. I usually have meetings with Mr Michael Decter, the deputy minister, every day, or every other day if we cannot make it every day. Usually they are early in the morning, and I said I would raise it with Mr Decter the next morning.
Ms Jackson: You said that to Mr Corea, did you?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: So the matter was left that you would attempt to get an answer from Mr Decter in the morning.
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: All right. Let's move to the morning of the 15th. Did you indeed meet with Mr Decter?
Ms Colley: Yes, I met with him briefly as usual. Meetings with the deputy minister are also a bit on the fly and so on, so they tend to have that character about them as well.
Ms Jackson: This is a meeting just between the two of you, is it?
Ms Colley: It varies. Sometimes it is with Tiina Jarvalt, who is the deputy minister's executive assistant, as well. I do not recall whether she was at this particular meeting.
Ms Jackson: All right. Is there anyone else who might have been there or whom you recall being there?
Ms Colley: No.
Ms Jackson: Now can I ask you to turn up exhibit 50? That is an edited copy of an e-mail that it appears you sent that morning. Did you in fact send this e-mail, although not with the blanks that appear in exhibit 50?
Ms Colley: Yes, I remember dashing this e-mail off to Larry following my meeting with Mr Decter -- I think it was two minutes to 9, two minutes before I was due at another meeting -- and just basically hitting the highlights of my discussion with Mr Decter and indicating that basically what had happened here was that Mr Decter had -- Mr Decter is very good at being able to sort of calm down the obsessions of political staff and get them to see the broader picture. He is very good at that, and I obviously was going in and talking to him about the particulars of the situation in Sudbury and he basically went through what his view of this was.
Maybe we should discuss some of that in camera, but basically the conclusion that he pushed me towards was to understand that if in fact we wanted to really resolve the specifics of this problem, we were going to have to ask the doctors, and in this case Dr Donahue, to open his books and let us look at his billing practice with his consent so that we could come to some kind of -- we could explore further what the problems were and whether they could be resolved. So I came back and dashed off a quick memo to Larry, thinking that we would talk again later in the morning before he prepared a final response to Mr Laughren's office. I just hit highlights very, very quickly, suggesting that he begin to work on a response.
Ms Jackson: All right. Now the information in paragraph 1, including the dollar figure that has been blanked out, is that information that you obtained from Mr Decter?
Ms Colley: Yes. This is not a very well structured memo. It was really literally what is on the top of my head. These are sort of the highlights here, and that figure that came out of the meeting with Mr Decter. Mr Decter had sort of explored with me a scenario, maybe a hypothetical scenario, and he had used this figure. Whether it was an accurate figure or whether it was one that was of a certain figure or not, I actually do not know.
Ms Jackson: But you had no reason to think he was speculating when he used that number, I take it?
Ms Colley: Only to the extent, as I say -- what he was doing, and I find this a little difficult to talk about because I am not sure --
Ms Jackson: All right, if you cannot answer -- it is clear to everyone that there is information in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 that is not before the public record? If you cannot answer these questions without referring to that, you tell me and we will do this in camera.
Ms Colley: Okay.
Ms Jackson: Would you prefer that we did?
Ms Colley: I think I will try to generally just sort of hit the essence here.
Ms Jackson: All right.
Ms Colley: Let me just think a bit carefully about it. As I say, Mr Decter did sort of try to pull me down into thinking about what the bigger picture would be here, and the bigger picture really related to the fact that there could be -- I had said there are two problems here. One is the issue of the cessation of dermatological services in Sudbury and that concern, and the second is the criticism that the doctor is making of the government's policy on thresholds. That was the general discussion we had.
He explained -- I think it was somewhat hypothetical -- what the character of Dr Donahue's practice was and why therefore we did not need to be worried. We had a discussion about epilation as well and the fact that it was no longer a service that we were insuring under OHIP and therefore not a service that would not be provided any longer; it would just be a service that would not be insured any longer. That was the real thrust of what was happening.
Ms Jackson: You say in the first paragraph, in respect of epilation, "this is no longer an issue as we have delisted epilation." Do you mean it is no longer an issue in the sense that we now consider that it is not a medically important service? Is that what you mean by that, or is it something else?
Ms Colley: Yes. I have already said I do not think this is a well-structured memo.
Ms Jackson: I understand. That is why I want to give you an opportunity to explain where it is a little unclear. I think it is important for the committee to understand what you meant.
Ms Colley: Yes.
1110
Ms Jackson: All right. Now, you say in respect of the number, "I'm not sure figure can be transmitted to Floyd -- check this." Did you understand the figure could be transmitted to his office, as opposed to him personally?
Ms Colley: I think what I am referring to here is that I am aware of the fact that there are figures being thrown around about Dr Donahue's practice and that he has been on the radio and what I want to make sure is that Larry is very clear that this is not a figure that can be transmitted.
Ms Jackson: Because it might be inaccurate?
Ms Colley: Well, both because it may be inaccurate and also not appropriate unless the doctor has himself given consent for those figures to be publicly used.
Ms Jackson: All right. So for that reason, it cannot go to Floyd and for that reason it can or cannot go to his office? Did you consider whether it could go to his office as opposed to the minister himself?
Ms Colley: In general, no personal information can go to anybody's office outside of the Ministry of Health. So the only reason why I have got this in is because I was aware of the fact that there was a discussion on the radio where figures had been used.
Ms Jackson: You refer to Mr Laughren here as Floyd. Do you know him?
Ms Colley: Yes, I have met him.
Ms Jackson: Do you know him reasonably well?
Ms Colley: Not particularly well, no.
Ms Jackson: If you were meeting him face to face, would you -- are you on a first-name basis with him?
Ms Colley: I think we are all on first -- it is a first-name milieu.
Ms Jackson: Okay.
Mr Christopherson: It's just the kind of folks we are.
Mr Elston: Plus you don't want identify yourselves by surnames.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order.
Ms Jackson: Let me just carry on, Ms Colley. You refer -- and if you cannot answer this question without looking at the specific paragraph, you tell me, but I think you may have a recollection of the specific paragraph. Are you able to tell the committee if what was contained in paragraph 2 came from Mr Decter?
Ms Colley: As I explained, all of my thoughts in this memo came from the discussion that I had with Mr Decter.
Ms Jackson: All right. You say in the memorandum, "This is the suggested roll out to be developed for a briefing with Floyd." What do you mean by "suggested roll out"?
Ms Colley: God knows. I mean, I do not know. It is jargon. Really, I am talking about we have to do a response to Floyd, and I do not know why we used the words "roll out."
Ms Jackson: Am I right to understand you are saying, "This is the suggested information to be developed in a briefing for Floyd?"
Ms Colley: What I think I am saying is that, "Here are some thoughts coming out of my meeting and let's talk about it again later in the morning before we actually put together the response."
Ms Jackson: And you talk about talking later in the morning at the end of the memo, but looking at the beginning of the memo, I am understanding you to say, "Here's some information we can use in the briefing." Is that fair?
Ms Colley: No, I think the major issue I was trying to actually focus on, even though I do not think the memo is all that -- it does not really clearly state that -- is that what we really should be suggesting here is that Floyd should talk to Dr Donahue about the fact that if in fact we are going to be able to really resolve his problems and understand them and help him, then we have to actually have his permission to open his books and look at the billing practice, and that was the essence of paragraph 4, which I think is really -- that is really the roll out part. Everything else is background.
Ms Jackson: What do you mean by saying that is really the roll out part?
Ms Colley: Well, that is sort of the action response, right? That is the action that we can suggest to Floyd that he take.
Ms Jackson: Okay. Now, you are giving this to Mr Corea because he is really carrying the ball on this. Is that right?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And you are giving it to Mr Corea because you expect that he will respond to this inquiry. Is that right?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And you did talk to him later in the day, as I understand it?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And when you talked to him later in the day, you learned that he had spoken to Ms Doherty?
Ms Colley: No, I spoke to him in the day I think before he had spoken to anyone else. I mean, I remember coming right out of that meeting and going and talking to him again about preparing the response to Mr Laughren's office.
Ms Jackson: When I spoke to you a couple of nights ago, we talked about this memorandum and I asked you if when you next spoke to Mr Corea he had spoken to Ms Doherty. You did indicate then that he had. Have you now had a further recollection? Do you remember saying that to me?
Ms Colley: No. I was very tired. I definitely do remember him -- I do remember coming out of a meeting --
Ms Jackson: In the morning?
Ms Colley: -- and going and connecting again with Larry in the morning about the response to Mr Laughren's office, and then I know he prepared a memo, which I saw subsequently saw before it went out.
Ms Jackson: And when you spoke to him after you came out of your meeting, what is your best recollection of that conversation?
Ms Colley: It was a review of the discussion about dealing with the two issues, epilation and the threshold problem, and how to communicate those problems and the way we were looking at it to Mr Laughren's office and to identify the fact that if we were going to be able to specifically deal with the situation of Dr Donahue, Mr Laughren would have to ask Dr Donahue for his consent to open his books and office and do what was called a practice billing review with ministry officials.
Ms Jackson: And when you had that conversation with him, did you ask him if he had already spoken to Ms Doherty that day?
Ms Colley: I do not remember.
Ms Jackson: Do you recall asking him if he had spoken to Mr Sword?
Ms Colley: I do not think he could have done, because it was still reasonably early and I know he was still anxious to develop some information. I mean, we had basically decided that we would have to talk before he did that. He may have had a call from them where he would have said, "I'll get back to you," but I would be surprised if he had actually talked to them before we had this discussion and developed the final form of the response.
Ms Jackson: And what happened after that conversation in terms of getting back to Mr Laughren's office?
Ms Colley: Larry prepared a memo that went out to his office, to the various offices actually.
Ms Jackson: Did Mr Corea not also tell you that he had spoken to Ms Doherty about these issues, in addition to sending a memorandum?
Ms Colley: I do not remember. I would think he would have done, though.
Ms Jackson: Did Mr Corea indicate to you that he passed on the information in exhibit 50?
Ms Colley: The information in exhibit 50. No, he did not.
Ms Jackson: Did he tell you that he had not?
Ms Colley: Well, he told -- I mean, it was not kind of like that. I had had this meeting. He was actually off at a staff meeting himself at this point in time, and meeting with and presumably beginning to think about how to do this memo, and then I talked to him again and then he prepared his memo. I do not think the issue of whether or not he had spoken to any of those offices --
Ms Jackson: Came up?
Ms Colley: Arose. Yeah.
1120
Ms Jackson: So you do not know whether he did or he did not speak to them?
Ms Colley: I do not know whether he did or did not speak to them, but he did not mention that he had spoken to them.
Ms Jackson: I am sorry to be -- I just want to be clear on your evidence on this. You have no recollection, then, of being told by Mr Corea that he spoke to Ms Doherty on this day?
Ms Colley: Not really. I assumed he would do, because given the level of pressure around this issue and the fact that everybody was waiting for this information, it would have been very likely that he would have sent the fax and discussed the fax with them.
Ms Jackson: Is it also very likely that given the urgency of this matter, when he received exhibit 50 from you, he would have passed on the information in it in that conversation?
Ms Colley: Well, I do not think he would have passed on all of this information, because a lot of it was personal information, and I do not think he would have done that. I am not sure he would have been certain enough of what I was trying to actually get at to be able to do that in a very clear way.
Ms Jackson: In any event, you do not know?
Ms Colley: That is right.
Ms Jackson: Since Mr Sword was now, as you knew, requesting information as well, would you make the same assumption that he had spoken to Mr Sword?
Ms Colley: I knew that he was mainly communicating with Mr Laughren's office as a time saver.
Ms Jackson: I am sorry? I did not hear what you said.
Ms Colley: I knew that he was mainly communicating with Mr Laughren's office as a time saver.
Ms Jackson: All right. First of all, let me ask you specifically, do you recall whether he told you if he had or had not spoken to David Sword this day about this Dr Donahue issue?
Ms Colley: I do not recall, no.
Ms Jackson: You had earlier said that it would make sense that the information, or you would expect that the information prepared for Mr Laughren would be sent on to Ms Martel and Ms Murdock's office as well.
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: So whatever he passed on to Ms Doherty, would you have expected he would pass on to Mr Sword as well?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And to Ms Murdock's office?
Ms Colley: Probably.
Ms Jackson: Do you know if any of those people were sent a copy of your e-mail?
Ms Colley: Which e-mail?
Ms Jackson: Exhibit 50.
Ms Colley: I am sorry.
Ms Jackson: If any of this --
Ms Colley: Oh, no. I mean, that was just an e-mail between myself and Larry only.
Ms Jackson: Do you know if it was or was not?
Ms Colley: I am sure it was not.
Ms Jackson: Did you discuss the contents of this e-mail with Ms Notar, whose original request had prompted your action?
Ms Colley: The contents of what?
Ms Jackson: The contents of exhibit 50. Take a minute and look at it. I think you are -- I am sorry. I do not want to confuse you.
Ms Colley: No, I just think this particular e-mail was not so prominent as you seem to be suggesting. It was a very fast memo from me to Larry only, early in the morning, just to really relieve his anxiety about the fact that this situation was not being addressed and that I had had a meeting with Michael, that clearly we had to work out later in the day what needed to be in any kind of communication with Mr Laughren's office and that I would get back to him three quarters of an hour later, at 9:45, to discuss it, which I did. In between time, I did not discuss it with Betty Notar, and had no reason to do so.
What we did develop was that memo that did go out to the various offices, and what follow-up was done with regard to -- specifically on the phone. I am not sure of the specifics, but I would think that there would have been. Basically, that material that went out to the various offices is the material that got communicated, as far as I am aware, to the other offices.
Ms Jackson: Do you recall specifically whether you had a conversation or not with Ms Notar on this day?
Ms Colley: I think I talked to Ms Notar at what we call the EA meeting to the P and P ministers in the afternoon.
Ms Jackson: The EA meeting; I did not hear what you said.
Ms Colley: Yes, it is called the EA P and P meeting. The executive assistants to the ministers who are on the policy and priorities board of cabinet meet on Friday afternoons, and I may have seen her there and I may have mentioned this to her at this point, yes, but I do not really remember whether I did or not.
Ms Jackson: So the EA P and P meeting would be on the afternoon of the 15th.
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And ordinarily you would expect that you would both be at it.
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: But you do not know if you were or you were not?
Ms Colley: I do not remember. I was there. I do not remember whether she was there.
Ms Jackson: If she was there, is it possible that you discussed with her some of the thoughts you had as a result of the information you record in exhibit 50?
Ms Colley: Yes. I mean, what I recollect is that at some point I did touch base with Betty Notar because she had sent me this e-mail, or this memo. I did sort of affirm to her that our office was dealing with it and I hoped that now she had got all the information she needed. It was that level of connection, not a big discussion about the issue per se. Probably like me, she herself was not up to speed on that issue.
Ms Jackson: Did you have any conversation, do you know, that day with anyone from Mr Laughren's office?
Ms Colley: Did I?
Ms Jackson: Yes.
Ms Colley: I do not remember having any discussion with anyone from Mr Laughren's office other than --
Ms Jackson: I am sorry, other than Betty Notar.
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Did you have any conversation with anyone else, with anyone from Ms Martel's office that you can recall?
Ms Colley: No.
Ms Jackson: Did you have any conversation you can recall with anyone from Ms Murdock's office?
Ms Colley: No.
Ms Jackson: You were aware, I think, that on the previous day there had been a letter come in -- a telephone call come in from the regional chairman of Sudbury in respect to the growing concern about the medical situation in Sudbury.
Ms Colley: Sorry?
Ms Jackson: I am sorry. The day before, on the 14th.
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Mr Corea has told us that there was a call that came in from Tom Davies, the regional chairman of Sudbury, and that that call was one that came in to Dr LeBlanc and that he was asked to join in that call I think by you. Do you recollect that?
Ms Colley: Vaguely, yes, but very -- I have a small memory of somebody telling me that this call was going on and "Would somebody like to go down and be part of that?" I do not remember whether I got the call directly or whether my assistant, Wendy Waterhouse, told me.
Ms Jackson: But is it fair that by the 14th and 15th of November you knew that not only did you have local ministers, Mr Laughren and Ms Martel, a local member, Ms Murdock, and the regional chairman of Sudbury all concerned about doctors in Sudbury and in particular about Dr Donahue's situation? Is that fair?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Is it fair to say the political heat was being turned up on this issue?
Ms Colley: I think so, but the political heat is being turned up all the time in the ministry world. I would not have ranked it particularly higher than the Toronto hospital workers that were demonstrating outside the nursing home owners about not having enough money, the audiologists in Sudbury also being upset and so on. I mean, there are always a lot of concerns about service delivery in the province.
Ms Jackson: Did you talk to your minister, Ms Lankin, about the issue and what you were learning about it on the 14th and 15th and in that period?
Ms Colley: I have a memory that in this period, and I am not sure when, some time between November 4 when the decision about exemptions to the threshold or no exemptions to the threshold was made, between then and the Sudbury meeting, that I had a --
1130
Ms Jackson: Just a second. When you say "the Sudbury meeting," what meeting are you referring to?
Ms Colley: Oh, sorry. I am talking about the large meeting in Sudbury on the 5th of December.
Ms Jackson: Yes. So some time between the 4th of November and the 5th of December?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: What do you recall?
Ms Colley: I recall raising with her that we really did need to review the impact of the no-exemption policy to thresholds on northern health services because of the fact that we were faced with a problem of particularly cardiologists, actually, in Sudbury. But it was a policy issue that I raised, not the specifics of Dr Donahue.
Ms Jackson: Do you recall whether you indicated to her that there were other specialists beyond cardiologists affected by the policy issue?
Ms Colley: I might have said dermatologists, yes. I might even have said Dr Donahue, but I do not remember it being -- I mean, definitely we were not focusing on the specifics of this. I was not focusing on the specifics of this situation.
I probably should add here that one of the onerous tasks of the executive assistant is as much as possible to keep all the burning issues that are constantly on the go away from the minister to the extent possible, which does not mean not to let her know about them; but it means that what we try to do in our office is to understand the issues, to find out whether there is a resolution to the problems so that we can actually go to Ms Lankin and the minister with some solutions to the problems. That is the stage it was at, at that particular time.
Ms Jackson: So I understand you are not talking to her about this issue in Sudbury all the time. But at some point you believe you did raise the question of the impact of the exemption policy on doctors in the north?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And particularly as it related to doctors in Sudbury?
Ms Colley: I do not remember particularly relating it to Sudbury. There were other concerns coming in from other places. There was a general problem of attraction and retention of specialists in the north and there was a general identification of the fact that the threshold would aggravate that situation. That had begun to come to our attention more prominently and I was more concerned about addressing that issue.
Ms Jackson: The policy issue as it affected dermatology had only at this point been raised for you in the context of Dr Donahue, the dermatologist in Sudbury?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And the proper policy response to that, as you have said, would depend on his specific situation?
Ms Colley: Well, I think the proper policy response was actually no exemptions, right? But because of the fact that this would mean closing down the only dermatologist in Sudbury and may mean that people would have to access the northern health travel grants to come to Toronto to get services, it was therefore raised as a specific problem that maybe needed closer investigation.
Ms Jackson: Whether closing down the one dermatologist you knew about was a problem or not in policy terms, though, I think you have said it depends on what it is he is doing. Is that right?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: So is it possible that when you discussed this policy problem with the minister, you talked to her about what it was he was doing?
Ms Colley: No. I do not recall talking to the minister about the specifics of Dr Donahue at all.
Ms Jackson: You do not recall it, but is it possible that you did?
Ms Colley: No. I did not.
Ms Jackson: Could you turn then to exhibit 52? It will be in the second book. I take it from what you have said earlier that you received a copy of this. Did you?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And similarly exhibit 53?
Ms Colley: Right.
Ms Jackson: Did you?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And similarly 54?
Ms Colley: Right.
Ms Jackson: Yes?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Do you recall having any further contact with anyone in relation to Dr Donahue during the week that ended on November 15?
Ms Colley: The week that ended November 15?
Ms Jackson: Yes.
Ms Colley: I do not recall it, but it is possible.
Ms Jackson: All right. Do you recall hearing anything more with respect to Dr Donahue during the following week, the week of November 18? I guess I had better not lose the weekend. Do you recall speaking to anyone with respect to Dr Donahue from the 16th on during the next week?
Ms Colley: I am just trying to remember now. I do not think so. I do remember following up with Larry about what was happening from time to time, but I cannot remember when it was or what week it was in. I remember that the issue did seem to be shifting towards the concern about cardiologists in Sudbury, because as you probably know in Sudbury they have a cardiology unit at the hospital there. It is not a teaching hospital, and they are very proud of it. They were becoming very concerned about the impact of the threshold on cardiologists in Sudbury. I have a memory of that becoming an issue.
Ms Jackson: But you do not have any specific recollection of a conversation concerning Dr Donahue?
Ms Colley: In that whole week?
Ms Jackson: Yes. Possibly you did but you have no recollection. Is that it?
Ms Colley: I would think I probably did, but yes.
Ms Jackson: Is it likely that you would continue to deal with people in your office on the issue and from time to time perhaps with Ms Notar?
Ms Colley: No, I do not remember talking to Ms Notar about it again.
Ms Jackson: Do you remember talking to anybody outside the minister's office about it again during that week?
Ms Colley: No.
Ms Jackson: Could you turn to exhibits 30, 31 and 32? I am just going to ask you to confirm that you got copies of those exhibits.
Mr Cavalluzzo: I am sorry, what were they again, Ms Jackson?
Ms Jackson: Exhibits 30, 31 and 32.
Mr Cavalluzzo: Excuse me, could I get up and get a coffee for a half a minute?
Ms Jackson: Sure.
The Chair: Certainly you can.
Ms Jackson: Did you get those, Ms Colley, 30, 31 and 32?
Ms Colley: Right, yes.
1140
Ms Jackson: Yes, you did? Then could you turn to exhibit 59, which I think will be in the next volume.
Mr Christopherson: Patricia, what number, please?
Ms Jackson: Fifty-nine.
The Chair: Mr Christopherson.
Mr Christopherson: I did not hear the number.
The Chair: Fifty-nine.
Ms Jackson: That is an e-mail from you, Ms Colley?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: You say, in the first sentence, "Could I please get a debriefing on the meeting between Michael" -- that would be Michael Decter --
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: -- "and Shelley Martel."
Ms Colley: Right.
Ms Jackson: When did that meeting take place?
Ms Colley: Actually, I do not know.
Ms Jackson: When did you hear about it?
Ms Colley: It happened some time -- I know that after the weekend of the 15th, when there had been a meeting with doctors in the north and various politicians, I think what happened was that Shelley Martel had to talk to Frances about her concerns, particularly with regard to cardiologists. I do remember being in a meeting with -- we have fairly regular meetings between the minister, the deputy minister and myself, and I do remember that the minister asked Michael Decter, the deputy minister, to meet with Shelley Martel because she had some very specific issues to raise about the underserviced area program and how it related to cardiologists in the north. So I remember that occurring, that a meeting was -- I think I knew that there was a meeting being set up between Mr Decter and Shelley Martel. I do not remember when that was, but I did sort of -- I was interested in knowing what happened as a result of it.
Ms Jackson: All right. Did you get a debriefing on that meeting?
Ms Colley: Yes. Again, it was one of those items that came up briefly in a regular meeting with Mr Decter. He basically told me that he had had a meeting with Ms Martel at which Ms Martel had raised a lot of questions about the underserviced area program and the application of thresholds and her concerns about losing cardiologists in Sudbury.
That was interesting to me because what Mr Decter had indicated -- and I assumed it was as a result of this meeting -- was that maybe it was time to begin to think about looking at special initiatives that we might need to put in place for specialists in underserviced areas with regard to the threshold exemption. That is the first time we had begun to sort of have a look at what policy shifts might be necessary in terms of meeting those service needs.
Ms Jackson: Do you know if Ms Martel was wanting to find out which cardiologists were on the underserviced area program in that meeting?
Ms Colley: I do not know. I do not know, no.
Ms Jackson: We know that a list of those people who are on the underserviced area program was made available publicly on December 5. It has been marked as exhibit 8.
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: It was part of a media package put together for the meeting on December 5. Are you aware of that package?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And are you aware that the list was prepared for that meeting?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And that it was not publicly available before then -- do you know?
Ms Colley: Before the 5th of December?
Ms Jackson: Yes.
Ms Colley: I do not think it was, no.
Ms Jackson: Do you know if there was such a list available within the ministry before December 5?
Ms Colley: No, I was not aware of -- I was aware that people were preparing this kit of information. I had actually assumed that it was going to be ready by -- I knew also that there was a meeting scheduled on the 30th of November for the politicians to meet with ministry staff, because I had been asked to help. I had not been asked, but our office had been asked to help coordinate that. My memory is that actually ministry staff and our office were trying to get the information, the kit, ready for that meeting.
Ms Jackson: Do you know if they did?
Ms Colley: No, I cannot remember. I really cannot.
Ms Jackson: Do you know, in the meeting between Mr Decter and Ms Martel -- do you recall learning if there was any discussion of Dr Donahue's situation?
Ms Colley: In the meeting between --
Ms Jackson: Ms Martel and Mr Decter.
Ms Colley: No, I do not. He did not mention Dr Donahue.
Ms Jackson: Could you look at exhibit 61? That is an edited copy of an e-mail of that date, Ms Colley. The deletion occurs in the last part of the second paragraph. Do you recall receiving a copy of that e-mail in its unedited form on the 29th of November?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Moving ahead, then, on the 30th of November we know that there was this meeting in Sudbury that you have alluded to. Did you receive any detailed report of that?
Ms Colley: The meeting on the 30th --
Ms Jackson: -- of November between Ms Martel, Mr Laughren, Ms Murdock, some ministry officials and some doctors in Sudbury.
Ms Colley: I do not remember hearing a very detailed report of it. What I remember hearing was that the doctors -- in the sense that I say I do not remember hearing a detailed report on it because "detailed report" sort of implies we have a serious briefing where everybody sits around and actually gives a lot of information. I do remember hearing -- and this was probably at a meeting between myself and Mr Decter -- that ministry staff had met with cardiologists in Sudbury and some of the politicians, I believe, on the weekend to discuss cardiology services in Sudbury. I did not pick up much more detail other than that from it.
Ms Jackson: Okay. Then we know there was a meeting in Sudbury on December 5 as well.
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Were you briefed on that?
Ms Colley: Yes. That meeting --
Ms Jackson: I just asked you if you were briefed on it. I am not going to ask you to describe the whole meeting.
Ms Colley: Yes. We have not got time.
Ms Jackson: If you think that you need to, you maybe should, but I do not think you will need to in terms of the question I want to ask you.
Ms Colley: Okay.
Ms Jackson: Do you recall any mention -- in what you learned of that meeting, was there any mention at all of Dr Donahue?
Ms Colley: Okay, the Sudbury meeting. I do not recall any discussion about Dr Donahue, no.
Ms Jackson: All right. And I guess I have asked you -- can you recall any other specific discussion up to the date of December 9 concerning Dr Donahue with Ms Notar?
Ms Colley: No.
Ms Jackson: Ms Doherty?
Ms Colley: No.
Ms Jackson: Anyone in Mr Laughren's office?
Ms Colley: No.
Ms Jackson: Ms Martel?
Ms Colley: No.
Ms Jackson: Mr Sword?
Ms Colley: No.
Ms Jackson: Anyone in Ms Martel's office?
Ms Colley: No.
Ms Jackson: Ms Murdock?
Ms Colley: No.
Ms Jackson: Anyone in her office?
Ms Colley: No.
Ms Jackson: All right. When did you first learn of the incident involving Ms Martel in Thunder Bay -- that is one of the reasons this committee now exists -- on December 5? When did you first learn of that incident?
Ms Colley: On the morning of the 9th of December.
Ms Jackson: How did you learn of it?
Ms Colley: I received a call from the Premier's office advising me that Ms Martel had been at a reception on the previous Thursday evening and had made statements in public concerning having seen a doctor's file.
Ms Jackson: Concerning -- I am sorry?
Ms Colley: Having seen a doctor's file -- Dr Donahue and having seen his file; claiming she had seen his file.
1150
Ms Jackson: Sorry, you are going to have to speak a little bit more loudly. I at least am having trouble hearing you.
You heard that she had been at a reception on December 5 and had made statements in public concerning what?
Ms Colley: I do not remember the precise words; that is why I am hesitating here. But I was informed that Ms Martel had been at a reception and had claimed to have seen a doctor's file.
Ms Jackson: Did you hear what doctor's file she claimed to have seen?
Ms Colley: I think I heard it was Dr Donahue, yes.
Ms Jackson: You recall receiving this call December 9 in the morning, at approximately what time?
Ms Colley: I think it was about 11:30; between 11:30 and 12.
Ms Jackson: From whom?
Ms Colley: Melody Morrison.
Ms Jackson: What is her position?
Ms Colley: She is the assistant to the principal secretary.
Ms Jackson: What else did she tell you?
Ms Colley: She told me that Ms Martel had apologized to the people who were engaged in that discussion.
Ms Jackson: Did she tell you anything else?
Ms Colley: I cannot remember. I am sure she did say more than just that, but nothing rings a bell.
Ms Jackson: Was there any statement by her or discussion between you as to what would be done in the House that day about that incident?
Ms Colley: Well, it was not clear that it would be raised in the House that day. I think the Premier's office was just advising me to let Frances know that there was a possibility it would be raised, and that therefore it did have implications about, you know, doctors' files.
Ms Jackson: Was there any discussion about what Ms Martel would say if the issue was raised in the House?
Ms Colley: Not that I remember, no.
Ms Jackson: Was there any discussion about what Ms Lankin should say if the issue was raised in the House?
Ms Colley: No.
Ms Jackson: Was there any discussion about whether Ms Martel's remarks were in fact based on having seen any confidential information?
Ms Colley: Sorry, can you say that again?
Ms Jackson: Was there any discussion about whether in fact Ms Martel's remarks at the party had in fact been based on her seeing any confidential information?
Ms Colley: No. Well, I mean, I was told that Ms Martel had lied and had made it up so that -- really, the issue of confidential information was not there, even though we would have to ensure that it had not happened. Certainly what I was being told was that this was an invention of Shelley Martel's.
Ms Jackson: Now, you have said it was an invention; she had lied; she had made it up. Is that your best recollection of the language that was actually used?
Ms Colley: I do not remember the actual language.
Ms Jackson: It is certainly what you took away.
Ms Colley: "Invention" was definitely my word.
Ms Jackson: I am sorry?
Ms Colley: "Invention" was definitely my word.
Ms Jackson: The other words might have been used or not.
Ms Colley: Possibly.
Ms Jackson: In any event, that is what you took from the conversation?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And you had been called. What did you understand was the reason the call came to you? Sorry, bad question; another bad question. Did you understand why you were being called on this issue?
Ms Colley: Because, um -- yes.
Ms Jackson: Why?
Ms Colley: Because I am in regular touch with the minister and I was being asked to communicate this information to the minister.
Ms Jackson: Now, on the 9th of December in the House, Ms Lankin was in fact asked about this incident; you recall that. She in fact was asked specifically about whether there had been any leaks of confidential information within the ministry; you recall that.
Ms Colley: Right.
Ms Jackson: She said "I certainly have not," in answer to whether there was any leak, "and after questioning officials in my ministry, there has been no revealing of any confidential files. The materials that have been made available are some general materials about thresholds and the effect of thresholds in the underserviced area."
She goes on to say: "I have very specifically asked and received assurances from my deputy minister, who has heard directly from the director of OHIP, that no confidential information with respect to doctors' files and their billings and their incomes has been shared with anyone outside the OHIP department which has proper access to that information. I have not seen it, the Minister of Northern Development has not seen it and no other MPP has seen it."
Ms Colley, were you a party to whatever inquiries led up to the making of that statement?
Ms Colley: In fact, when the call came in from the Premier's office, Ms Lankin and I were in a meeting with Mr Michael Decter, and so I came back and explained to them what had happened. It was at that point that the minister asked the deputy minister to ensure that -- to provide her with guarantees that no confidential information had left the ministry.
Ms Jackson: And what did he do or say?
Ms Colley: He said he would. I assume that he telephoned Dr MacMillan, the head of OHIP, and followed up that way.
Ms Jackson: Do you know if he did?
Ms Colley: No.
Ms Jackson: Were you part of any other process of inquiry that led to the making of this statement in the House?
Ms Colley: No.
Ms Jackson: I am advised that it is perhaps time to break for lunch. That is certainly fine with me.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Jackson. Thank you very much, Ms Colley. I would remind members that we will resume at 2 pm, at which time Dr Kosar will be before the committee. We expect that Dr Kosar will take approximately an hour to two hours, and then we will be resuming the questioning with Ms Colley. We stand adjourned until 2 pm.
The committee recessed at 1158.
AFTERNOON SITTING
The committee resumed at 1409.
STEPHEN KOSAR
The Chair: We will call the afternoon session of the standing committee of the Legislative Assembly to order. We have Dr Stephen Kosar before the committee. Good afternoon, Dr Kosar.
I would like to acknowledge the information that I have received that it would be permissible to convene this committee hearing without any Conservative members at this point in time, just so that the committee could commence. I just put that for the benefit of the members of the committee, for their knowledge.
Dr Kosar, it has been the practice of this committee that before anyone is asked any questions an oath be administered. At that point in time, I would invite the clerk to administer the oath.
Stephen Kosar, sworn.
The Chair: Mr Kosar, in the event -- this is a warning which has been given to all witnesses who have appeared before the committee -- you are asked a question which you cannot properly answer without divulging confidential information, could you please advise the committee of this? If there is not a way to disclose that information without divulging the confidential information, then that matter may be addressed by this committee in an in camera proceeding. I give this warning to you as I now invite counsel Jackson to commence with questioning.
Ms Jackson: Good afternoon, Dr Kosar.
Dr Kosar: Good afternoon.
Ms Jackson: You, sir, I understand are currently an ophthalmologist practising in Sudbury, Ontario.
Dr Kosar: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Dr Kosar, you have indicated to me that you obtained your medical degree from the University of Toronto in 1981.
Dr Kosar: Yes.
Ms Jackson: That you interned at the Toronto East General Hospital.
Dr Kosar: Yes.
Ms Jackson: That you practised as a general practitioner in Bonfield and North Bay, Ontario, from 1982 to 1986.
Dr Kosar: Yes.
Ms Jackson: That you did a residency in ophthalmology at the University of Western Ontario from 1986 to 1989.
Dr Kosar: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And that from 1989 to 1990 you worked on a fellowship in a subspecialty in medical retina at the University Hospital in London, Ontario.
Dr Kosar: That is correct.
Ms Jackson: I understand that in 1990 you received your certification in ophthalmology from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.
Dr Kosar: That is correct.
Ms Jackson: In 1990, Dr Kosar, I understand that you moved to Sudbury and that you did so under the auspices of the -- not that you moved under the auspices, but that you went to Sudbury, in part, on the basis that you had been accepted into the underserviced area program for practice in that area.
Dr Kosar: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And you commenced on that program in 1990, did you, sir?
Dr Kosar: In the summer of 1990, yes.
Ms Jackson: As we said at the outset, you continue to live in Sudbury today.
Dr Kosar: To this date, yes.
Ms Jackson: Dr Kosar, I understand that you are a member of the Sudbury and District Medical Society.
Dr Kosar: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And that on December 2, 1991, as a member of that society, in conjunction with another member, you were here at Queen's Park to make a presentation to the committee on social development.
Dr Kosar: That is correct.
Ms Jackson: With whom were you appearing before the committee on that day?
Dr Kosar: With Dr Jack Hollingsworth from Sudbury.
Ms Jackson: Prior to appearing before the committee, I understand, Dr Kosar, that you met with Shelley Martel.
Dr Kosar: Yes, we did.
Ms Jackson: First of all, had you met Miss Martel before?
Dr Kosar: No, I had not.
Ms Jackson: How did your meeting on that day come about?
Dr Kosar: We had some time prior to our presentation before the standing committee on social development. We had attempted to meet with her earlier that day. Dr Hollingsworth called her office, but we were told that she was too busy to see us. At approximately 2 o'clock in the afternoon, once the House was in session, we went to the press gallery. I sent a message on one of my business cards via a page to Miss Martel to ask her if she could spare a few moments to come and discuss our issues with us. She kindly left the House to come and talk to us in the east lobby.
Ms Jackson: So you and Dr Hollingsworth joined her in the east lobby, did you?
Dr Kosar: Yes.
Ms Jackson: What happened there?
Dr Kosar: We sat down and we started to present our case to her, why we were down here and --
Ms Jackson: Okay, you say you sat down. Can you tell the committee the configuration of the sitting when you sat down?
Dr Kosar: There were two chairs at right angles to each other. Miss Martel was sitting on one of them, near the left-hand end of that chair, and immediately to her left side was Dr Hollingsworth on the other chair, which was at right angle to her chair. I was sitting on Dr Hollingsworth's left-hand side, farther away from Miss Martel.
Ms Jackson: So we have you sitting to the left of Dr Hollingsworth and on Dr Hollingsworth's right, sitting at right angles, is Miss Martel?
Dr Kosar: Correct.
Ms Jackson: All right. You say you wanted to present your case to her. Why was it that you had sought to meet Miss Martel?
Dr Kosar: Well, she was one of our local MPPs from the Sudbury district and we felt that we should perhaps get her support in our cause.
Ms Jackson: What was your cause?
Dr Kosar: To try to get rid of the threshold limits for physicians in northern Ontario.
Ms Jackson: And was that what you talked about with her on that day?
Dr Kosar: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Can you tell the committee what you can recall of the conversation you had with Miss Martel?
Dr Kosar: Yes, most of it was in my notes.
Ms Jackson: You have said you made a note. Can you tell the committee when you made that note?
Dr Kosar: I do not remember the exact date I made these notes. It was some time in December, after the news of Miss Martel's meeting with Mrs Dodds broke in the media. Dr Hollingsworth actually suggested to me that I make some record of our meeting for possible future use.
Ms Jackson: All right. I think you are indicating you would like to refer to those motes as you describe your recollection.
Dr Kosar: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Mr Chairman, Dr Kosar has been good enough to provide me with a copy of those notes and I think it might be a good idea if members had those in front of them while Dr Kosar gives his evidence. Perhaps we could mark those as the next exhibit.
The Chair: Thank you. Copies of those notes are being distributed at this point and they are being marked as exhibit 65.
Ms Jackson: Referring to those notes to the extent that you need to, Dr Kosar, can you tell the committee your best recollection of what took place in your conversation with Miss Martel?
Dr Kosar: We presented our case with regard to our opposition to the Rand formula.
Ms Jackson: What is the Rand formula?
Dr Kosar: That is a law that makes it compulsory for all doctors in Ontario to pay so-called union dues to the Ontario Medical Association.
Ms Jackson: As we understand from Dr Hollingsworth's evidence, indeed that was the subject of the committee meeting that you were here to make a presentation to.
Dr Kosar: Yes. We also mentioned that we represented the Sudbury and District Medical Society, that we were not just here to present our own personal cases, and that we wanted to obtain underserviced area exemptions for all doctors in northern Ontario. We mentioned to her that both of us -- that is, Dr Hollingsworth and myself -- were under the underserviced area program at that time and her reply to us was that she said, "I know." Dr Hollingsworth mentioned that he thought his term under the program ended in December 1991 or January 1992, he was not sure, and she corrected him and said that it was in June or July of this year. I also mentioned that Dr Hollingsworth and myself were not high billers, that we were well below the threshold, and her reply to that was also that she said, "I know."
Another thing that came up in conversation with Miss Martel: She mentioned that there were four GPs in the Sudbury area over the threshold and she said that GPs being over the threshold was "unacceptable." Dr Hollingsworth, in reply, mentioned that these general practitioners were likely very busy and they probably had not only their practices to look after but probably nursing homes or walk-in clinics and the like. We also --
Ms Jackson: Did she say anything in response to that?
Dr Kosar: Not that I can remember. We talked about the fact that many of us in Sudbury and in northern Ontario were very busy because of the high patient-to-doctor ratios and not because of our encouraging frequent patient visits. I told her that I was proud of my work and that I feel I deserve what I earn. I even invited her to spend a day or two with me in my practice to see how hard I work. Dr Hollingsworth also echoed that sentiment.
We also reminded her that she was a representative of the electorate in the Sudbury area and we reminded her of her responsibility to represent her constituents and not just her own party line.
With regard to Dr Donahue's case, she mentioned that his billing practice was also "unacceptable." She also told Dr Hollingsworth that she saw his file, and this has been on the record in front of this committee, although I did not exactly hear that because of the location where I was sitting. I was between Dr Hollingsworth and the coffee machine, and it was quite noisy. It seemed to be a popular spot for people to come and visit.
Ms Jackson: All right. So you say she said that, but I take it you are also saying you did not hear it?
1420
Dr Kosar: No, but after the meeting on our way back home Dr Hollingsworth mentioned to me that she said that she saw his file.
Ms Jackson: But you did not hear it?
Dr Kosar: No.
Ms Jackson: Now everything else you have reported up till now of this conversation, is that something you heard or that Dr Hollingsworth told you?
Dr Kosar: No, no, this is stuff I heard.
Ms Jackson: So this is the first thing that is not something you have any personal knowledge of?
Dr Kosar: No, I cannot say I exactly heard it. It was a little muffled.
Ms Jackson: Okay. Well, as I understand it, you did not hear any reference to a file. Is that right? I understood you to say that Dr Hollingsworth told you on the plane --
Dr Kosar: Yes. No, I did not hear the reference to the file at that time.
Ms Jackson: All right. But everything else that you have told us, you yourself heard.
Dr Kosar: Absolutely, yes.
Ms Jackson: All right. What else do you recall hearing yourself?
Dr Kosar: Those were the major points that I recall from that discussion. The meeting with her was very non-confrontational. She was kind enough to come and talk to us. It was not an argumentative type of meeting. We presented our point and she gave us the time of day, at least, to listen to our concerns. We were kind of puzzled on the way back home, you know, how she would know some of this information on us; that is, our time frame of involvement with the underserviced area program and also the fact that she was aware that we were not over the income threshold. But the full significance of these facts really did not hit us till after we were made aware of her meeting with Mrs Dodds in Thunder Bay.
Ms Jackson: All right. Now with respect to her apparent knowledge of some of your own circumstances, did you know at the time whether or not information as to when you went on and off the underserviced area program was public information or private information?
Dr Kosar: I was aware that it was information within the underserviced area program. I was not aware that it was information that was readily available to the public.
Ms Jackson: All right. Did she indicate to you how she came to know when you went on and would have gone off the underserviced area program?
Dr Kosar: No, she did not indicate that to us and also we did not ask her because, like I say, we did not know the significance of this until afterwards.
Ms Jackson: And you said she indicated she knew you were well below the threshold. Did she indicate how she knew?
Dr Kosar: This is where she, from what Dr Hollingsworth told me, indicated she saw his file, although I did not hear her tell me --
Ms Jackson: You did not hear that. And the committee has heard from Dr Hollingsworth, so it would probably be best to just stick to what you can specifically recall that you heard. And in that vein, did she say anything that indicated to you how she knew that you were well below the threshold?
Dr Kosar: No. The only thing she said was, "I know," in response.
Ms Jackson: And did she say anything else that indicated a knowledge of your particular circumstances or that of Dr Hollingsworth?
Dr Kosar: Well, not really. She seemed to be aware that we were -- Dr Hollingsworth mentioned, "good guys." I do not remember those exact words, but she seemed to be satisfied that there was no question about our practices, whereas she had some concerns about these GPs and Dr Donahue.
Ms Jackson: And can you recall what it was that she said or did that indicated she had no concern about your practices?
Dr Kosar: It was just the general flow of the conversation, the general feeling I got from her. I do not remember her exact words stating that she was not concerned about our practices.
Ms Jackson: All right. Now, concerning the four general practitioners who were over the threshold, did she indicate how she knew that?
Dr Kosar: No, she did not.
Ms Jackson: And you said, I think, that she said that that was in some way unacceptable?
Dr Kosar: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Is that the word she used?
Dr Kosar: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Did she say why it was unacceptable?
Dr Kosar: I do not recall, no.
Ms Jackson: Was there any indication of who the four general practitioners were?
Dr Kosar: No. She did not mention any names.
Ms Jackson: When she mentioned four general practitioners, were you yourself able to identify whom she was speaking of?
Dr Kosar: Not from what she said, no.
Ms Jackson: All right. You have indicated that she also referred to Dr Donahue's practices?
Dr Kosar: Yes.
Ms Jackson: What is your best recollection of the exact words she used in respect of Dr Donahue?
Dr Kosar: I just remember her stating that it was unacceptable. We were talking in the context of his billing practices, not his quality of medical care; it was in the context of his billing practices. I do not remember her exact words except for the fact that she said it was unacceptable.
Ms Jackson: Now you say it was in the context of his billing practices. Do you recall what it was that made you conclude that it was in the context of his billing practices?
Dr Kosar: Oh, the fact that he was over his $400,000 threshold.
Ms Jackson: Was that said?
Dr Kosar: I cannot remember the exact words of that, but it was the fact that he was over his threshold. That was apparently already in the media, that he was close to his threshold, so we were aware of that ourselves.
Ms Jackson: Do you recall whether or not she specifically used the words "billing practices?"
Dr Kosar: I cannot remember, no.
Ms Jackson: Is it possible that in the context in which she made those remarks she might have been talking about his practices in terms of what he had been doing of late with the media in publicizing his situation?
Dr Kosar: I suppose it is possible, but I did not gather that from the context of our discussion.
Ms Jackson: Can we look at your note for just a minute, exhibit 65? On the second page of your note you say, "Dr H." -- that would be Dr Hollingsworth --
Dr Kosar: That is correct.
Ms Jackson: "and I discussed our surprise and concern that Ms Martel saw his `file,'" -- and you have clarified that you did not hear that, that was Dr Hollingsworth --
Dr Kosar: That is correct.
Ms Jackson: -- "and Dr Donahue's `file.'" Now, you have not said in your evidence that she indicated she had seen Dr Donahue's file. Is that what we are to take from your note?
Dr Kosar: I do not recall her saying she saw his file, although there were a few things that she did mention to Dr Hollingsworth and this was a result of Dr Hollingsworth's discussion with me on our way back home to Sudbury.
Ms Jackson: All right, but you did not hear her refer to having seen Dr Donahue's file?
Dr Kosar: No, I do not remember that.
Ms Jackson: All you can recall of what she said of Dr Donahue is what you have already told the committee?
Dr Kosar: Yes.
Ms Jackson: You and Dr Hollingsworth, as you say, discussed this on the plane coming back?
Dr Kosar: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And I take it discussed it subsequently when he suggested you make notes?
Dr Kosar: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And I understand that he has in fact provided you with a copy of the notes that he made, which we have marked as exhibit 37, which you will be able to see in one of those black binders there. You have seen those before?
Dr Kosar: Yes, I have.
Ms Jackson: You have mentioned already one instance in which his recollection has elements of it that you do not recall. Do you have any explanation for the fact that in some areas your recollection does not include some things that Dr Hollingsworth does include?
Dr Kosar: This was two months ago, for one thing. I know he made his notes before I made mine. The main thing was that I was a little more out of earshot. I tried to pay attention as best as I could, but there was a lot of commotion to my left-hand side near the coffee machine, so there was a lot of traffic going in and out and that added to the general background noise. So there were some things I did not quite hear very well.
Ms Jackson: When you arrived this afternoon, Dr Kosar, you were good enough to give me some correspondence, which I understand you are content be placed before the committee, which is connected to your request through the OMA to the ministry for an exemption from the threshold.
Dr Kosar: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Mr Chairman, I would ask that that correspondence be marked collectively as the next exhibit.
The Chair: Yes.
Ms Jackson: That would be exhibit 66?
The Chair: Yes, this will be marked as exhibit 66. It is being distributed.
1430
Ms Jackson: What we see in this exhibit, Dr Kosar -- and you have, of course, the originals -- is a letter from yourself to Mr Peter Fraser of the OMA asking for assistance in applying for an exemption; a letter from Mr Fraser indicating that he has forwarded your letter to the new deputy minister in Health, and a letter from the Ministry of Health indicating the general announcement made on November 14 that no exemptions are going to be granted, all of which appears to suggest that your letter of July 24 did indeed go to the ministry.
Dr Kosar: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And your letter of July 24 indicates you are an ophthalmologist, that you are on the underserviced area program and, as you say, you foresee that your gross income at some point might exceed the limit, thereby indicating that at the time you wrote this letter it did not.
Dr Kosar: That is correct.
Ms Jackson: Dr Kosar, have you now told the committee your best recollection and most complete recollection of your meeting with Miss Martel?
Dr Kosar: Yes, that is the best I can remember.
Ms Jackson: Have you ever met her again?
Dr Kosar: No, I have not.
Ms Jackson: Have you ever talked to her since?
Dr Kosar: No.
Ms Jackson: Do you have any other indication that anyone had access to confidential information with respect to individual doctors?
Dr Kosar: Only what I have heard in the media and seen on TV.
Ms Jackson: Apart from that, you have no personal knowledge?
Dr Kosar: Nothing additional I can add.
Ms Jackson: Thank you, Dr Kosar. Those are my questions.
Dr Kosar: You are welcome. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Jackson. Thank you, Dr Kosar. We will now commence the rotation of questioning, to commence first with members from the third party, and the time period will be 15 minutes per caucus. Mr Eves.
Mr Eves: I do not have any questions.
The Chair: No questions? Mr Hope.
Mr Hope: Just a couple. Mr Kosar, you are actively involved in the Sudbury and District Medical Society, I understand.
Dr Kosar: Especially since December 2. I have been a member since I have come to Sudbury and I have been more of an active participant since December of last year.
Mr Hope: To your recollection, do you know if the society has met with Mr Laughren at all before this December 2 date?
Dr Kosar: I am not sure. I think they have, but I am not sure.
Mr Hope: And you do not know if the society had met with Miss Martel before that time frame?
Dr Kosar: No, I am not sure.
Mr Hope: I just wanted you to look at your letter, because I was part of the standing committee on social development at the time and I remember this coming up about the underserviced program. In the third paragraph -- well, the second paragraph says, "As you may be aware, a number of important exemptions of the threshold payment program have already been made. This includes the implementation of the underserviced area program;" which means that there was an exemption already made on behalf -- because I know during the standing committee, you were concerned about being under the program, the UAP program, and there was a difference of information. But I read in your letter that you received from the minister, which is one of the "Dear Applicant" letters, that people under the underserviced area program have received exemption from the threshold payment adjustment program.
Dr Kosar: At that time, it was not clear to us whether we in fact were exempt or not, because we were getting conflicting information. Since then it has become clearer, but at that time we were not sure.
Mr Hope: So as you read it now, you know that you are exempted under it?
Dr Kosar: Yes.
Mr Hope: That is all the questions I have.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr Mills.
Mr Mills: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Dr Kosar, on December 11, 1991, there was a report, MCTV, with a Carol Bond, had some sort of an interview, I believe. Are you aware of that interview with the --
Dr Kosar: I was there, yes.
Mr Mills: Okay. Carol Bond said during that interview, "Dr Steve Kosar says Shelley Martel never claimed to have seen his confidential OHIP files." Is that true? Do you agree with that?
Dr Kosar: Well, she did not offer that disclaimer; just the fact, as I mentioned already, that I do not recall her mentioning to me that she saw my own file.
Mr Mills: So you have no personal knowledge that Miss Martel ever saw your confidential file?
Dr Kosar: I said that she did not state that she saw my file. However, in response to some of our concerns I have mentioned already, when we mentioned that we were not over the threshold, she said, "I know." When it came to the discussion of our involvement with the underserviced area program she also said, "I know," and she was aware of how much time we had left on our term of involvement in the program.
Mr Mills: But you still have no personal knowledge, notwithstanding those assumptions, that --
Mr Harnick: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I think that the witness should be directed to take a look at exhibit 65 because I had understood in his evidence that he said quite clearly he did not hear that, it is something that was related to him by Dr Hollingsworth and that he could not hear it because of the noise at the coffee machine.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Harnick.
Mr Harnick: At least I think he should be directed to look at exhibit 65 when he is answering these questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Harnick. Mr Mills, I think the question is in order and certainly if Dr Kosar wishes to refer to exhibit 65 to help him in the response, that is fine, but I am not going to rule out of order a question that you have asked in this matter for clarification.
Mr Mills: So I would just like to say again, you have no personal knowledge that Ms Martel ever saw your confidential OHIP file? It might be an assumption on your part, but you have no personal knowledge.
Dr Kosar: When we said we were not over the threshold, she said, "I know." So somehow she knew, but she did not say how she knew. We did not ask her how she knew. She apparently told Dr Hollingsworth she saw his file, but again I have already stated quite clearly that I could not hear her very well.
Mr Mills: Thanks, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Mills. Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: This whole thing has generated press and media attention. Like I suspect, you people who are involved in these negotiations never really anticipated to see it turn into the big issue that it has been. Back on December 12, 1991, in the Toronto Sun, which is a Toronto daily, Christie Blatchford wrote about you, and I compliment you because you got her to write about you in the most complimentary terms in a way that I never have. She spoke of you as amiable and she spoke of you as without malice, and I am a little bit envious.
Dr Kosar: I have the quotation right here. She said I was "an amiable man, so without malice he is utterly credible." I showed this to my family because they could not believe it.
Mr Owens: Thank you for that last comment.
Mr Kormos: You and around three other people in the history of the Sun have been referred to so kindly by Ms Blatchford.
Dr Kosar: I am going to have it framed.
Mr Kormos: Now, Ms Blatchford in that column has bullets, she has got those little highlights, those little squares to highlight three what she considers -- she does not say this, and far be it from me to put words in Ms Blatchford's mouth. I would never try to do that. But she speaks of the fact that Ms Martel told two doctors, and she is talking about you and Dr Hollingsworth, that she, Ms Martel, knew that you were working under the government's underserviced program. Do you agree with me that it was written about as if that were somehow some sort of indiscretion on Ms Martel's part?
Dr Kosar: I am not sure exactly what context she meant that in. I mentioned to the committee previously that I was not aware it was public information, but subsequent to all of these events I have found that it is public information.
1440
Mr Kormos: So it not only would not surprise you and does not surprise you to know that Ms Martel knew about it; by God, as the MPP for Sudbury she should have know about it, it being public information and she having been called upon to speak out for northern doctors?
Dr Kosar: Yes, except for the fact that I found out I was coming to this meeting in Toronto on December 1, the day before in the evening. It was on very short notice. Our meeting with Ms Martel was unscheduled. I was sort of surprised that she was aware of my personal situation without any forewarning, because I did not even have 24 hours' notice before my meeting with her.
Mr Kormos: You had never met her before?
Dr Kosar: That is correct.
Mr Kormos: And to the best of your knowledge Dr Hollingsworth had never met her before either?
Dr Kosar: Right.
Mr Kormos: But she clearly knew that you were on the UAP program and she had a reasonably good idea -- well, she knew that your contracts under UAP -- those are four-year contacts, are they not?
Dr Kosar: Yes.
Mr Kormos: That they had not expired yet?
Dr Kosar: That is correct.
Mr Kormos: And she knew that you had not reached the threshold?
Dr Kosar: That is what she admitted to.
Mr Kormos: Because under UAP the threshold does not apply, does it?
Dr Kosar: At that time it was not clear.
Mr Kormos: To you?
Dr Kosar: To either of us.
Mr Kormos: You mean to Dr Hollingsworth or you?
Dr Kosar: Both of us.
Mr Kormos: Yes. But Ms Martel seems to have been pretty clear about the fact that people involved in the UAP program, people still actively on it, as you and Dr Hollingsworth were, were subject to the threshold?
Dr Kosar: Yes. But as far as we know we did not have any definite affirmation of that.
Mr Harnick: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Mr Kormos stopped me from asking questions and I think perhaps we are into the same kind of issue here. How does the witness know what Ms Martel knew? He can only tell us about the threshold and his interpretation of it. How can he be asked Ms Martel's interpretation of the threshold and the UAP program? Certainly that was never part of his evidence, through counsel. How Mr Kormos can ask this witness what Ms Martel's knowledge was I think is an improper question. He can tell us what his knowledge was, what his interpretation was, but unless it is established that Ms Martel even spoke to him and told him and made that kind of explanation, how can he tell us what is in Ms Martel's mind? I think the question is clearly improper.
The Chair: Mr Harnick, the way I heard the question posed, Mr Kormos was asking Dr Kosar what Dr Kosar thought of some of the terms within the UAP program. I did not hear a question posed that was asking Dr Kosar as to what was in the mind of Ms Martel at the time.
Mr Harnick: He clearly mentioned -- I do not want to belabour this, Mr Chairman -- in his last question something to the effect of what Ms Martel meant by the threshold and the UAP program. That is my objection.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Harnick. Having heard Mr Harnick's question, although I do not believe your question to be out of order at all I would ask you, Mr Kormos, if there is any way in which you could rephrase that so that it would be clearer potentially for the witness and for members of the committee that you are not asking a question of Dr Kosar as to what Ms Martel might have been thinking at the time.
Mr Kormos: Even I forgot the question by now, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Well, we will move along.
Mr Harnick: I knew you had a short attention span.
The Chair: Order. Just to remind members of the committee that interruptions and interjections are not in order. We should be asking the questions and giving the people and the witnesses who come before the committee the respect, to respond to those questions. I hope that would carry on for the duration not only of this afternoon but of these hearings. Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: Whether or not you and Dr Hollingsworth were confused as to whether or not UAP participants were covered by the threshold, it is clear now that they were not, right?
Dr Kosar: You are saying that they were not covered?
Mr Kormos: The threshold did not apply.
Dr Kosar: At that time it was not quite clear. There was talk of it, but now we know we are exempt. At that time we were not aware of that.
Mr Kormos: You were not, but indeed you were exempt. And you were prevailing on Ms Martel, on behalf of doctors in the Sudbury area, to use whatever influence she had to do something about the threshold as it applied to northern doctors, were you not?
Dr Kosar: Yes.
Mr Kormos: You have been very kind to Ms Martel in describing her as being responsive and receptive and apparently pleased to sit down and talk with you. Is that fair?
Dr Kosar: Yes.
Mr Kormos: Yes. And you would expect somebody who was going to argue on behalf of northern doctors and the impact of the threshold -- if doctors were not reaching the threshold, there would be no need for you to come to Queen's Park wanting exemptions from it, would there?
Dr Kosar: I think that is a fair statement.
Mr Kormos: One of the arguments about northern doctors is that their practices are somewhat unique and different from southern practices; that is to say that some northern doctors may be inclined to bill beyond the threshold not because they are greedy but because they are somewhat more alone than southern doctors are?
Dr Kosar: Or because there are fewer doctors available for a large population.
Mr Kormos: Yes. So part of the argument against the threshold for the northern doctors would be to know that indeed there were doctors in the north who were billing beyond the threshold. Would not that be part of the argument to be advanced?
Dr Kosar: I suppose that would be true.
Mr Kormos: It is an important part of the argument, is it not?
Dr Kosar: Yes.
Mr Kormos: That it was not just one doctor who was billing beyond threshold, but that it was perhaps three or four or more who were billing beyond threshold?
Dr Kosar: We did not talk about exact numbers. We were representing the medical community as a whole.
Mr Kormos: But that is an important part of the argument.
Dr Kosar: Certainly.
Mr Kormos: It is clear that Ms Martel only referred to the fact that there were -- what was it she said? -- three or four doctors who were over the threshold?
Dr Kosar: To my best recollection it was four that she mentioned. There were four general practitioners.
Mr Kormos: She did not purport to know their names, did she?
Dr Kosar: We did not ask her and she did not mention them to us.
Mr Kormos: Of course not. There is nothing that happened in that conversation that would let us conclude that she necessarily knew the names of those doctors, is there?
Dr Kosar: She was aware of the fact that there were four GPs billing over the threshold. Whether or not she knew their names I cannot fairly say, because she did not mention them.
The Chair: Mr Kormos, just two minutes remain.
Mr Kormos: Two minutes. Dr Hollingsworth had been on television up north, had he not? You are aware of that. Prior to your coming down here to see Ms Martel. Count me off, please, Mr Harnick. I need all the help I can get. I am just struggling along here, doing my best.
Mr Harnick: "Struggling" is the operative word.
Mr Kormos: I am from Welland and I am just doing my best.
Mr Harnick: You are downgrading the people of Welland.
The Chair: Order.
Mr Kormos: Doctor, tell us. Dr Hollingsworth was on television before you came down here from Sudbury to Queen's Park, was he not?
Dr Kosar: I think so.
Mr Kormos: And Dr Hollingsworth at that point had told his TV audience that he was in trouble because of the threshold and that he might have to leave the community.
Dr Kosar: I was not aware of that.
Mr Kormos: You did not watch that program?
Dr Kosar: No.
Mr Kormos: It was Dr Hollingsworth who called you -- Mr Harnick, I asked you for your help. You are not giving me a countdown.
Mr Harnick: One minute, Peter; 30 seconds, really.
Mr Kormos: Dr Kosar, Dr Hollingsworth had called you telling you it was probably going to be important to write up a little memo of what had happened here at Queen's Park?
Dr Kosar: Yes. It was after his appearance on the local radio station.
Mr Kormos: He told you that he had prepared one?
Dr Kosar: No. He said he either had or --
Mr Kormos: Or was going to.
Dr Kosar: He said he -- actually, I do not remember whether he had already done it or not, but he advised me to take some notes.
Mr Kormos: And that he had been advised by his lawyer to do it?
Dr Kosar: That I do not know.
Mr Kormos: Clearly, if there were any differences in your memo and his, what would that flow from?
Dr Kosar: I am not sure if we had any differences.
Mr Harnick: How does he know that?
The Chair: No, Mr Kormos, with respect to that one particular question, if you feel that there is some variance between two particular recitations of events, I would ask you to direct and be more specific to the doctor so that he would at least be able to answer a question where you have brought forward where there is a variance.
1450
Mr Kormos: Doctor, you have just suggested that there is no difference in the memos that were prepared by Dr Hollingsworth and by you.
Dr Kosar: Well, there is a difference --
The Chair: Excuse me; order. There is a point of order. Mr Elston.
Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Is there an allegation by Mr Kormos that this witness has seen Dr Hollingsworth's memo? Is that what the allegation is?
Ms Jackson: It is clear that he has.
Mr Elston: He has seen it?
Ms Jackson: Yes. I elicited that from him.
Mr Elston: Okay. So he is asking him for which variance, then?
Mr Owens: What is your point, Murray?
Mr Elston: Which variance, because he was directed to define the differences of points this witness was to be asked about.
The Chair: Again, Mr Kormos and Mr Elston, on this particular point, the time has expired but I will permit you to ask a question because of the number of objections that have been made; one question. But in the event that you are asking the witness, for instance, to compare one particular recitation of events to another, I would ask you, for the benefit of the witness, to be specific in terms of where you feel there is a possible divergence of event. In fairness, I think that is the only way in which a question of that nature can be put to Dr Kosar.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair. That is an interesting ruling. Dr Kosar, your memo is identical to Dr Hollingsworth's?
Dr Kosar: No, I do not think it is. We differed in the fact that he recalls that Miss Martel said that she saw his file and Dr Donahue's, and I have already made it quite clear that I did not hear that because of the noise in the east lobby. That is probably the main difference between our statements.
The Chair: Thank you. The time has expired. We will now move to Mr Elston.
Mr Elston: Dr Kosar, I was interested in listening to the questions from Messrs Mills and Kormos who, when Dr Hollingsworth was here, spent their time in trying to elicit that there was information which you were asked about, or which you heard from Ms Martel, which apparently arose out of the UAP public record. I asked Dr Hollingsworth at that time and I will now ask you, do you make any of your billing information known to the underserviced area program?
Dr Kosar: Absolutely none.
Mr Elston: You make your billings to the OHIP office; is that correct?
Dr Kosar: That is correct.
Mr Elston: For all your procedures performed in office, in hospital, whatever.
Dr Kosar: Yes.
Mr Elston: So the only place a person could get information other than from you or through your office would be from OHIP with respect to your billing and your practice operation; is that true?
Dr Kosar: Yes.
Mr Elston: Is it also correct that Ms Martel said to you that she knew you were under the threshold?
Dr Kosar: Yes.
Mr Elston: That would mean therefore, Dr Kosar, that she had specific information about your billings; is that true?
Dr Kosar: One would assume so from that.
Mr Elston: She could only make the observation that you were under the threshold if she knew what your billings were.
Dr Kosar: That is right.
Mr Elston: And she did say that to you; is that correct?
Dr Kosar: No. When I said I was under the threshold she said, "I know."
Mr Elston: She identified the fact that she already knew that you, Dr Kosar, someone she had never met before, a physician who was working in her community, obviously, were under the threshold.
Dr Kosar: Yes.
Mr Elston: She likewise -- did you hear her also say the same thing to Dr Hollingsworth?
Dr Kosar: Actually, it was a joint statement, so to speak, that both Dr Hollingsworth and myself were under the thresholds, and she said, "Yes, I know," to that fact.
Mr Elston: So you were left obviously with the impression then that she knew about your billings to OHIP?
Dr Kosar: That is certainly what I thought.
Mr Elston: Did you have the same impression that she also had the same knowledge about Dr Donahue?
Dr Kosar: Yes.
Mr Elston: She identified the fact that his billings were unacceptable; is that correct?
Dr Kosar: She said "unacceptable"; yes.
Mr Elston: Is there any way she could have knowledge like that from any place other than OHIP? Has someone from your office, for instance, given her information about your billing practices?
Dr Kosar: Nobody has given away any information on my billing practices as far as I know. As far as Dr Donahue's billing practices, I am quite certain he has not made any of that public from his office.
Mr Elston: It is very strange. We are left with one reasonable observation: that Shelley Martel had to have access to the information on Dr Stephen Kosar with respect to his billing practices. Is that correct?
Dr Kosar: That is what I thought.
Mr Elston: Is it, Dr Kosar, within the realm of possibility that Shelley Martel also had the same information with respect to the four GPs? I am sorry. What it your impression that she had the same information with respect to the four GPs?
Dr Kosar: That was certainly my impression.
Mr Elston: Even though she did not name them, you were left with the impression that she knew specifically who the GPs were and what their billing practices were.
Dr Kosar: I can only assume that, but that is what my impression was, yes.
Mr Elston: Did you assume that because she had so much specific information with respect to your billing practices, the practices of Dr Hollingsworth and Dr Donahue? Would that be a reasonable assumption to make?
Dr Kosar: That is what we thought, yes.
Mr Elston: Did you feel that she was merely being kind to you when she was letting on that you were two of the good people? I guess it was Dr Hollingsworth who described the conversation as describing you as the "good people," but did you sense that she was just trying to humour you along or did you feel that she was specifically identifying the fact that she had information about the two of you and Donahue?
Dr Kosar: My impression was that she had some information at that time, although I did not attach too much significance to it at that time.
Mr Elston: It would not be something, then, that she could have made up on the spur of the moment, in the manner that she expressed that information to you?
Dr Kosar: That is difficult to say. We did not think she made it up. It certainly was not a heated debate where she would have said something accidentally or in the heat of the discussion. It was a very civil discussion, such as we are having here now.
Mr Elston: It was not one of those conservations where she was just going along nodding her head all the time saying, "Yes, I know, I know." I was not one of those. It was a sense that she delivered the lines with some degree of certainty and specific nature. Is that correct?
Dr Kosar: She seemed to be very well modulated and quite concerned about the whole situation, actually.
Mr Elston: Fully cognizant of the details about which she was speaking to you. Is that fair to say?
Dr Kosar: I think so, yes.
Mr Elston: The fact that you showed up unannounced and had a meeting at 1 o'clock or 2 o'clock in the afternoon -- I think it was identified earlier in the transcript -- without her knowing you were coming in caused you greater surprise. Is that correct?
Dr Kosar: Yes. In my deposition here I sort of mentioned that we found it quite puzzling, actually.
Mr Elston: This minister has obviously been quite concerned to study the billing practices of at least four GPs and at least three specialists in Sudbury to the extent that she knows that four GPs are over the threshold and one specialist has been identified as being over the threshold, and two others, present with her at that meeting, were described as good guys in a conversation that was described by another witness. That would tell you that this minister has done a full search of personal information, or at least had access to this information, would it not?
Dr Kosar: She seemed to be, at least, fairly well versed.
Mr Elston: She was very well prepared.
Dr Kosar: She had done some form of research.
Mr Elston: She was very well prepared, and as you indicated before, just to repeat it for the people here, the only way she can get billing information, apart from physicians consenting to its access out of their office, would be if she had access either to the files from OHIP or to summary information from those confidential files. Is that true?
Dr Kosar: Yes.
Mr Elston: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr Conway. I alert you, there are eight minutes remaining.
Mr Conway: I shall not need all of that time, Mr Chairman.
Dr Kosar, just briefly to your exhibit 65, I was interested that at the bottom of page 1 of your exhibit you say, "We reminded Ms Martel of her responsibility to her constituents and not only to her party." Can you explain the context in which that appears?
Dr Kosar: To us, it appeared that her caucus was in a leading role in preventing doctors in northern Ontario from getting their threshold exemptions. To us, that appeared to be the so-called party line. That is why we brought up this point, to remind her that she is responsible not only to her party but to the constituents, to the voters who voted her into that job.
Mr Conway: In the course of this meeting did she seem to be fairly aggressive or political in the sense of advancing the government line? I ask that question in light of that observation.
Dr Kosar: Actually, when we mentioned this, I remember her being almost subdued. I got the feeling that she was caught between a rock and a hard place, because I think she was concerned for both sides. I think she was in a difficult position.
Mr Conway: So the intent of that note is simply to recall to mind the course of the conversation. You went there with Dr Hollingsworth as a representative not of your own cases, as your note makes plain, but as a representative of the Sudbury and District Medical Society and that you were just anxious that she understand that there were broader questions of health care delivery here and that they should be looked at outside of a particular concern of the caucus or the government in power.
Dr Kosar: Yes.
Mr Conway: Good. Thank you.
The Chair: Seeing no further questions and the rotation being complete, I would like to thank you very much, Dr Kosar, for coming before this committee and providing information.
Dr Kosar: If I may, I would like to apologize to my patients who are inconvenienced by my having to leave my practice today. I would like to thank the committee for making accommodations for me to come at this time.
The Chair: For the committee's attention, we had previously given Ms Colley and her solicitor information that they may not be required until approximately 4 pm. It appears at this time that they will be coming back shortly, but probably around the 3:30 mark, so I would ask at this time that this meeting be recessed for 30 minutes, until 3:30, when we can recommence with Ms Colley.
The committee recessed at 1503.
1542
SUSAN COLLEY
The Chair: I would like to call the session to order and welcome Ms Colley and counsel back for the afternoon session. Thank you for returning and allowing us to meet some other scheduling requirements. I remind you of the warning with respect to confidential information that was provided earlier in the day, together with a reminder of the oath which you affirmed earlier. As we left off, Ms Jackson was still in her questioning of you, and I invite Ms Jackson to continue.
Ms Jackson: Ms Colley, just before we resume in the chronology that we were discussing this morning, could I ask you to come back with me to one exhibit and clarify one area of your evidence. The exhibit is exhibit 50, which you will need to turn up.
We had some discussion this morning about when you next spoke to Mr Corea after you wrote this memorandum. I just want to clarify some uncertainty as to the timing of that. Do I take it that it is clear that at some point on the 15th you understood from Mr Corea that he had spoken to Ms Doherty on that day?
Ms Colley: No. I do not think I said that I knew he had spoken. I said I assumed he would have done because he was working on preparing a response, which we did following the meeting with Mr Decter and then my subsequent meeting. He worked on the response. I saw the response and I said I assumed that he probably talked to the people from the various political offices after that.
Ms Jackson: Let me just be sure that I understand something specifically. You recall being interviewed by Mr Taman and myself on Tuesday night with respect to this matter.
Ms Colley: I do.
Ms Jackson: Do you recall saying during the course of that interview that you spoke to Mr Corea after you sent him this memo, on the 15th?
Ms Colley: I do not actually recall what I did say to you that evening, no.
Ms Jackson: Is it possible that your recollection on this matter has changed since Tuesday evening?
Ms Colley: Since Tuesday evening?
Ms Jackson: Yes.
Ms Colley: No, I do not think so.
Ms Jackson: Is it possible indeed that you did in fact learn from Mr Corea on the 15th that he had spoken to Ms Doherty? You assumed that, and it is also possible, I assume, that you did in fact learn that.
Ms Colley: Yes. I am just saying that I do not recall having a discussion with him about the conversation.
Ms Jackson: So you would be unable to assist as to the timing of any conversation between Mr Corea and Ms Doherty on the 15th?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Then let's return to December 1991, which is where we left off this morning. I have asked the clerk to put in front of you and members two interoffice memoranda of December which you were good enough to give to us, one dated December 8 at 11:41 am from yourself. This would be the next exhibit, Mr Chairman.
The Vice-Chair: That would be exhibit 67.
Ms Jackson: The one dated December 8, 1991, at 11:43 am would be exhibit 68.
Ms Colley: Right.
Ms Jackson: Both of these interoffice memoranda contemplate a noon meeting between the Minister of Health and Michael -- that would be Michael Decter --
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: -- on Monday morning to discuss the "follow-up action re Sudbury doctors." I assume this is the follow-up from the now notorious December 5 meeting in Sudbury, is that right?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: It is contemplated as well that there would be a further meeting with the Sudbury members later in the day. Did a meeting occur between Ms Lankin and Mr Decter to deal with the Sudbury doctor situation around noontime on Monday the 9th?
Ms Colley: Yes, except that was the very meeting that I think I described to you, the meeting where I was interrupted and got the telephone call from Melody Morrison.
Ms Jackson: So that is the same meeting you have already told us about?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And you have told us all you can now recall of the discussion that took place in that meeting as a result of having learned of the incident in Thunder Bay?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Then on the evening of the 9th, did the contemplated meeting that is referred to in exhibit 69 between Floyd Laughren, Shelley Martel, Sharon Murdock and the minister, potentially as well with Mr Decter, to discuss the Sudbury doctor situation -- did that occur?
The Vice-Chair: Excuse me, I believe that is exhibit 68, is it not?
Ms Jackson: It is also discussed in exhibit 67.
The Vice-Chair: I am sorry.
Ms Jackson: That is all right. Is that the problem?
Mr Elston: Yes. There is no 69 yet.
The Vice-Chair: Sixty-seven and 68. There is no 69.
Ms Jackson: I am sorry. In any event, the meeting that is in all these exhibits, on the evening of the 9th, between Mr Laughren, Miss Martel and Ms Murdock and Mr Decter, did that occur, do you know?
Ms Colley: No. Events had changed somewhat by then.
Ms Jackson: In any event, were you present for any discussion that evening with any of these people in respect of the matters arising from the Thunder Bay incident on the 9th?
Ms Colley: Oh, no. This was a meeting that was contemplated after the Sudbury meeting on the 5th, to discuss follow-up to the general Sudbury situation with Ms Lankin and with Mr Decter. I think the events that happened in the House on Monday basically caused the meeting to be cancelled. So there was no meeting, in other words.
Ms Jackson: Dr LeBlanc has previously indicated to the committee that that evening he was involved in sort of waiting in the anteroom of the P and P meeting and had some discussions with some of --
Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Just something that has been a bit confusing here. We have talked about Monday the 8th of December.
Ms Jackson: I am sorry, I meant Monday the 9th.
Mr Elston: Okay. So the questions are about the memorandum which was actually generated on Sunday the 8th of December?
Ms Jackson: That is right.
Mr Elston: Okay. So now we are on the 9th. That is fine.
Ms Jackson: I apologize if it has been unclear. The faxes are on the 8th --
Mr Elston: Which is the Sunday.
Ms Jackson: -- trying to set up these meetings for the following day, which is Monday the 9th.
Mr Elston: The 9th is Monday. Okay, good. Thanks.
Ms Jackson: That is right, Ms Colley?
Ms Colley: Yes, that is right.
Ms Jackson: I am sorry if I have been unclear on that.
Mr Harnick: Just to clarify so we do not have to get into difficulties later, I think earlier on you said that the first you ever heard of the issue with Miss Martel --
The Vice-Chair: Excuse me, Mr Harnick, is this a clarification or a question?
Mr Harnick: It is a clarification -- was on the Monday?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Mr Harnick: Yet these exhibits --
Ms Jackson: Let me deal with that.
Mr Harnick: Okay. You see where I am going.
Ms Jackson: Well, I do not know if I do, but let me deal with what I think is --
Mr Harnick: Well, no. I am trying to be fair rather than wait until --
Interjections.
Ms Jackson: Ms Colley, these meetings that you are writing about on December 8 are meetings that you want to have set up on Monday the 9th, is that correct?
Ms Colley: Yes, that is right.
Ms Jackson: And the meetings that you want to have set up on Monday the 9th, as of Sunday the 8th, are to follow up on the Sudbury meeting, not Thunder Bay.
Ms Colley: That is right.
Ms Jackson: The Sudbury meeting on Thursday the 5th, correct?
Ms Colley: Yes, exactly.
Ms Jackson: The bearpit session?
Ms Colley: Exactly.
Ms Jackson: So you want to set up a meeting at lunchtime and then in the evening?
Ms Colley: Exactly.
Ms Jackson: By lunchtime, in the middle of your lunchtime meeting, you have, as you told us this morning, heard for the first time about the Thunder Bay incident.
Ms Colley: By lunchtime Monday, yes, that is right. And in fact --
Ms Jackson: Just let me go through this, as I have clearly muddied things up impossibly. So then you come down to the evening of the 9th. That is the time at which it had been hoped there would be a further meeting to discuss the situation with respect to Sudbury on the 5th, right?
Ms Colley: That is right, yes.
Ms Jackson: And you are saying that did not happen.
Ms Colley: That is right.
Ms Jackson: And I am telling you now that Dr LeBlanc indicated to the committee that that night, Monday the 9th, he was in the anteroom of the P and P, wherever the P and P meeting was taking place, catching people to talk about various threshold issues, and that he, in the course of those conversations, ran into and had some conversations with, I think he said, Mr Laughren, Miss Martel, Ms Murdock and perhaps as well your minister. Were you present for any of those conversations?
Ms Colley: No, I was not.
Ms Jackson: Did you hear any reports of them?
Ms Colley: No.
Ms Jackson: Were you a participant in any further conversations concerning the Thunder Bay incident on December 5, on the 9th?
Ms Colley: No.
1550
Ms Jackson: I hope that is clear, and if it is not --
Ms Colley: Very.
Ms Jackson: -- people are going to have to follow up on their own. Then we come to December 5, Tuesday, right?
Ms Colley: December 10.
Ms Jackson: Sorry, December 10. Excuse me. Well, you can see why I get into this difficulty. Clear as mud. December 10 is the Tuesday. On that morning, as I understand it, or some time during that day, you became aware of the possibility of a leak of confidential information within the ministry.
Ms Colley: Yes, it was about 6 o'clock in the afternoon.
Ms Jackson: All right. Before we get to that, then, were there any conversations during that day that you were party to dealing with the Thunder Bay incident on December 5?
Ms Colley: I think that there was a meeting in the morning with Dr LeBlanc and Michael Decter where Frances reviewed with them the situation with regard to confidential information. But it was quite brief.
Ms Jackson: Were you there?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: When you say she reviewed the situation with respect to confidential information, which situation was she reviewing?
Ms Colley: Well, I think I mentioned that the previous day, Monday the 9th, she had asked Mr Decter to establish that there had been no leak of confidential information from the ministry. I presume that Mr Decter, you know, did seek that guarantee from Dr MacMillan, although I was not present for part of that. And then the next day we did have a meeting with Dr LeBlanc and Mr Decter and Ms Lankin and myself where we touched on, again, the issue of confidential information. I mean, I think Ms Lankin was quite anxious about ensuring that there had not been any leak of confidential information, and my understanding is that we did have a little -- some more discussion about the threshold issue.
Ms Jackson: Now, you say your understanding is that you had one more discussion with respect to the threshold issue. Is that your recollection or has somebody told you you did?
Ms Colley: Oh, it is my recollection, but I must say that my recollection has been very fuzzied by all of the events of that week.
Ms Jackson: What is your recollection of your discussion on the threshold issue that morning?
Ms Colley: Oh, well, as a follow-up to the -- I mean, we had not met with Dr LeBlanc since the 5th of December, which was the Thursday before, the meeting in Sudbury, and there were a number of -- I mean, it was really apparent after that meeting that something had to be done to deal with the problem situation for doctors in the north. And so when I say a discussion about the threshold situation, I think I also mentioned that in the week prior to this, we had begun to discuss the possibility of introducing special initiatives to assist with retaining doctors in the north through the underserviced area program, and we had a follow-up discussion to that at that time.
Ms Jackson: All right. You told us this morning that on the 9th, Ms Lankin had sought assurances from Mr Decter and instructed him to make the appropriate inquiries to get those assurances, that there had been no leak of confidential information. Are you saying that the report back on the result of those inquiries was on the morning of the 10th?
Ms Colley: No, I am not saying that. I am saying --
Ms Jackson: Oh, all right.
Ms Colley: Sorry. I am saying I do not know what happened with regard to the assurances that Ms Lankin got on the Monday. I believe she did get some, and I do not know how that happened because I was not present. All I am saying is that at this meeting with Dr LeBlanc, she did reiterate, you know, that she wanted to be sure that nothing had come out of the ministry.
Ms Jackson: After she had received the assurances that she did on the 9th, do you know what it was on the morning of the 10th that she was still uncertain about?
Ms Colley: Oh, no; I do not think there was anything specific. I think it was just a generalized concern.
Ms Jackson: What was the assurance she sought from Dr LeBlanc? What is your best recollection of what she said?
Ms Colley: I mean, I am not sure it was directed to Dr LeBlanc. I think that she was just repeating again to Mr Michael Decter that she wanted to be -- I mean, I think it was the kind of thing that the day before she had obviously had one discussion, and the next day she was sort of reviewing some of the information that had occurred. I remember that they talked briefly about the security guidelines that were in place and that kind of thing, but it was very brief. It was sort of along the lines of: "I trust that you were right yesterday, Michael. I really want to be sure." It was much more that kind of statement. It was not a big deal.
Ms Jackson: Then were you present for any further conversations on the 10th, before 6 o'clock, dealing with the Thunder Bay incident or the possible leak of confidential information within the ministry?
Ms Colley: I do not think so. I believe I did meet her after question period, which I often do just to connect and catch her up with anything that is going on or to connect with her about any concerns that she may have, because often she did not come back to the office; she would go on to a committee or whatever. I did meet her after question period; my basic recollection is to sort of basically make her feel calm and strong to go out and face the press.
Ms Jackson: Was there any conversation --
Ms Colley: You all know what that is like, right?
Ms Jackson: Was there any conversation then between you about the Thunder Bay incident or the possible leak of confidential information in the ministry?
Ms Colley: No.
Ms Jackson: Any other conversations on those topics before 6 o'clock?
Ms Colley: No.
Ms Jackson: And then around 6 o'clock, did information come to you that suggested there had been a leak of confidential information within the ministry?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: What was it that came to you?
Ms Colley: Paul Howard, our communications assistant, came and indicated that he had received a telephone call from the Toronto Sun, Anne Dawson, indicating that she was aware of a memo that contained information about a doctor.
Ms Jackson: What specifically did he say she had said to him?
Ms Colley: I know he had two discussions with her. Essentially, he advised me that the first discussion was whether he was aware of a memo. He advised her that he had received a memo on the 13th indicating that he would receive information about a doctor, that he did not have any more information and certainly not any confidential information, and that he would get back to her.
Ms Jackson: He said he would get back to her?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And did he?
Ms Colley: I think he did the next day, yes.
Ms Jackson: All right. After he hung up the phone, did he come to you, or had he done something else first?
Ms Colley: Yes, he had called Dr MacMillan, I think to find out whether such a piece of information existed. Dr MacMillan had also received a call from the Toronto Sun. So he came in and talked to me and we both talked on a speaker phone, with Tiina Jarvalt from Michael Decter's office, to Dr MacMillan.
Ms Jackson: So on the speaker phone was yourself; Ms Jarvalt, who is the executive assistant to Mr Decter; Mr Howard; and at the other end of the line, Dr MacMillan?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Anyone else?
Ms Colley: Yes, an OHIP lawyer.
Ms Jackson: I beg your pardon?
Ms Colley: An OHIP lawyer.
Ms Jackson: And what do you recall of that conversation?
Ms Colley: I recall that Dr MacMillan told me that he had received the call from the Sun; that he had described to the Sun that there had been a request for briefing information, that the briefing information had been prepared in Kingston by a Mr Teatero and Mr Teatero had prepared a briefing note, and that had been approved by Dr McBride, who is the acting director of the health insurance division, and that it had then been forwarded to Eugene LeBlanc, Diane McArthur, Denise Allen and Maurice Jones. And then he went on to say that he thought that it had also been delivered to the minister's office, but he was very vague about that. He said that he thought it had gone to Paul Howard, and Paul Howard told him it could not have done because he had not been there. And he had indicated that he was uncertain because it had not been him who had communicated it.
1600
Ms Jackson: Are you saying that Dr MacMillan said he had said all this to the Toronto Sun?
Ms Colley: Um, I think so. No, he had not said the thing about the -- no, no. Dr MacMillan had said that there was a briefing note and that he had described to the Sun that it did contain sensitive information.
Ms Jackson: Had he volunteered that or confirmed something they already had? Do you know? Did he say?
Ms Colley: No, he said he volunteered it.
Ms Jackson: All right. Was there any suggestion in that conversation that anyone else -- in the conference call that you were having now, was there any suggestion from Dr MacMillan or from anyone else that anyone other than Mr Allen, Mr Jones, Ms McArthur, Dr LeBlanc and possibly Mr Howard had seen this memo of confidential information?
Ms Colley: I think he may have said -- I think he said also that Mary Doyle or Tiina Jarvalt from Michael Decter's office may have received it too.
Ms Jackson: Anyone else?
Ms Colley: No. Did I say Dr LeBlanc? Yes, Dr LeBlanc and Diane McArthur. Yes, that is it.
Ms Jackson: Was there any suggestion in that conversation that Mr Corea might have received a copy of the memo?
Ms Colley: No.
Ms Jackson: After Dr MacMillan recounted these facts, was there any further discussion about those facts or about what should be done?
Ms Colley: It was my -- I am just trying to remember. I think we were -- the gist of the conversation was really trying to clarify what had happened and what had been said, so there was that kind of discussion. All three of us were kind of jumping in and saying, you know -- trying to sort of get some clarification. One of the things we did try to clarify was why he considered the memo to be of a sensitive nature. The lawyer who was -- I am sorry, I cannot remember her name --
Ms Jackson: Laurel Montrose?
Ms Colley: Who?
Ms Jackson: Laurel Montrose.
Ms Colley: Yes, yes, of course. Laurel Montrose, yes, indicated that the memo may have contained more information than needed to be there.
Ms Jackson: Was there any comment from Mr Howard to the suggestion that he had received it?
Ms Colley: Oh, yes. Mr Howard jumped in on the speaker phone and explained that he could not have received it because he was not there, and that there was nothing on his machine.
Ms Jackson: Once those facts had been clarified, then, what if anything did you do about them?
Ms Colley: Actually, I -- sorry. Dr MacMillan also described, though, the process of how he had been in Toronto the next day, had been at a meeting and had given instructions to retrieve the memos.
Ms Jackson: All right. And having learned of those facts, what did you do?
Ms Colley: I first of all called Mr Michael Decter and advised him of this. I mean, I immediately thought that this was a piece of information he needed to have, as he is responsible for the administration of the ministry, the security of the ministry and the security of information within the ministry. I had a discussion, you know, briefly filling him in on what happened, and advised him that I thought that the ministry would probably want to have an immediate investigation. Mr Decter thought that was a good idea and he would consider that. I told Michael Decter that I was going to be contacting the minister immediately and letting her know about this and that he should stay tuned. I then called the minister --
Ms Jackson: You then which?
Ms Colley: I then called the minister.
Ms Jackson: Where was she?
Ms Colley: She was in the P and P meeting.
Ms Jackson: This is a further P and P meeting on the Tuesday?
Ms Colley: Yes. This was a special meeting on the Tuesday.
Ms Jackson: And did you tell the minister on the phone what had happened?
Ms Colley: Yes, I explained to her what had happened.
Ms Jackson: And what did she say? What was done?
Ms Colley: Actually, I did not explain to her on the phone. I actually said that I wanted to come over. I gave her really brief details and said that I thought I should come over and discuss it with her.
Ms Jackson: All right. Then you went over to the P and P meeting?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Which is in this building?
Ms Colley: It is in this building, yes.
Ms Jackson: And what did you do?
Ms Colley: I walked in and she was not there, and found out that she had actually gone to the office of Lynn Spink with --
Ms Jackson: The office of?
Ms Colley: Of Lynn Spink, with David Agnew and Shelley Martel, and I joined them in that room.
Ms Jackson: And who is Lynn Spink?
Ms Colley: No, Lynn Spink was not there. Oh, Lynn Spink is the executive assistant to the Premier and they were in her office.
Ms Jackson: But she was not there.
Ms Colley: Yes, right.
Ms Jackson: This was David Agnew, the minister and Ms Martel?
Ms Colley: Mm-hmm.
Ms Jackson: And did you join them?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And what happened?
Ms Colley: I explained to them what had happened, the telephone call from the Sun and what their allegations were, and that I had telephoned Michael Decter, and Frances asked Shelley Martel very directly whether or not she had received or seen any confidential information from the Ministry of Health. And Shelley Martel said, "Absolutely not," and assured Frances that she had never seen any such information.
Ms Jackson: Can you describe the reaction of those three people when you told them -- well, first of all, how much had you told the minister on the phone?
Ms Colley: I think I told her that there had been a phone call to Paul Howard from Anne Dawson of the Sun suggesting that there was information, that it was really unclear what information there was, whether the Sun actually had any information, and so the gist of our discussion -- one of the components of the discussion outside P and P was whether the Sun had the information or not.
Ms Jackson: When you joined them in the office, what further information did you give the minister beyond what you had already told her on the phone?
Ms Colley: I described in some detail the discussion with Dr MacMillan.
Ms Jackson: After you did that, was the next thing that happened that the minister spoke to Ms Martel, as you have described?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And what happened then?
Ms Colley: After that?
Ms Jackson: Yes.
Ms Colley: The minister basically turned to me and instructed me to first of all ascertain that there had been no dissemination of any personal information from the minister's office, to ascertain that nobody in any of the other Sudbury ministers' offices had received any information from the Ministry of Health, third to call Michael Decter and ask him to do the same with the appropriate ministry officials, fourth to require the attendance of the deputy minister, Eugene LeBlanc, Dr MacMillan --
Ms Jackson: To require the attendance of the deputy minister --
Ms Colley: Dr LeBlanc and Dr MacMillan and Paul Howard in her office at 8 o'clock the following morning to advise her on basically the follow-up to our inquiries about whether or not the information had got out. She also asked me to ask Paul to call Denise Allen and Maurice Jones to check whether they had disseminated such information.
1610
Ms Jackson: And did you call Paul Howard and Denise Allen and Mr Jones?
Ms Colley: I went back to the office and Paul was still there.
Ms Jackson: I am sorry; you went back to the office --
Ms Colley: And Paul was still there.
Ms Jackson: And what did you do? Did you talk to him?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: What did he say?
Ms Colley: He basically went and phoned at home Denise Allen and Maurice Jones and asked them whether they were aware of any personal confidential information and whether they knew whether it had left the ministry or whether they had any idea about how it would get into the Sun's hands. They said they did not, and he came and told me that.
Ms Jackson: Did they say what they had done with their copy of the confidential memo you had now learned they had originally received?
Ms Colley: I do not remember.
Ms Jackson: What steps did you take to ascertain whether there had been any dissemination of confidential information from the ministry?
Ms Colley: I should say, by the way, that Denise Allen had by this time left the ministry and was no longer working in the ministry.
Ms Jackson: I understand that, but she was contacted?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: All right. What steps then did you take to fulfil the minister's instructions to ascertain that there had been no dissemination of confidential information from the ministry?
Ms Colley: The person that had been dealing with this was of course Larry Corea, and I took steps to find out -- he was by this time on vacation, as you know, and I telephoned his sister to see if I could get some phone number to call him. Then the next morning I explained the situation to our staff and advised them of the seriousness of this allegation and asked them whether anybody knew of any way in which any information could have got to the Toronto Sun.
Ms Jackson: Did you learn anything as a result of that that indicated to you how it had got to the Toronto Sun?
Ms Colley: No.
Ms Jackson: Or whether any confidential information had been disseminated?
Ms Colley: I was assured that certainly nobody on our staff had disseminated any information.
Ms Jackson: You said you wanted to contact Larry Corea because he had been dealing with this?
Ms Colley: Mm-hmm.
Ms Jackson: What do you mean by "this?"
Ms Colley: Just that -- I mean, I knew that he was one of the staff that -- well, he was a key staff that I had to speak to.
Ms Jackson: I take it there was some concern that in the course of his handling the matter you have talked about before, there might have been some leakage of information?
Ms Colley: No, I was not concerned at all about that. I just was carrying out the minister's instructions, which were to establish that there had been no dissemination of information.
Ms Jackson: Did you speak to him?
Ms Colley: No, because we could not find him. In fact, we have a Spanish-speaking staff who called a number of hotels, but we could not actually find him. So I left a message on his answering machine for him to talk to me immediately on his return.
Ms Jackson: And that conversation took place when he returned?
Ms Colley: Mm-hmm.
Ms Jackson: On December 29th?
Ms Colley: That is right.
Ms Jackson: What did you ask him?
Ms Colley: Well, first of all, he had just literally come back from three weeks away and had missed all of this, had not yet seen the papers. I had called my husband at home, who had told him also that he knew he should talk to me. I was in England. He called me, and I first of all explained to him the bare bones of what had occurred and explained to him that Frances wanted an assurance that there had not been a leak of confidential information, and I wanted to know whether he at any time had given any information, confidential information, to any of the ministers' offices or MPPs' offices.
Ms Jackson: And what did he say?
Ms Colley: He said no. He was --
Ms Jackson: Was there any discussion in that conversation of whether he had received a copy of the confidential document you had been alerted to on the 10th?
Ms Colley: I asked him whether he had received anything like that, any confidential information, but he could not -- I mean, he just did not have a memory of --
Ms Jackson: Is that the way you put the question, "Have you ever received any confidential information?"
Ms Colley: No, no, no. I am not actually sure whether I did ask him this or not on the phone. I cannot really remember whether I asked him on the phone or I asked him when I returned.
Ms Jackson: Do you recall whether at some point in time you did ask him?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: What did you ask?
Ms Colley: I asked him whether he had received a copy of a memo regarding Dr Donahue from Eugene LeBlanc or via Diane McArthur.
Ms Jackson: And what did he say?
Ms Colley: He told me that he had received a document. He was not sure how he got it, but he remembered seeing a document that was something like a computer printout with figures on it. That was his first response to me. I actually concluded that he had not received this memo, because of course from the 8 o'clock meeting on the 11th of December, I knew there was an e-mail, that the form of this document from Mr Teatero was in fact an e-mail, even though I did not see it. So I actually did not think he ever received such a document -- that memo. From the way he initially described it to me, it sounded like it was something else.
Ms Jackson: Did it sound like it was anything that was confidential or not?
Ms Colley: That I could not tell, because he told me that he had scarcely looked at it, but he had got a request to return it or get rid of it and he had returned it to Dr MacMillan when he went to be in on this telephone call.
Ms Jackson: You indicated that the minister, on the evening of the 10th, instructed that she wanted the deputy minister, Dr LeBlanc, Dr MacMillan and Mr Howard to attend in her office the next morning.
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Were you there as well?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Was this matter further discussed then?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Was anything said about the circumstances of the original leak as described by Dr MacMillan beyond what he had already told you?
Ms Colley: I do not think so. It was more organized in the sense that Mr Decter actually led the discussion. Mr Decter had collected the information overnight and went through for the minister sort of day by day the sequence of e-mails and so on.
Ms Jackson: Was a decision taken as to how the ministry should respond to this situation?
Ms Colley: Yes. Mr Decter had suggested that the minister or himself could contact the privacy commissioners and request an investigation, and the minister thought that was a good idea.
Ms Jackson: And was that done?
Ms Colley: Yes, that morning.
Ms Jackson: That, Ms Colley, I think completes my review of the chronology with you. Let me just ask you, because you already told me, I understand that prior to giving your evidence, like Mr Corea, you were interviewed by Mr Dee?
Ms Colley: Yes. Mr Dee was trying to establish a witness list, basically.
Ms Jackson: That is what you understood to be his purpose?
Ms Colley: Yes, that is right.
Ms Jackson: Like Mr Corea, when you were interviewed, did Mr Dee take notes?
Ms Colley: I think he did, yes.
Ms Jackson: Were you given a copy of those notes?
Ms Colley: No.
Ms Jackson: Were you told anything about what anyone else would say in their evidence concerning these matters by Mr Dee?
Ms Colley: No.
Ms Jackson: Were you told by Mr Dee not to discuss your evidence with anyone?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Have you followed that instruction?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Apart from the conversations you have already related to the committee that you had with people as these events unfolded and apart from the discussions you have had with your counsel and with me, have you discussed your evidence here today with anyone?
Ms Colley: No.
Ms Jackson: I understand you did have an opportunity to see a portion of Mr Corea's evidence given before the committee yesterday.
Ms Colley: I saw snippets on the TV yesterday, yes.
Ms Jackson: Can you, just so the committee knows which portions you heard, indicate which times of day you were watching?
Ms Colley: From about 11:30 till noon and then again from 2 to 2:30.
Ms Jackson: Thank you, Ms Colley. Those are my questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Jackson. We will now commence the rotation. I am looking at the time. I will start with the government members and we will have 30 minutes per member.
Mr Christopherson: We are fine, thank you, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I will now move to --
Mr Elston: Is it 30?
1620
The Chair: Pardon me? Excuse me, I am advised by government members that they have no questions to ask and I would now move to members of the opposition.
Mr Elston: I am just asking you, if there are only 30 minutes --
The Chair: Per caucus.
Mr Elston: Per caucus, so it seemed to me that we had had a little bit more --
Ms Jackson: I am sorry, I realize I may have misled people in the room and the witness. I will have further questions, as I have already indicated to the witness, but they are to be asked in camera, I am afraid.
Mr Conway: Just before we proceed, Mr Chairman, we will proceed this afternoon till a point of normal adjournment around 5 o'clock and then we will begin again with this witness to complete any unfinished questioning, and then we will move into camera and complete this witness, presumably in the morning of Monday of next week.
The Chair: That is correct.
Ms Jackson: I think I should alert Mr Conway there is a slight possibility that we may have to adjust this witness again, in a way I understand she is prepared to accommodate, to accommodate another witness who can only come Monday. But can I discuss that with the subcommittee a little bit further this evening?
The Chair: May I just, with the committee's indulgence --
Interjections.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Conway, did you want to --
Mr Conway: I realize the lateness of the day, and I have tried to listen very carefully to what I think is extremely important testimony, and I think we will have the opportunity to adjourn at some point today. Speaking for myself, I will certainly want to go over the Hansard of this testimony very carefully. Counsel has brought forward quite a lot of information, and so I am anxious to put that on the record and we will have an --
Mr Christopherson: A point of order, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Mr Christopherson.
Mr Christopherson: As we did the other day, in the interests of time, rather than cut off in the middle of the questioning of the third party, we are prepared to stay and complete the questioning so that this portion is done and when we pick up again on Monday we can do the in camera.
Mr Conway: I appreciate the point that the member from Hamilton has said. This is for me important testimony, very important testimony, and I for one want the opportunity to look at the Hansard that will be made available.
Mr Christopherson: Mr Chair, I do not want to be unreasonable at all. However, the times and the process have been something you have been very strict about in terms of adhering to the subcommittee's direction. We talked about trying as much as possible to get through as much of Ms Colley's testimony as possible today, and I recall again the importance we placed on Mrs Dodds, and there was some leniency on the part of the Chair. But to hold off portions of discussion when the time is available to conclude the caucuses' allotted time I think is at great variance with the kind of rulings that you have been giving to date.
Mr Conway: I want to assuage the sensibilities of my honourable friend the member for Hamilton Centre. We will be quite prepared to use the 30 minutes this afternoon and I simply indicate that we will be picking this witness up again in camera.
The Chair: I think there is a point of order by Mr Elston.
Mr Elston: Mr Chair, I was just wondering how you determine that there is half an hour. We spent all of this morning with this witness and we have spent about 45 minutes or so more with Ms Jackson's examination. Is there not in a sense a little bit more time for us to follow up on some very important testimony than just half an hour?
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr Christopherson: Point of order.
The Chair: Mr Christopherson.
Mr Christopherson: Just before you make your ruling, Mr Chairman, I remind my honourable friends across the way and also yourself that I have asked this question before and had a very clear understanding of how you made those judgements. Some of them we have been less pleased with than others, but we have abided by them, I think as fairly and accurately as possible, and I would ask you to keep that in mind when you rule.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr Elston, are there any further points of order?
Mr Elston: Just the half-hour, then, is firm was my question.
The Chair: Yes. I am mindful of a discussion which took place in the subcommittee just yesterday evening on this very point. I am mindful of the time, and as has been my action in the past, I hope that all of the caucuses will keep within that time period. I think everyone recognizes that I do not unnecessarily close off a particular line of questioning in the event that time has expired, and that has been the case --
Mr Elston: When one has established their line, then, I suspect.
The Chair: That has been the case in the past and I expect to proceed with that. We know we are going to go into a subcommittee meeting approximately at 5 pm today. I would ask if the official opposition wishes to commence today.
Mr Elston: I will commence.
Mr Christopherson: Just before you start, Murray, so I do not cut you off after you or one of your colleagues is in midflight -- Mr Chair, what about my suggestion that we go just long enough after 5 to complete the questioning so that we can indeed get this chunk of the testimony out of the way? We have two key blocks left to do on Monday, one being the in camera section and the other one being Minister Lankin.
The Chair: That will be up to the members of the committee. I am looking at Mr Harnick, particularly.
Mr Harnick: I have a commitment this evening, and I understand we are about to embark upon a rather lengthy subcommittee meeting. It would be my suggestion that we begin the cross-examination of this witness on Monday after we have all had a chance to see the transcript. I would be quite content, after the government members have seen the transcript, to see if they may want to engage in any clarification of any points.
Mr Christopherson: I do not think that is the question, sir. You have already ruled on that.
Mr Harnick: My difficulty is that if we are going to have a lengthy subcommittee meeting, we should be starting it at 5 o'clock, because I have some time constraints.
The Chair: I do not see any difficulty in this matter.
Mr Harnick: I would almost be content to start our subcommittee meeting now.
Mr Christopherson: I would only acknowledge, Mr Chair, that some of my colleagues have commitments, but they are prepared to stay to complete this questioning in the interest of the time concerns that have been raised by the opposition members. I would just like to make it clear that they are all prepared to clear their schedules and complete this.
Mr Hope: Full day's pay for a full day's work.
The Chair: I have heard a number of comments and I think what we will do is be consistent with respect to previous meetings. We will look to adjourn at approximately the 5 pm mark. We will move into a subcommittee at that particular point in time and recommence on Monday. I will open the questioning to the members of the official opposition. Mr Elston.
Mr Elston: Ms Colley, you would describe yourself as the most senior political staff member to the minister?
Ms Colley: Right.
Mr Elston: You are directly responsible to her for the operation of the office and the conduct of her political staff?
Ms Colley: Right.
Mr Elston: You are also responsible for liaising with the deputy's side of the ministry. Is that correct?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Mr Elston: I was interested to note that in meetings designed to deal with contentious issues -- and it is called something else as well; I am not actually sure how it was described -- you are not present at that meeting generally, you said. Why?
Ms Colley: I am not present at the meeting between the ministry staff and our staff.
Mr Elston: Who from your staff would be present at this contentious issues meeting?
Ms Colley: Either Paul Howard, the communications assistant, and/or Rob Smalley, our legislative assistant. They report back to a meeting of our staff.
Mr Elston: Does that happen every day?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Mr Elston: On the day Paul Howard was not available, which included the day of the delivery of the interesting memo, who would have attended the contentious issue meeting?
Ms Colley: Rob Smalley.
Mr Elston: He would have attended in Mr Howard's absence?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Mr Elston: Does the contentious issue meeting result in a report to you?
Ms Colley: It reports back to the 9 o'clock meeting of the staff, yes.
Mr Elston: To you?
Ms Colley: To the staff meeting, yes.
Mr Elston: Do you hold the meeting?
Ms Colley: To me. Yes, I am the chair.
Mr Elston: You are the chair of the meeting. The meeting is among the members of the staff. How many people meet at 9 o'clock?
Ms Colley: Usually about 10.
Mr Elston: Then 10 of the 13 people are involved in this meeting. Who is excluded?
Ms Colley: Actually, nobody is excluded. It is a team meeting.
Mr Elston: So really 13 of the 13 are there.
Ms Colley: Yes, but usually not everybody can come.
Mr Elston: When does the minister get involved in the result of the contentious issue and the 9 o'clock meeting results?
Ms Colley: There is a noon briefing every day for the minister.
Mr Elston: She is not aware, then, of anything going on in the office with respect to contentious issues or the staff meeting until noon of that day.
Ms Colley: Rarely, yes.
Mr Elston: On a need-to-know basis?
Ms Colley: Right.
Mr Elston: You are the person who determines if she needs to know.
Ms Colley: Usually. If I am not there for some reason then I have a backup.
1630
Mr Elston: But through the current episode we are discussing you were there on all occasions, up to at least the end of the legislative session anyway, in December of 1991. Is that correct?
Ms Colley: I may not have been there every morning, actually, no. I mean, sometimes I have other engagements.
Mr Elston: Did you miss any of the mornings about which we spoke in relation to your earlier testimony given in response to questions by Ms Jackson?
Ms Colley: I do not remember. I can check my calendar and let you know.
Mr Elston: Is there a possibility you would not have remembered being around for any of the dates of the 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th of November, which would seem to be the days when a lot of things were happening?
Ms Colley: Oh, no. I do not think anything special was happening on those days. I mean, I think I have said before --
Mr Elston: Okay. Nothing special was happening. The Treasurer was bugging the Ministry of Health for information. The minister of northern affairs was bugging you for information. Sharon Murdock, unknown to Mr Corea at the time, but also a member from Sudbury, was at least involved someplace along the line asking for information about Sudbury doctors. But you still seem to say nothing special was happening?
Ms Colley: I think you are probably aware of this, Mr Elston; I mean in terms of your own past practice. As far as the Ministry of Health is concerned, there are, daily, people who have concerns. I would not say --
Mr Elston: But it is unusual to have the same people asking for information four consecutive days, is it not, and not think there is something important happening?
Ms Colley: Oh, I think that when an issue emerges, what basically happens is you have a backwards-and-forwards about what happened and more information, and "I'll get back to you," and that sort of thing. And really that is --
Mr Elston: Sure. But I was interested in your testimony, which indicated that on the date of the 14th and then the 15th of November you had been in discussions with Mr Corea, who had been pursuing the receipt of information from the Ministry of Health on behalf, mostly, of Mr Laughren, Mr Laughren's assistants, although also from Ms Martel.
Ms Colley: Yes.
Mr Elston: And you had indicated that Mr Corea was somewhat anxious to receive this information, did you not?
Ms Colley: Mm-hmm.
Mr Elston: You said he appeared to be somewhat concerned that he was not getting it. Is that not true?
Ms Colley: Oh, yes.
Mr Elston: Is that not why you spoke to Michael Decter on the morning of the 15th? I believe it was the 15th of November.
Ms Colley: Yes.
Mr Elston: And is that not what generated the memo from you to Corea about the material you had received from Decter in the discussions on the morning of the 15th of November?
Ms Colley: Yes. That was a communication from --
Mr Elston: But you were quite clear that Mr Corea was concerned that this was an important issue for him because he had not received information which Floyd had asked.
Ms Colley: Yes, but he also talked to me about his -- I mean, not his -- "concern" is maybe a bit strong a word, but he also talked to me about the fact that Mr Scott was anxious about another issue and that Mr Runciman was calling about another issue.
Mr Elston: Mr Runciman is a Tory and Mr Scott is a Grit.
Ms Colley: Yes.
Mr Elston: And this sort of spreads it around.
Ms Colley: That is right, but I mean --
Mr Elston: But he has asked you to talk to Decter to get information about which Floyd Laughren's office had been asking since the 12th of November.
Ms Colley: That is right.
Mr Elston: You said clearly in your evidence directed in reply to Ms Jackson that he was concerned, and in fact he asked you to get this information for him, did he not?
Ms Colley: Oh, Mr Elston, I am not denying that he was concerned --
Mr Elston: Right.
Ms Colley: -- or that I took -- I think I took appropriate action --
Mr Elston: And you felt he was concerned, from his --
Ms Colley: -- in terms of following up on it.
Mr Elston: -- discussions with you, did you not? You knew he was concerned, did you not?
Ms Colley: Yes, but I do not think he -- I mean, Larry is a concerned kind of guy.
Mr Elston: Yes.
Ms Colley: And I do not think he was actually any more concerned about this than many other issues that come every day --
Mr Elston: But he was concerned that he --
Ms Colley: -- and that is the point I am trying to make.
Mr Elston: But he was concerned that he had not gotten information --
The Chair: Order, please. Excuse me. I am just wondering, Mr Elston, when you pose a question, if you could allow Ms Colley to respond.
Mr Elston: Well, I was taken by her response to Ms Jackson which said that Mr Corea was concerned by the lack of return from the Ministry of Health. That is true, is it not?
Ms Colley: Yes, of course, yes.
Mr Elston: Why do you think it is that when Mr Corea appeared in front of us that he did not seem to be taken by the fact that there was a document which had been directed to his office in response to his questions about the practice of Dr Donahue?
Ms Colley: What he told me was that the document he received -- first of all, he could not remember the document scarcely at all, that it did not strike any chord in him so he did not read it. That is what he told me and I accepted that.
Mr Elston: But he read your memo of the 15th of November? Did he tell you he had read your memo?
Ms Colley: No, he did not tell me whether he had read it or not. We had a discussion shortly after. I had an intervening meeting between writing that and meeting with him.
Mr Elston: But you met him shortly after your 9 o'clock meeting finished?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Mr Elston: Which could have been 9:45, I believe you told us.
Ms Colley: Roundabout, yes.
Mr Elston: Did you speak to him during that encounter about the contents of your memo to him?
Ms Colley: About the contents of my memo earlier in the morning?
Mr Elston: Yes.
Ms Colley: No, I actually described to him -- you know, I acknowledged that time was running short in terms of dealing with Mr Laughren's concerns, that the weekend was coming up. Basically, I laid out for him the kind of discussion I had had with Mr Michael Decter, which discussed the fact that if epilation services were involved then that would not be a major problem in terms of loss of service.
Mr Elston: Did you also --
Ms Colley: Shall I finish?
Mr Elston: Sure. But I also want to know whether you told him about the other more significant information.
Ms Colley: Are you asking --
The Chair: Mr Elston, please. Ms Colley.
Ms Colley: Mr Elston, you asked me what I talked to Mr Corea about and I am really trying to give you my best.
The Chair: Ms Colley, could you just respond to the question? Mr Elston, could you please allow Ms Colley to respond.
Mr Elston: I only have half an hour, you know.
Mr Wood: Murray, you do not listen to the answers.
Mr Elston: I am trying to get the answers that I know she has.
Interjections: Oh.
The Chair: Please, order. Ms Colley, could you please respond?
Mr Cavalluzzo: I would ask Mr Elston to withdraw that statement because that is very disrespectful to this witness.
Mr Elston: I am asking the questions.
Mr Cavalluzzo: But you do not have --
Interjection.
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr Cavalluzzo: You do not have any kind of authority whatever to impugn the integrity of anybody.
Mr Elston: I apologize. I withdraw the last comment so Mr Cavalluzzo can rest.
Mr Cavalluzzo: Thank you.
Mr Elston: Ms Colley wishes to finish.
Ms Colley: You asked me, I believe, the nature of my discussion with Mr Corea after my meeting with Mr Decter and I was describing to you that what I did was describe to him the general discussion I had had with Michael Decter about the fact that if epilation had been involved, then it would not be a concern in terms of loss of services.
Secondly, as far as the government was concerned, with regard to the criticisms of our threshold position, that would not necessarily be a problem if in fact Dr Donahue was part of the underserviced area program, and so on. What I continued to hit on with Mr Corea was that we really needed to communicate to Mr Laughren that he should go and describe these policy issues, our policy on epilation and the deinsuring of those kinds of services, our policy on threshold agreements, and suggest to Mr Laughren that what he do is ask Dr Donahue if he would be good enough to open up his books, to look at the practice billings in order that we can establish what the problem is. That is what Mr Corea then developed into a memo that got distributed to those offices as you, I think, have seen in exhibit whatever number it is.
Mr Elston: Now you see, Mr Chairman, what I am up against when I only have a half-hour, because there are some rather full answers that she wishes to give to us.
The Chair: I understand what you are saying, Mr Elston.
Mr Elston: I would like to ask this witness about that special memo that came around to at least Mr Corea, how it was that Mr Howard had indicated he had never received it. He was not in his office. We know that. Did he ever look to check or did he tell whether he checked to see if that memo went to his office?
Ms Colley: He did, yes. He checked on his --
Mr Elston: And he found none?
Ms Colley: He checked on his machine. This was the 9th of December. What he indicated was that he did not receive it.
Mr Elston: And of course we know Mr Corea did not get this memo on his machine. It came by hard copy.
Ms Colley: Yes.
1640
Mr Elston: Did Mr Howard check his office to see whether there was hard copy?
Ms Colley: Well, it would have had to have been slid under his door. He assured me that no such document had been slid under his door.
Mr Elston: So he never had it.
Ms Colley: Also, I mean, Dr MacMillan and Dr LeBlanc, I think, neither of them suggested that they had left for sure the memo with Paul Howard.
Mr Elston: I was interested to note during the course of your discussions around the events of the 14th and 13th of November and all the way through that Larry Corea, according to you, was known to be fully in charge of this issue, at least "had carriage," I think was the way that you -- or was carrying this issue.
Ms Colley: Right.
Mr Elston: Yet during his testimony it seemed to me that Mr Corea was saying that he really was not fully in charge because other people were also involved. Do you know what other people were contacted or involved in this issue through the 11th, or at least the 12th to 15th of November?
Ms Colley: I was the only other person.
Mr Elston: Just yourself and Mr Corea.
Ms Colley: Yes.
Mr Elston: So no other contacts had been made in the office between Laughren's office and your office?
Ms Colley: Not that I am aware of. Now, it is possible that a telephone message could have been relayed through one of the general assistants, but I would have to find out from them.
Mr Elston: So if Corea was interested, or thinking that somebody else was involved in this issue, his thought would have been that you, Sue Colley, was the person who was carrying the issue. Is that correct?
Ms Colley: I cannot speculate on what he was thinking. I am sorry.
Mr Elston: Okay. You see, there seems to be, in the testimony of Mr Corea, between his testimony and yours, some inconsistency about who was really in charge. Mr Corea's testimony led me to believe that he was not as concerned about his carrying this issue as you appeared to have designated him to be. Do you have any reason or any explanation for that coming out of the testimony?
Ms Colley: I have not read his testimony, so I do not know. But I think that we have a pretty explicit relationship and I would be very surprised actually if he was not conscious of the fact that he was responsible for gathering the required information on the Sudbury dermatologists, as requested by one of the customers outside of the ministry. I would be very surprised, Mr Elston.
Mr Elston: I am going to have to jump forward, because I do not have much time left, Ms Colley, but I was interested, when you were recounting the events of the 8th, 9th and 10th of December, that on the morning of the 9th of December Ms Lankin was quite anxious, you had indicated. Were you anxious?
Ms Colley: I am always anxious.
Mr Elston: Aren't we all.
Ms Colley: Yes, I think it is reality around here.
Mr Elston: Let me put myself in the position of maybe being in the Ministry of Health's office just for a moment.
Mr Wood: You just wish, Murray.
Mr Elston: We have had a call from the Premier's office that has just alleged --
Interjection.
Mr Elston: -- that there were certain things said by another minister of the crown with whom we have had some contact because of issues in her riding. The issue was about whether or not there was confidential information released. Okay, the call comes from the Premier's office. That alone, whether it is about confidential information or not, to a minister's office generally causes EAs some concern. You did not seem to be any more anxious about this call about the possible release of confidential information than just having an everyday anxiety attack?
Ms Colley: I am sorry, I am not --
Mr Elston: You were not any more anxious on Monday the 9th of December after the call from the Premier's office than you generally are in the office of the Minister of Health. Is that true?
Ms Colley: Yes, I think I was concerned. Yes.
Mr Elston: You are responsible in the result, are you not, for any losses of confidential information in that office?
Ms Colley: Out of my office I am responsible, yes.
Mr Elston: So you should have been rightfully fairly anxious about seeing that there was no release of information, confidential or otherwise, out of that office. Is that correct?
Ms Colley: Yes. I think that I am saying -- yes, I did have concerns and always have concerns, and I am generally anxious.
Mr Elston: I was interested to note that on December 9th, after your minister was asked about this issue in the House, you, the EA, who would be responsible for the loss of confidential information, did not participate in any further conversations for that whole day about the issue, even though it was the story of the day in all the media. You did not participate in any conversations with anyone about the issue on the 9th, on the afternoon of the 9th of December, after your minister answered that question in the House?
Ms Colley: No, I did not. Basically, the minister had sought assurances from ministry officials that no confidential information had been released, and we were satisfied that that was the case.
Mr Elston: But you knew that there was confidential information floating around the minister's office on the 15th of November, did you not, on this issue?
Ms Colley: There is always confidential information floating around the minister's office.
Mr Elston: You in fact generated a memo to Larry Corea that contained confidential information on the 15th of November, did you not?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Mr Elston: And yet on this issue which had been flagged, as you described it to Ms Jackson's questions earlier today, you did not have any more concern on the 9th of December than to have no conversations with anyone about the issue about which you were primarily responsible to your minister?
Ms Colley: I have absolute confidence in our minister's office staff. They are all under oath. I respect that. And assurances had been sought from OHIP that no confidential information had been let out.
Mr Elston: One last question. I am going to have to jump on again because I am losing time here. You met on December 10th, I guess, with Agnew, Martel, Lankin and yourself in Lynn Spink's office and you said that the question was asked by your minister of Ms Martel, "Did you see any confidential information?" The answer to that was, "No." Was the question asked whether or not Ms Martel had received any confidential information?
Ms Colley: Yes, received or seen, yes.
Mr Elston: Did she receive any in terms of summary? Was that asked?
Ms Colley: Sorry?
Mr Elston: Was there any summary confidential information received, as opposed to files?
Ms Colley: The general question was asked by the minister --
Mr Elston: "Have you seen any confidential -- "
Ms Colley: "Have you seen or received any confidential information from the Ministry of Health?"
Mr Elston: Did your minister ask Ms Martel if she was briefed by Michael Decter on a subject matter that contained confidential information?
Ms Colley: She did not ask that specific question. She asked whether or not --
Mr Elston: She had received --
Ms Colley: -- received or seen, which would imply, I think, to probably you or me, at least --
Mr Elston: It does not imply that to me. Thank you for trying to answer my questions.
Ms Colley: No, I mean if one of us had been asked that question -- I think if you had been asked --
Mr Elston: You know that Michael Decter --
Ms Colley: Let me speak for myself, Mr Elston.
Interjection.
Ms Colley: If I had been asked if I had received or seen, I would have assumed that that would have meant received orally or physically.
Mr Elston: We know that Michael Decter had briefed Shelley Martel on this issue, do we not?
Ms Colley: Not --
Mr Elston: Yes, we do. It was in your memo. You wanted to be debriefed about the meeting.
Ms Colley: There was a meeting between Mr Decter and Shelley Martel.
Mr Elston: And you said, in response to Ms Jackson, that Ms Martel had had several -- several -- interesting questions for Mr Decter to answer.
Ms Colley: I think I said that Shelley Martel had a lot of information about technical questions concerning cardiologists in Sudbury. If I did not make that clear --
Mr Elston: And others.
Ms Colley: -- that was my understanding of the meeting that occurred between Michael Decter and Shelley Martel.
Mr Elston: But you have established for our committee that there was such a meeting which involved several questions, among them questions on cardiologists. But that was not the exclusive subject matter; that what was you recalled of the brief report on the meeting, I think you described it as. Is that not true?
Ms Colley: That was the report I received, yes.
Mr Elston: Right. Did you ask Ms Martel if she had been in receipt of any information?
Ms Colley: No.
Mr Elston: What was your role in the meeting of December 10th? You had been the one who had wanted to go and see Ms Lankin. Did you report to the meeting about the Sun inquiries-
Ms Colley: Right.
Mr Elston: -- to Mr Agnew and the others?
Ms Colley: Right.
Mr Elston: Did you ask any questions of any of those people, other than Ms Lankin, at the time?
1650
Ms Colley: No, I very much saw my role as a reporting role.
Mr Elston: Can you tell us whether or not Mr Agnew was asking questions of Ms Martel about her role in receiving information about the Sudbury doctors?
Ms Colley: No. I mean, he left that to the Minister of Health.
Mr Elston: So there was a question period between Minister Lankin and Minister Martel, your minister asking and Ms Martel answering, generally in the negative when it came to talking about her receipt of information, confidential information?
Ms Colley: Right.
Mr Elston: Did Ms Martel at any time tell the minister about her encounter with Drs Hollingsworth and Kosar?
Ms Colley: During this meeting?
Mr Elston: Yes.
Ms Colley: No.
Mr Elston: Were you at all aware of any time when Ms Martel reported to Ms Lankin about her encounter with Hollingsworth and Kosar?
Ms Colley: I was not present for any such report, no.
Mr Elston: Do you know of any meetings between Ms Martel and Ms Lankin with respect to the issue of the epilation or capping or threshold, whatever it was called, between the middle of November and the 8th, 9th, 10th of December?
Ms Colley: I pretty definitely can tell you that there were no formal meetings. As you know, I mean, ministers do talk to each other, especially around the legislative chamber. Whether that occurred, you would have to ask her.
Mr Elston: Would you speculate for us, Ms Colley, how it is that --
Ms Colley: Probably not.
Mr Elston: Well, it is probably not in the way of the New Democrats to speculate. I apologize. Could you, for me, indicate how it would be that Ms Martel on the 2nd of December, 1991, would tell Dr Kosar and Dr Hollingsworth that they were doctors who were billing under the threshold and that Dr Donahue, along with four GPs, was billing over the threshold? How do you think she had that information?
Mr Cavalluzzo: Mr Chairman, I am always concerned about speculative questions. Surely it is a hypothetical question. It calls for speculation and I do not know how --
Mr Elston: Perhaps we could put it this way --
The Chair: Mr Cavalluzzo and Mr Elston, I think that is a question that has been posed in the past. It is up to the witness if she wishes to respond or not.
Ms Colley: I do not know.
Mr Elston: You know that the information with respect to how much a doctor bills is fully within the realm of the Ministry of Health, correct?
Ms Colley: Right.
Mr Elston: And can only be obtained out of OHIP, right?
Ms Colley: Right.
Mr Elston: Unless the doctor himself or herself delivers it publicly, I would say?
Ms Colley: Right.
Mr Elston: Would you think then, if Ms Martel knew that Dr Kosar and Dr Hollingsworth were billing under the threshold and Dr Donahue was billing over the threshold along with four GPs in Sudbury, that she had access to information from the Ministry of Health?
Ms Colley: I mean, there is another hypothesis here, which is that basically, as we all know, doctors who are in the underserviced area program are exempt from the threshold.
Mr Elston: No, no, that does not tell me that she -- she already told me -- or at least we were told today and Dr Kosar told us that he has not released information on his billings. Dr Hollingsworth did not release information on his billings. We speculate -- at least it was speculated by Dr Kosar -- that Dr Donahue did not release that information publicly. Yet Minister Martel, who has already had an interview at this time with Michael Decter, has had contact with the Ministry of Health offices with respect to preparation for meetings, knew that these people were billing either under or over the threshold. Can you tell me where she might have gotten that information, if it was not from the Ministry of Health?
Ms Colley: I doubt very much that she had that information.
Mr Elston: Well, how could she tell Dr Kosar that she knew, if she did not have that information?
Ms Colley: Well, it seems to me that you have not asked her that question yet.
Mr Elston: No, I am asking you.
Ms Colley: Well --
Mr Elston: Let me ask you this, Ms Colley. What other source would she have to obtain the information that would allow her to say specifically and precisely to Drs Kosar and Hollingsworth, "I know you don't bill over the threshold"? Tell me that.
Ms Colley: I am not aware of any source.
Mr Elston: You know the Ministry of Health, right? And you have identified that the information on the amount of money billed by doctors is available only through the OHIP offices, right?
Ms Colley: Right.
Mr Elston: Somehow then, if somebody knows whether a person is billing over or under the threshold, they have had access to that information. Is that not correct?
Ms Colley: In general, I would say that is true. It depends, I suppose, on how the question --
Mr Elston: And with precision, because --
Mr Cavalluzzo: Excuse me, Mr Elston. Thank you. Continue.
Ms Colley: I would say it would depend on how that question was posed. If there was a slight variation on that, to suggest that, "I know that you cannot be affected by the threshold," that does not imply that she has billing information.
Mr Elston: Please allow me to indicate that --
Ms Colley: We are doing a lot of speculation here today. I think it is really not a good idea.
Mr Elston: -- Dr Kosar today was quite precise about the fact that Ms Martel said that she knew they did not bill over the threshold.
Ms Colley: Really.
Mr Elston: Okay, so that takes away the issue of the manner in which this was put. I was interested as well, when you talked about the meeting with Mr Decter on the day of the 10th of December -- sorry, when you had the call, I guess on the 9th of December, from the Premier's office, I think it was Morrison who had called you perhaps?
Ms Colley: Yes.
Mr Elston: You were not really asked to do anything as the EA to the Minister of Health, were you? You were just being advised that there was an issue with respect to Ms Martel?
Ms Colley: Oh, yes, I was being asked to advise the minister.
Mr Elston: But other than that, were you asked to report back to the Premier's office on what you found, to prepare the Premier?
Ms Colley: Not specifically, but obviously, if we had found anything untoward, we would have certainly reported to the Premier.
Mr Elston: Did Ms Morrison ask you to have the Minister of Health speak to the Premier or anyone in his office?
Ms Colley: No.
Mr Elston: Did they ask you to prepare the minister for a possible question in the House?
Ms Colley: I would -- implicit of course is that the minister should be prepared for a question in the House, yes.
Mr Elston: And did Ms Morrison -- I think you said that she did -- say that Ms Martel lied? I think those were your words in earlier response to Ms Jackson's questions. Is that true that Ms Morrison said that Martel had lied?
Ms Colley: No, she said -- I am trying to remember the exact words here. It was a long time ago and --
Mr Elston: I think this morning --
Ms Colley: There is an incredible amount of discussion about this, so -- I did not write it down. The essence of what she said was that Shelley Martel had been at a reception on the Thursday evening and at that reception she had got in an excited discussion with a number of people at the reception and had made some remarks about Dr Donahue and having seen his file, and that afterwards, she had recognized that she had made that up and had duly apologized to the people at the reception.
Mr Elston: Sorry, that Ms Martel had recognized she had made it up? I know you are just paraphrasing --
Ms Colley: Yes, I am.
Mr Elston: -- but that is a lot less strong than you put it this morning. I was quite taken by the fact that you used the word "lied" this morning. What was it that Ms Morrison really told you? Was it that Ms Martel had lied or was it that she had recognized that she had made it up?
Ms Colley: She told me the story of what happened, and the story that happened was just as I have described it to you there.
Mr Elston: So she did not use the word "lied" as you had used the word this morning?
Ms Colley: She may have used the word "lied." I cannot remember, actually, Mr Elston, at this point.
Mr Elston: I was just taken by the spontaneity of your relating the event this morning. It seemed that "lied" must have been a word that was used and I am just getting the confirmation of that.
Ms Colley: It did pop into my head, but then it was a word that got used throughout that week rather extensively through the House. I am telling you now that I do not remember the precise word used.
Mr Elston: Used, in fact, by Ms Martel as she was explaining the situation. She said she had lied as well. That is correct, is it not?
Ms Colley: Sorry?
Mr Elston: Ms Martel was using that word to explain the outburst on the 5th of December, was she not?
Ms Colley: She said she had, yeah, made it up.
Mr Elston: Is the fact that Ms Martel said that she lied a reason why you were not as anxious on the 9th and 10th of December to look into a possible leak of information?
1700
Ms Colley: I think I described to you what I did, which was to report it to the minister, who then did look into and investigate it. That does not indicate that I was not anxious.
Mr Elston: Well, you did not speak to anybody --
Ms Colley: "Anxious" is a very loaded word, right? There are levels of anxiety. I think we took the appropriate course of action that was required, having gotten this information, and that is what occurred, Mr Elston.
Mr Elston: But when Ms Martel stood in the House prior to your minister, I guess, having the question and said that she had lied, is that the reason why you did not pursue this issue with anyone at all during the course of the afternoon of December 9 after your minister had been questioned in the House?
Ms Colley: I think I have already said that the minister did get assurances from the ministry staff that there had not been any leak of information. No; we therefore were assured. As you know, we are all very very busy with thousands of other things, and they are always very pressing and demanding, and we just got on with them.
Mr Elston: And did Ms Martel, in the meeting with Agnew, yourself, Lankin, say in the course of that meeting in Ms Spink's office that she had in fact lied?
Ms Colley: She did not say that. No.
Mr Elston: She said she had not received no confidential information, but she did not say during the course of that, "Listen, I got upset and I lied"?
Ms Colley: No. In fact, I was not there for the entire meeting. I was only there for the part where I gave my report and Frances asked --
Mr Elston: Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you were there for the course of the whole thing.
Ms Colley: What I am saying is that when I got to this meeting, David Agnew, Frances Lankin and Shelley Martel were already there. I may have missed part of a discussion. I might have missed the part of the meeting that did discuss that. I do not know.
Mr Elston: So the possibility exists that the issue of Ms Martel's lie could have come up in the later part of the meeting.
Ms Colley: The earlier part of the meeting, sure.
Mr Elston: So in the early part you --
Ms Colley: Right. Okay, what happened was that by the time I arrived they were already meeting, and of course this was a P and P meeting, a special P and P meeting, that nobody wanted to take a lot of time out of. It was not a prolonged meeting. When I got there I gave my report. Frances Lankin asked the questions of Shelley Martel; Frances gave her instructions in terms of how to deal with this situation and the meeting broke up.
Mr Elston: What were her instructions?
The Chair: Mr Elston, the time is coming to a close.
Mr Elston: To a close? Okay. What were her instructions as to how to deal with this?
Ms Colley: I think I went through the four things. She wanted me to telephone to Michael Decter and investigate basically whether there was any possible information leak or whatever from the ministry that would end up in the Toronto Sun. She wanted me to ascertain that nobody from our ministry staff had disseminated any information. She wanted me to check with other ministers' staff that this had not happened and she wanted a meeting at 8 o'clock the next morning to have the report back.
Mr Elston: In the situation where Ms Martel explained her actions by indicating that she had lied, and your subsequent investigations of your ministry and otherwise, are you satisfied with Ms Martel indicating that she had lied during the course of the meeting, recounted that she found the ministry had unacceptable practice concerns about Dr Donahue and that they were going to charge him -- do you think that her explanation of her having lied and having made up all that information was valid?
Ms Colley: Do you want my opinion?
Mr Elston: Yes. Well, you must have had a feeling about that, because you did the investigation, did you not?
Mr Cavalluzzo: Mr Chairman, I thought that was the very inquiry this committee was set up to decide.
Mr Elston: She was asked to investigate, Mr Cavalluzzo. Allow your --
Mr Cavalluzzo: So long as you are bound by the answer.
The Chair: I understand the concern, but again, Mr Elston has asked the question.
Mr Elston: What are you concerned about?
Mr Cavalluzzo: I am not concerned about anything. It is not a proper question, that is all. If she wants to answer it she can answer it.
The Chair: Excuse me. If Ms Colley wishes to respond to the question, certainly she can do so. There is in my view nothing improper with the question. I would just remind Mr Elston that the time has expired. I also remind members that we have allowed a certain line of questioning to end, and a latitude has been given but I would caution Mr --
Mr Elston: This is the final question on that line.
The Chair: Again, Mr Elston, if you would like to repose the question for Ms Colley, that is fine; or would you like to respond, Ms Colley?
Mr Elston: Do you want me to ask it again?
Ms Colley: Sure.
Mr Elston: You were asked to do an investigation by your minister.
Ms Colley: Yes.
Mr Elston: Were you satisfied after your investigation with the explanation by Ms Martel, that she had made up or that she had produced a lie in relation to her allegations about inappropriate practice by Donahue and by the fact that he would be charged? Do you think that was an acceptable explanation by Ms Martel as a result of your investigations in the ministry?
Ms Colley: Um, yes. I mean, I thought it was consistent with what I knew of the personality of Shelley Martel.
Mr Elston: Sorry, what? I would like to follow that up, but I know my time is out.
The Chair: Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr Elston, Ms Colley, Mr Cavalluzzo. That brings to an end the hearings for today. We will recess until 10 o'clock Monday morning in this room. The scheduling at that time will be announced, Mr Cavalluzzo and Ms Colley, to yourselves after we have had a subcommittee meeting, which we are now moving into. This meeting is adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1706.