INQUIRY RE MINISTRY OF
HEALTH INFORMATION
TIINA JARVALT
CONTENTS
Tuesday 3 March 1992
Inquiry re Ministry of Health information
Tiina Jarvalt
Robert Waddell
Sharon Murdock
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:
Klippenstein, Murray, Counsel, Iler, Campbell
LeDrew, Stephen, Cassels, Brock and Blackwell
Clerk / Greffier: Arnott, Douglas
Staff / Personnel: Jackson, Patricia, Committee Counsel
The committee met at 1010 in room 151.
INQUIRY RE MINISTRY OF HEALTH INFORMATION
TIINA JARVALT
The Chair: We will call the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly meeting to order for this morning's agenda of Tuesday, March 3. Members will have before them an agenda. Today we will be calling first Ms Tiina Jarvalt. Welcome.
Ms Jarvalt: Thank you.
The Chair: Ms Jarvalt, it has been the practice of these hearings that prior to the giving of testimony, the response to questions, that an oath be administered, and at this point in time I would like to invite the clerk to administer the oath.
Tiina Jarvalt, sworn.
The Chair: Ms Jarvalt, again it has been the practice that a warning be issued to anyone who does come before the committee as a witness, and that is that in the event you are asked a question that you cannot properly answer without divulging confidential information, we would ask you or your counsel to advise the committee, and if there is not a way to disclose this information without divulging information of a confidential nature, then the matter may be addressed in camera.
Before inviting Ms Jackson to commence questioning, I would ask if you could, for Hansard's purpose, introduce your counsel.
Mr LeDrew: I can introduce myself.
The Chair: That is good.
Mr LeDrew: My name is Stephen LeDrew. I am from Cassels, Brock and Blackwell.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr LeDrew.
Ms Jackson: Ms Jarvalt, you are the executive assistant to the Deputy Minister of Health, Mr Decter?
Ms Jarvalt: That is correct.
Ms Jackson: How long have you held that position?
Ms Jarvalt: I have held that position since the end of May of 1991 and I have been with Mr Decter since he commenced work in --
Ms Jackson: I am sorry, you are going to have to speak up. Can you lean a little closer to the mike?
Ms Jarvalt: I have been with Mr Decter since he started work in August and in that position previously since May of 1991.
Ms Jackson: All right. And as I understand it, you have been with the Ontario government for a number of years?
Ms Jarvalt: Yes, with the Ministry of Health for seven years.
Ms Jackson: All right. Now, within the deputy minister's office I understand that his personal secretary, the correspondence clerk, two temporary staff and the administrative assistant report to you?
Ms Jarvalt: That is correct.
Ms Jackson: And in November and December of 1991, the administrative assistant was Mary Doyle?
Ms Jarvalt: Correct.
Ms Jackson: Could you briefly, for the committee, describe your responsibilities as executive assistant?
Ms Jarvalt: Essentially to ensure the smooth functioning of the deputy's office, which entails reviewing and expediting the preparation of correspondence, dealing with incoming visitors, preparing or collecting information for the deputy as required.
Ms Jackson: Can I ask you to move your microphone? We seem not to be picking you up very well on this one.
The Chair: I would like that we could check to see if that microphone is picking it up and is operational.
We are advised that it might be better if you switched. You might want to move those exhibit books at this point. It might be easier down the line.
Ms Jackson: May I ask you to repeat that answer, Ms Jarvalt; that is, to briefly describe your responsibilities as executive assistant.
Ms Jarvalt: Essentially, to ensure the smooth functioning of activities in the deputy's office, which involves reviewing and expediting the preparation of correspondence, compiling or retrieving for the deputy information that he requires, dealing with incoming enquiries and supervising staff.
Ms Jackson: In respect of Dr Donahue, I understand that he came to the attention of your office some time in late October or early November in connection with correspondence announcing his office closing?
Ms Jarvalt: I do not recall specifically when, but there has been incoming correspondence about Dr Donahue.
Ms Jackson: And would it be within approximately that time frame of late October, early November of 1991?
Ms Jarvalt: I believe so.
Ms Jackson: And as well, as I understand it, some media clippings relating to Dr Donahue and the epilation issue and the closing of his office came into the deputy's office.
Ms Jarvalt: That is correct.
Ms Jackson: Now, your role in connection with that, as I understand it, was to see that the correspondence was directed to the appropriate people for response?
Ms Jarvalt: That is right.
Ms Jackson: And you had, as I understand it, no personal involvement in dealing with Dr Donahue's problem?
Ms Jarvalt: No, none at all.
Ms Jackson: It was not, at any point throughout the fall of 1991, a particular focus for you?
Ms Jarvalt: No, that is correct.
Ms Jackson: Now, in response to enquiries from our office, or I guess anticipated enquiries from our office, I understand that you instructed that e-mails with respect to this matter which you might have had on your system and which were deleted, be retrieved.
Ms Jarvalt: Yes, that was in response to, I believe, a request from Andrew Parr in relation to this inquiry. Every individual in the ministry who may have had some dealing with the threshold issue or Sudbury doctors was asked, once the inquiry was announced, to retrieve any related electronically transmitted information.
Ms Jackson: All right. Now, I have given the clerk -- and I would ask that we distribute -- a package of the e-mails that were restored in respect of this instruction.
The Chair: Those interoffice memorandums with the first date of February 7, 1992, at 12:54 pm will be marked as exhibit 79.
Ms Jackson: Now, Ms Jarvalt, just so we understand what we have before us here, there are a number of e-mails that are within the period November 8, 1991, to November 13, 1991, and each of them has a covering e-mail dated February 7, 1992, from "restore-restore." I understand that "restore-restore" is essentially the black hole where erased e-mails go. Is that about right?
Ms Jarvalt: That is the method that I use to retrieve these documents, because after reading them from my account, I deleted them. They are backed up by the system, and it is possible, not in every case but in most cases, to restore any deleted information from a user's account.
Ms Jackson: Now, can you describe for the committee exactly what instructions you gave that resulted in these e-mails being produced? What I am really wanting to know is, what e-mails did you ask to have retrieved?
Ms Jarvalt: Well, I believe I was given a period of time during which I was to retrieve information. I believe it was from the beginning of November until -- it was around the week of December 11, 12, that I actually put in the request to our systems branch. So they created a new account called "restore" and they sent back all e-mails that had been sent or received during that period of time.
Ms Jackson: All e-mails sent or received by you?
Ms Jarvalt: Exactly.
Ms Jackson: And would that include e-mails on which you were copied?
Ms Jarvalt: Yes, I believe so. This is all that came up. The system has one drawback. They do produce weekly and monthly backups of all information that is sent and received by users on the system, and there are about 2,000 at the Ministry of Health. But if a user deletes an e-mail prior to the backup having been performed, that is lost for ever. It is not possible to retrieve it.
Ms Jackson: How often is the backup performed?
Ms Jarvalt: I believe weekly there is a backup, and also monthly.
Ms Jackson: So if you were in the habit of deleting your e-mails daily, most of them would not be in the restore system?
Ms Jarvalt: I am in the habit of deleting quite frequently, because I get a large amount of e-mails, and the system capacity slows down to such an extent that the system is virtually useless to me if too many e-mails collect on my system.
Ms Jackson: Just back to the instruction that you gave that produced these. What was the subject matter or the reference for the e-mails in this period that you asked to have?
Ms Jarvalt: I asked them to send me everything.
Ms Jackson: Absolutely every e-mail you produced.
Ms Jarvalt: Absolutely everything.
Ms Jackson: Or received.
Ms Jarvalt: That is right.
Ms Jackson: And is this the sum total of that, or have you culled from the e-mails the ones that appear to you to be relevant?
Ms Jarvalt: These are the relevant e-mails, the ones dealing with thresholds, Sudbury doctors.
Ms Jackson: Or Dr Donahue?
Ms Jarvalt: Donahue, exactly.
Ms Jackson: And I take it from what you say, then, that these are e-mails that would have stayed on your system a little bit longer than usual, in that --
Ms Jarvalt: These are e-mails that I did not delete, and hence they were picked up by the backup process and were able to be restored.
Ms Jackson: So ordinarily, you delete e-mails approximately, what, daily, do you?
Ms Jarvalt: I do delete, yes, certain items daily.
1020
Ms Jackson: So these would be e-mails that stayed on past the usual daily deletions.
Ms Jarvalt: Exactly.
Ms Jackson: Now, included in those e-mails is one dated November 13, 1991, 3:07 pm, from Kimberley Bain. Sorry, wrong one. November 13, 1991, from Denise Allen to yourself, among others. This is the one at 3:55 pm. Do you have that one in front of you?
Ms Jarvalt: Yes, I do.
Ms Jackson: When you received this e-mail back on the 7th of February, did you recall that you had in fact received it in November?
Ms Jarvalt: Yes, I did. I believe I read this e-mail on November 14 some time late in the day. I had been out of the office on the 11th, 12th and 13th. I recall --
Ms Jackson: I am going to ask you about the circumstances, but I am just now wanting to understand, when you saw this on February 7, you remembered that you had seen it before?
Ms Jarvalt: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Had you had an independent recollection of seeing it before, prior to receiving it back on February 7?
Ms Jarvalt: Just that it looked familiar. I had seen it. I had read it initially.
Ms Jackson: All right. Now, I am going to ask you about the circumstances surrounding that. But just to understand what else you might have seen that seems not to have come up in this search, could I ask you to turn -- well, some of these do not relate to e-mails -- but could I ask you to turn to exhibit 10 in the black volumes in front of you.
Ms Jarvalt: These are transcripts.
Ms Jackson: That is a transcript. I am going to ask you about a couple of things that are not e-mails and then I am going to ask you about the e-mails. Exhibit 10 is the transcript of an interview with Dr Donahue.
Mr LeDrew: Which exhibit 10?
Ms Jackson: It should be under tab 10.
Mr LeDrew: Of Monday the 17th of February?
Ms Jackson: November 8th.
Ms Jarvalt: I think we have the wrong binder.
Ms Jackson: I think you are looking in the Hansard binders. There is a big black binder of exhibits there and I am looking at an exhibit which is in fact a transcript of a television interview.
Mr LeDrew: MediaReach?
Ms Jackson: That is the one. Have you seen that or did you see that in November, Ms Jarvalt?
Ms Jarvalt: I do not recall specifically.
Ms Jackson: All right. At tab 11, there is a MediaReach interview with Dr Donahue on November 13. Have you seen that?
Ms Jarvalt: Again, I do not recall specifically.
Ms Jackson: And at tab 14, there is a briefing note of November 14, 1991, concerning a dermatologist in Sudbury. Have you seen that?
Ms Jarvalt: No, again I do not recall.
Ms Jackson: And if you could turn to tab 28, there is an e-mail of November 12 from Larry Corea which is copied to a number of people, including yourself. Do you recall whether you saw that?
Ms Jarvalt: No, I am sorry, I do not. I have obviously received it since I was cc'd on it.
Ms Jackson: But you do not remember it?
Ms Jarvalt: No.
Ms Jackson: Similarly at tab 30, there is another e-mail that is apparently copied to you. Do you recall if you received that?
Ms Jarvalt: No, I am sorry, I do not.
Ms Jackson: And at tab 31, an e-mail from Dr MacMillan copied to you; do you recall if you received that?
Ms Jarvalt: No, I do not.
Ms Jackson: And at tab 33, from Larry Corea on November 28, an e-mail copied to you; do you recall if you received that?
Ms Jarvalt: No, I am sorry, I do not recall.
Ms Jackson: And then if you could go to exhibit 48, that is a fax of an announcement of Dr Donahue's office closure. Do you recall if you saw that?
Ms Jarvalt: No, I have not seen this.
Ms Jackson: Have not seen that?
Ms Jarvalt: I have not seen this.
Ms Jackson: And then there is an e-mail at tab 50 from Susan Colley to Larry Corea, parts of which have been edited out. Do you recall if you saw that?
Ms Jarvalt: No, I have not seen this.
Ms Jackson: You have not seen it, or you do not recall whether you saw it? One or the other?
Ms Jarvalt: No. I am quite certain I have not seen this.
Ms Jackson: Now, the e-mail of November 13, 1991, at 3:55 from Denise Allen that we were looking at a moment ago: You have indicated you recall seeing that on November 14. In the second paragraph of the e-mail there is reference to a profile of Dr Donahue which is to be delivered separately to each of you, along with transcripts of Dr Donahue's interviews. Do you recall receiving that package?
Ms Jarvalt: No, I did not receive that package.
Ms Jackson: Do you recall whether you did? Are you saying you did not, or that you do not recall whether you did or you did not?
Ms Jarvalt: I know I have not received the package.
Ms Jackson: Given that you have told us there were a number of e-mails that came to you that you do not recall receiving --
Ms Jarvalt: I do not recall receiving that package.
Ms Jackson: So you do not recall receiving it but you might have? You have no recollection of it?
Ms Jarvalt: Not personally. It may have been left in my office or in the deputy's office, but I personally do not recall seeing it.
Ms Jackson: Indeed, as I understand it, you have been told by someone that it was delivered to your office, is that correct?
Ms Jarvalt: That is correct.
Ms Jackson: Who told you that?
Ms Jarvalt: I believe it was Paul Howard. He said that it had been delivered to the deputy's office. So he did not say it had been delivered to my office, but perhaps to the outer office.
Ms Jackson: Have you made inquiries within your office as to whether anyone recalls seeing it?
Ms Jarvalt: Yes, definitely. I asked all five members of the staff and no one recalls having seen it.
Ms Jackson: Those would include Mary Doyle, who is copied on this e-mail?
Ms Jarvalt: Correct.
Ms Jackson: Does Mary Doyle recall receiving this e-mail?
Ms Jarvalt: She recalls receiving the e-mail, but she does not recall having received or seen the package.
Ms Jackson: If it was delivered to you -- and there has been some suggestion in the evidence that it was -- where would it go?
Ms Jarvalt: It could have been left in the outer office, the reception area, where the secretary sits, Bessie Callitsis, and the correspondence clerk. There is a large table there. Incoming items for the deputy are left there because they are date-stamped and they would be logged. Or on occasion things are left in my office for the deputy, but if that is the case, if they are for the deputy, destined for him, I would then give them to either Mary Doyle or Anita Alfred, our correspondence clerk, and she would log them.
Ms Jackson: You have said they may be logged. As I understand it, they are not necessarily logged when they are coming to you.
Ms Jarvalt: That is correct.
Ms Jackson: So it is not possible to determine from looking at a record whether or not this package was delivered to you?
Ms Jarvalt: We did check a record to see if in fact anything of this nature had been logged; nothing had been.
Ms Jackson: The fact that it has not been logged does not mean it was not delivered, as I understand it.
Ms Jarvalt: Exactly.
Ms Jackson: If it was delivered to you and was put in your office, I take it it would be unusual for somebody to go in your office and retrieve it without telling you? Or would it?
Ms Jarvalt: It would be unusual for that to happen.
Ms Jackson: Have you had any information as to whether anybody did?
Ms Jarvalt: No. No one in the office recalls having seen anyone the evening of the 13th or the morning of the 14th in my office retrieving anything.
Ms Jackson: Given that this is an item that, as you have said, was not a focus for you -- and it is clear you were getting an enormous number of e-mails that made no particular impression on you; I do not mean that they should have -- I am going to suggest to you that it is at least possible that this package was delivered to you and seen by you but you do not recall it.
Ms Jarvalt: I do not recall having seen the package.
Ms Jackson: But it is possible that you did and do not recall?
Ms Jarvalt: It is unlikely, because I was out of the office on the 13th. I was at a meeting until around 5 o'clock. I did not return to the office until the following morning, on the 14th. I was not the first person in the office that morning, because I had had a small car accident. So I was in the office around 9, 9:15, and I certainly do not recall having seen it, especially since I believe it was Paul Howard who mentioned to me that he thinks something was delivered and possibly it was retrieved. I would not have seen it the morning of the 14th.
Ms Jackson: Since we are talking about something that may or may not have been delivered or picked up -- I mean, you do not have any personal knowledge of that, is that fair?
Ms Jarvalt: That is correct.
Ms Jackson: So we cannot say with certainty, "At a particular time it was picked up." Is that fair?
Ms Jarvalt: That is true.
Ms Jackson: I am just trying to understand what we can rule out here and what we cannot. Is it not at least possible that when you came in on the 14th it was there and you saw it, but it was not of any significance to you and you now cannot recall?
Ms Jarvalt: Well, I do not recall having seen it, but I guess it is possible.
Ms Jackson: There is no method, as I understand it, from the inquiries you have made, of determining with any certainty what did happen to this?
Ms Jarvalt: That is correct.
Ms Jackson: Whether it was delivered and whether it was picked up?
Ms Jarvalt: That is correct.
Ms Jackson: Let me take you forward to the day of Monday, December 9, which is the day on which the matter of Shelley Martel and her conversation in Thunder Bay was discussed in the Legislature for the first time. That morning, did you have a conversation which alerted you to that fact?
Ms Jarvalt: Yes. I had noted in my calendar that at 11:20 I had a briefing with Kimberly Bain, our contentious issues manager, and a briefing coordinator. Then at 11:30 we commenced a meeting with the minister.
1030
Ms Jackson: Did this meeting with Kimberly Bain relate to the incident in Thunder Bay?
Ms Jarvalt: I asked Kimberly Bain about that, because she keeps records of all information that she presents to the minister at the pre-House briefing sessions, and she in fact provided me with a copy of a briefing note on thresholds that was provided to the minister that day in the pre-House briefing. The meeting at 11:20: I spoke with Kimberly yesterday. She recalls that she advised me of an incident on the previous Friday regarding a Dodds at an event where the deputy was giving a speech, that an issue regarding the threshold and Donahue had been raised, but what specifically was discussed I am afraid I do not recall.
Ms Jackson: Apart from your having discussed this with Kimberly Bain, you had no independent recollection of this at all.
Ms Jarvalt: Exactly.
Ms Jackson: Have you made inquiries as to whether there was anything provided in writing concerning this incident?
Ms Jarvalt: Yes, I did. I asked Kimberly Bain to provide me with all priority briefings that were brought into the pre-House briefing session on Monday the 9th, and I provided my counsel with copies of this.
Ms Jackson: As I understand it, none of those relate to the incident in Thunder Bay.
Ms Jarvalt: That is correct.
Ms Jackson: All right. We were told yesterday by the deputy that he was asked by the minister when this incident was raised with her to make inquiries as to whether any confidential information had made its way out of the ministry, and he suggested he might have involved you in that investigation. Do you recall making any inquiries in answer to that request from the minister?
Ms Jarvalt: I vaguely recall that in follow-up to the meeting with the minister on Monday the 9th from 11:30 I was asked to ensure that no confidential information had been provided in a priority briefing, and I was asked to call Dr Bob MacMillan. I vaguely recall calling Dr MacMillan. He assured me verbally over the phone that that was the case, but as is usual when I am following up on items for the deputy, especially if they relate to items raised at the minister's meetings, I asked him to provide me his answer in writing, and he subsequently sent me an electronic message, an e-mail message, that was received on December 10. It was sent to Michael Decter and to me, and the reason that it was not retrieved in my account when I asked the systems people to do that is that likely I read and I deleted that e-mail message the same day and it would not have been picked up in the backup.
Ms Jackson: You have said you vaguely recall talking to Dr MacMillan. Does that mean you might have talked to him, you might not have talked to him?
Ms Jarvalt: Well, I think I called him. I do not have any record of follow-up action from the meeting.
Ms Jackson: What is your best recollection of the specific question you put to him?
Ms Jarvalt: "Has any confidential information been given in priority briefings that would violate FOI regulations?"
Ms Jackson: Do you recall why you limited the inquiry to priority briefings?
Ms Jarvalt: No, I do not.
Ms Jackson: You have this morning provided me through your counsel with a copy of what you received from Dr MacMillan. Could we circulate that, Mr Chairman, and mark it as the next exhibit. That will be exhibit number 80.
The Chair: Yes, that is marked as exhibit number 80, and it is an interoffice memorandum of three pages, commencing with the date December 10, 1991.
Mr Conway: If I might, Mr Chairman, did we number that batch of e-mails?
Ms Jackson: That is 79.
The Chair: That is 79.
Mr Conway: Thank you.
Ms Jackson: That is the answer that you received from Dr MacMillan the following day.
Ms Jarvalt: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And as we see, it was also sent to Mr Decter.
Ms Jarvalt: Correct.
Ms Jackson: Thank you, Ms Jarvalt. Mr Chairman, those are my questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Jackson. We will commence questioning with members of the government side. Are there any questions? No questions. We will now move to members of the opposition. Mr Elston. I would like to remind members that the time limit is 20 minutes per caucus.
Mr Elston: Thanks very much, Mr Chairman. I have a couple of questions and they actually revolve around something that I have not heard you speak about, but I did not come in right at the beginning of this whole thing, so if I am repeating questions, please advise me.
I am interested in the morning of December 9. I spoke yesterday with the deputy minister. He had been advised, he told us, on the previous Saturday about a misadventure that Miss Martel had gone through, not with any specifics that encouraged him to contact the minister. Were there any special instructions given to you on the morning of the 9th of December to prepare for instructing Ms Lankin about the episode that Mr Decter found out about on Saturday? Do you recall?
Ms Jarvalt: No, not that I recall.
Mr Elston: Was there anything delivered to you that would encourage you to get priority briefings put in place to discuss the issue at all?
Ms Jarvalt: No, not that I recall.
Mr Elston: So you had no instructions from Mr Decter that would prepare the deputy minister's office to brief the minister about a possible problem.
Ms Jarvalt: No, not that I recall.
Mr Elston: None whatsoever?
Ms Jarvalt: No.
Mr Elston: Did you have a meeting with Mr Decter that morning?
Ms Jarvalt: Only a meeting involving the minister which commenced at 10:30, and I recall that only from having checked my calendar.
Mr Elston: It started at 10:30 --
Ms Jarvalt: At 11:30, sorry.
Mr Elston: So it started at 11:30?
Ms Jarvalt: Yes.
Mr Elston: Were you present at that meeting?
Ms Jarvalt: Yes, and present at --
Mr Elston: Had anything been mentioned in the meeting about the message to Mr Decter?
Ms Jarvalt: Not that I recall.
Mr Elston: You were, at all times during this episode, I guess from the 6th of August at any rate, the executive assistant --
Ms Jarvalt: That is correct.
Mr Elston: -- to the deputy minister. Can you tell me, were you involved in following along with the decisions about epilation and other issues facing the underserviced area program physicians?
Ms Jarvalt: No, I was not.
Mr Elston: Can you describe your role, then, with respect to those?
Ms Jarvalt: Essentially actioning out to individuals to prepare or to compile information, to ensure that it is received by the deputy on the deadline that he set. Essentially to expedite.
Mr Elston: You are not there to make decisions.
Ms Jarvalt: No.
Mr Elston: But merely to transmit the decisions or requests for information.
Ms Jarvalt: That is correct.
Mr Elston: Can you recall the preparations that were going on around the meeting of December 5th?
Ms Jarvalt: For the deputy's visit.
Mr Elston: That is correct, to Sudbury.
Ms Jarvalt: Yes.
Mr Elston: Do you remember what materials were required for that?
Ms Jarvalt: Not specifically, but I do recall that an information package was put together. The communications branch was involved and Eugene LeBlanc, and they were the preparers of the information.
Mr Elston: You yourself were not involved in preparing?
Ms Jarvalt: No.
Mr Elston: Were you involved at all in transmitting the types of information that were to be prepared or that was to be prepared?
Ms Jarvalt: No. A lot of the information was brought directly to the deputy.
Mr Elston: So your involvement in that is --
Ms Jarvalt: Nil.
Mr Elston: -- limited. Okay. I am interested in the communications that go on between the minister's office and the deputy minister's office. Can you describe for us the contact points, if I can put it at that, between the two offices? Who speaks with whom and at what level of gravity would the communications occur at those levels, if I can describe issues in that light?
Ms Jarvalt: The deputy speaks most frequently with Sue Colley and with the minister, but that does not preclude any other member of the staff from the minister's office from speaking with the deputy or from his going over to their office and having a meeting either individually or, as part of a regular meeting with the minister, individuals might be called in from her staff or from the bureaucracy -- as was the case on the morning of the 9th when we had the regular meeting with the minister; Eugene LeBlanc would have been called in.
Mr Elston: Would Sue Colley talk directly to you at all?
Ms Jarvalt: Very seldom.
Mr Elston: So Sue Colley basically was in communication mostly with the deputy minister or would be at most times?
Ms Jarvalt: That is correct.
Mr Elston: And she would be the primary point of contact, other than the minister.
Ms Jarvalt: Other than the minister; that is right.
Mr Elston: Would Larry Corea have had any contact with the deputy at all?
Ms Jarvalt: Not that I am aware. Very seldom did he come to the deputy's office.
Mr Elston: And your contact with the minister's office was really just through --
Ms Jarvalt: Through Sue Colley primarily.
Mr Elston: Through Sue Colley. Was there at any time any exchange of information between you and Sue Colley concerning Dr Donahue?
Ms Jarvalt: No, not that I recall.
Mr Elston: Not that you recall?
Ms Jarvalt: No.
Mr Elston: Do you remember at any time arranging meetings between the deputy minister and any members of the ministry -- I guess this may or may not be something that you can advise us; if it is going to take you into confidential material, let us know -- that focused on the issue of epilation, the effect of deinsuring it and the people for whom it would cause most difficulty?
Ms Jarvalt: No, I do not recall arranging such meetings. The deputy's secretary normally would be the one arranging meetings. That would be Bessie Callitsis.
Mr Elston: So you would not be in a position to sit in on any of those meetings or to arrange them. You were merely expediting materials that would come up.
Ms Jarvalt: Correct, unless the deputy would specifically request that I be present, but I do not recall having been present at any meeting where those issues that you have mentioned would have been discussed.
1040
Mr Elston: Well, we have just heard from the deputy that the epilation issue had been one of abiding interest. It had first gained his attention from an article that was given to him, I suspect given to him anyway, when he was first involved with the ministry as a consultation. He had, I think, given us an article yesterday from October 1990. Do you recall what sorts of materials Mr Decter was arranging to receive as he was grappling as deputy minister with deinsuring epilation?
Ms Jarvalt: No. I am afraid I do not recall.
Mr Elston: Do you recall whether or not Mr Decter was engaged with the issue of epilation around the middle of November?
Ms Jarvalt: Well, from the priority briefings that I would have seen at the pre-House briefing that were brought by Kimberly Bain, who had actually actioned and compiled them, I believe epilation was a topic.
Mr Elston: Was a topic.
Ms Jarvalt: But other than that I really do not recall specifically.
Mr Elston: I am just trying to understand how this issue was being decided in the deputy's office and yet people do not seem to be able to recall how this information was coming to them, and the deputy was not able yesterday. I know that you were not making the decisions but you are not quite able to communicate what materials were coming to him. I am wondering how we might understand how it was that the minister's office was trying to get information about Dr Donahue and about the cap or threshold, whatever it is called in the ministry, and nobody seems to be able to recall what information was being tracked. Were you ever contacted by Sue Colley to get information about the Sudbury situation?
Ms Jarvalt: No. Never.
Mr Elston: Nothing for Mr Laughren or Ms Martel?
Ms Jarvalt: No, not that I recall specifically.
Mr Elston: So all the contacts were being done directly to the deputy minister. Were you asked by the deputy to expedite getting information?
Ms Jarvalt: As was the case when we had the meeting on the 9th, when we meet with the minister, any follow-up items I would be the one responsible for calling or contacting the appropriate individual. Once I was able to find this electronic message I recalled that, yes, I did speak with Dr MacMillan and asked him to, as I mentioned, indicate whether confidential information had been supplied in a priority briefing. As I mentioned before, typically I would ask them to follow up in writing with comment or with a response that they had given to the deputy.
Mr Elston: You become in a way a bit of a clearinghouse for all the logistics of pulling this information together, do you not?
Ms Jarvalt: Yes, I do.
Mr Elston: Those are my questions, but Mr Conway has --
The Chair: Mr Conway.
Mr Conway: Thank you very much. I am just looking at the information, Ms Jarvalt, that has been provided in exhibits 79 and 80. For me one of the central pieces of information is what we know as exhibit 44, the Teatero memoranda of November 13, one of which was sent, I think, at 11:41, and a second one was sent, I think, at 2:40 in the afternoon.
You have helpfully provided us with exhibit 79, and what I find interesting about exhibit 79 is that approximately one hour after the second of those Teatero memoranda arrived and no more than four hours after the first one arrives, we know the following now, and that is that Denise and Maurice -- Denise Jones and Maurice Allen --
Ms Jarvalt: No. Denise Allen and Maurice Jones.
Mr Conway: That is right. Thank you. Two communications people in the ministry are contacting yourself, Eugene LeBlanc, Dr MacMillan, Mary Doyle, Diane McArthur and Paul Howard of the minister's personal staff to tell you all that down in the bowels of the Ministry of Health, "We have a profile of Dr Donahue from the health insurance division at Kingston." I would take that to be the contents of exhibit 44.
I am just simply looking at the information that you have provided, and it seems to me not unreasonable to assume that these two people from the ministry's communications department are telling the deputy's office, the minister's office, Dr MacMillan's office, that by 3:55 pm on the afternoon of November 13, 1991, roughly four hours after the first of those memoranda arrived, they "have a `profile' of Dr Donahue from the health insurance division...which we are delivering separately to each of you" along with transcripts of the CBC Radio and MCTV interviews in Sudbury, because of course there is interest in Sudbury on this question. I just simply raise that because you are one of the people who is e-mailed here. You say that you do not have any memory of that arriving.
Ms Jarvalt: Well, I would not have seen it on the 13th; I am sure of that.
Mr Conway: I understand that.
Ms Jarvalt: And I do not recall.
Mr Conway: The reason I ask that, because I heard what you said earlier to committee counsel, is that the next morning, we know from earlier testimony -- committee counsel can correct me if I am wrong, but as I recall Dr MacMillan's testimony and I think the testimony of Mr LeBlanc, the next morning, I think it was in Dr LeBlanc's office, Dr MacMillan is in town. He sees these memoranda, expresses some very real concern and orders their recall. My words, not his, but I think they are generally accurate.
What I would like you to help me with is back to the morning of November 14, just after these events occurred. I think you told Mr Elston or committee counsel that you had had a little car accident on the morning of the 14th, so you were delayed in getting to the office.
Ms Jarvalt: That is correct.
Mr Conway: What do you remember, if anything, about the comings and goings around Dr LeBlanc's office? Do you remember, for example, Dr MacMillan being around and about the place on the morning of the 14th?
Ms Jarvalt: No, I do not. I had not noted in my calendar either that there was any meeting scheduled. I have checked that, my calendar for the 14th. I do not recall anything specific or out of the ordinary for the morning of the 14th.
Mr Conway: You had not heard anything about his being in Mr LeBlanc's -- pardon me; it is Dr LeBlanc too, I think -- in Dr LeBlanc's office? You heard nothing of the activity over there particularly as it concerned Dr MacMillan's concern about the Teatero memoranda?
Ms Jarvalt: No. I do not recall any information. Not a word.
Mr Conway: How far is Dr LeBlanc's office from --
Ms Jarvalt: Two floors down.
Mr Conway: Pardon me?
Ms Jarvalt: I believe he is two floors down.
Mr Conway: Oh, so he is not on your floor. He is down.
Ms Jarvalt: We are on the 10th floor. I believe he is on the 8th.
Mr Conway: So I should understand then that on the 14th and the 15th, you did not hear anything about what Dr MacMillan had ordered?
Ms Jarvalt: Not that I specifically recall. The deputy most usually meets with individuals in his office, but it is not unlikely for him to go to the office of another individual with whom he is meeting, as in the case of the minister's office or minister's staff. So I would not be aware of his comings and goings. My office is not situated in such a position that I could actually see that.
Mr Conway: I am interested because you were apparently copied on this famous --
Ms Jarvalt: That is right. My name is right there.
Mr Conway: The other witnesses -- particularly Dr MacMillan created the impression with me that he was concerned, and he either directly or through Diane McArthur ordered those recalled as quickly as possible. But nobody ever, ever spoke to you about, "Give me your copy back"?
Ms Jarvalt: No. When this was first brought to my attention, and my calendar would note that that was some time during the week of December 9, 10 or 11, it was Paul Howard, I believe, who brought this to my attention. He came to me with a copy of this memo, the November 13, 3:55 e-mail. He said, "Have you seen this? Have you seen the profile?" I said, "No, let me check." So I went to my system. I could not find it on my system. Subsequently, I had it retrieved by the system's people. So I found the e-mail and started asking the staff in the office whether in fact something called a profile or anything from Deni Allen or Eugene LeBlanc had been delivered to our office. No one could recall ever having seen anything delivered to the office.
Mr Conway: It seems almost this is kind of a Bermuda triangle into which this fell. This is real hot stuff. From the point of view of the inquiry, this is, like, the stuff. This is the stuff of the profile, the stuff of the memorandum, and you are telling me that you have no memory that you were copied in a way that exhibit 79 suggests and that you do not remember until weeks -- well, you did not know for -- you heard nothing of what had gone on in Dr LeBlanc's office on the 14th?
Ms Jarvalt: That is correct.
1050
Mr Conway: And the deputy never spoke to you about that concern.
Ms Jarvalt: Not that I can specifically -- no, not that I can recall.
Mr Conway: Then we move to exhibit 80, and I just want to make a point. Again, I find this is helpful information that we will probably take up with Dr MacMillan when he reappears, as I believe he will. I notice, and I just wanted to put this on the record, that according to exhibit 80, because of the seriousness of the allegation -- I will call it the Dodds allegation -- the conference of the morning of Friday, December 6, Dr MacMillan phoned Paul Howard of the Minister of Health's office and MaryLou Murray of the Minister of Northern Development's office to inform them. And he did so, according to that, apparently on the afternoon of the conference. So I would rightly take that to read that some time on the afternoon of Friday, December 6, Dr MacMillan phoned those people in those two offices, in Ms Lankin's office and Ms Martel's office, to tell them of what had happened at the conference that morning.
Ms Jarvalt: Mm-hmm.
Mr Conway: In the preparation of exhibit 80, you never heard from Dr MacMillan about the circumstances of his concern on the morning of November 14. He did not indicate to you or to any of your staff what he told this committee a few weeks ago he did on that morning.
Ms Jarvalt: Not that I can recall; I am sorry.
Mr Conway: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr Elston, for our few minutes remaining.
Mr Elston: Paul Howard had the memo --
Ms Jarvalt: The November 13, 3:55 e-mail.
Mr Elston: He had that November 13 e-mail but he did not have the profile.
Ms Jarvalt: No, it was the e-mail that he brought to my attention.
Mr Elston: Did he inquire -- or maybe I should inquire. The memo itself, was it available to anybody else? It had not been sent by e-mail, I guess. It was a hard copy that had been delivered to people. Is that the result of your investigation, do you know?
Ms Jarvalt: Which memo are you referring to?
Mr Elston: This is the Teatero -- I presume that is the profile that Paul was asking whether or not you had.
Ms Jarvalt: When he mentioned it to me, I had no idea what "profile" meant. I did not know what he was seeking. I just wanted to start by first of all signing this e-mail and then tracking it from there.
Mr Elston: Would anybody have been able to recall the profile or the e-mail at will if they knew how to operate your system, once it was collected back by Dr MacMillan?
Ms Jarvalt: Well, if it was a hard copy and if in fact it was removed, I guess only from the individual who had in fact removed it. Or are you suggesting that we treat them like --
Mr Elston: I was intrigued by your meeting with Paul Howard. His investigating, I guess, as a communications person around the minister's office would be quite understandable. But then going into the deputy minister's office to inquire of you is an interesting -- so do you know, was Paul Howard in charge of this investigation?
Ms Jarvalt: No, not that I am aware. I just assumed that he came to me because he said: "Your name and mine, they are on this e-mail that was sent by Deni Allen. Supposedly we were to receive a copy of this information. Did you get it?" I said no.
Mr Elston: It was a matter of sort of personal curiosity as much as anything else.
Ms Jarvalt: Yes.
Mr Elston: You had not remembered seeing it. Had he said that he had seen it at all, do you remember?
Ms Jarvalt: No. I remember him mentioning to me that he was also out of the office. That was the week of the OHA convention, and a lot of the members of the staff were out on the 11th and the 12th. The 13th I was out most of the day attending two meetings on the deputy's behalf. On the 13th I arrived in after 9 o'clock, so it was not -- items of importance that should be brought to my attention, my staff usually place on my chair, and I do not recall anything being on my chair.
The Chair: Mr Elston, one final question.
Mr Elston: Okay, just one last question. When the investigation was launched into all of these e-mails and the possibility of release of personal information, did the deputy ask you to do the investigation, or how was that investigation launched and what steps did you take?
Ms Jarvalt: No, I was not asked to lead or participate in arranging the investigation. I believe it was the FOI coordinator, Andrew Parr. He asked everyone who could remotely have been involved, especially everyone who had received the November 13 e-mail, to retrieve from the system any electronic messages they had received or sent and any other pertinent files, and I have done that to the best of my ability.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Elston. We will now move to Mr Harnick.
Mr Harnick: Just briefly, who is Paul Howard?
Ms Jarvalt: He is the communications adviser.
Mr Harnick: Now, is he a political appointment or is he a --
Ms Jarvalt: I believe so.
Mr Harnick: He is a political appointment.
Ms Jarvalt: Well, he works in the minister's office for the minister. I believe he is a political appointment.
Mr Harnick: All right. So he would be on the same staff basically as Larry Corea.
Ms Jarvalt: Yes, I believe that is correct.
Mr Harnick: And they would be political appointees to the minister.
Ms Jarvalt: I believe that is correct.
Mr Harnick: As distinct from you, who -- I believe you are the executive assistant of the deputy minister.
Ms Jarvalt: Right, and a civil servant.
Mr Harnick: I see. Now, I am a little bit miffed because Larry Corea, and I believe Dr LeBlanc, said that Paul Howard was, I believe, away painting his house on the 13th of November.
The Chair: I just beg the committee's indulgence on --
Mr Harnick: I just want to -- there was some evidence that he was not present on the 13th of November.
Ms Jarvalt: I am sorry, I missed that. Would you mind repeating that, please?
Mr Harnick: I believe that the earlier evidence -- I could be mistaken --
Mr Hope: You are.
The Chair: Excuse me --
Mr Harnick: I see that Mr Mills is nodding affirmatively, because it is obviously his recollection as well that Mr Howard, we heard, was not there on the 13th of November.
The Chair: There is a memo --
Ms Jackson: I do not personally recall that evidence. You may be right. There is an indication in exhibit 79 that he was not here on the 14th and the 15th and I certainly recall evidence to the effect that he was not there on the 14th.
Mr Harnick: That was the information I recall, that he was off painting his house.
Ms Jackson: I think the question is whether it was -- you are raising the question whether it is the Wednesday, Thursday and Friday or just the Thursday and Friday. I am afraid I cannot help you.
Mr Harnick: All right.
Ms Jarvalt: I cannot help you on that point because --
Mr Harnick: But from exhibit 79 --
Ms Jarvalt: And in that package there is an e-mail from Paul Howard, November 13, 6:16 pm. It says, "Deni and Maurice, I am away Thursday and Friday," so that implies he was away on the 14th and the 15th.
Mr Harnick: So that he was there on the 13th and in all likelihood he received this e-mail of the 13th of November at 3:55 pm, I gather.
Ms Jarvalt: I really have no idea what Paul Howard's schedule is. It is not something that is shared with the deputy's office.
Mr Harnick: I just want to be sure, though, this information about "we have a profile of Dr Donahue" and it was distributed to Paul Howard -- he was one of the people who it was directed to, I gather.
Ms Jarvalt: To whom it would be delivered, correct.
Mr Harnick: Yes. And in fact, this is asking for someone to go on a radio program for Morning North on the Thursday or Friday, is that correct?
Ms Jarvalt: As I understand from this e-mail, yes.
Mr Harnick: Yes. And then he would have responded to that where he says "I am away Thursday and Friday."
Ms Jarvalt: It seems to be a response to that e-mail since it is addressed to Deni Allen, yes.
Mr Harnick: So that at the very least we know that Paul Howard knew that a profile of Dr Donahue had been prepared and existed.
Ms Jarvalt: Well, was going to be delivered, I think.
Mr Harnick: Yes. Have you ever discussed with him whether this profile ever came to him?
Ms Jarvalt: He was the one who initiated that discussion with me during the week of December 9. I have the date noted in my calendar, which I have provided to my counsel. He came to me with a copy of the November 13 e-mail, and as I mentioned previously when Mr Elston had a question, he asked me, have I see this e-mail, have I see this information that was supposedly going to be delivered to us, and I said no.
Mr Harnick: What was the date that you had that discussion with him?
1100
Ms Jarvalt: Tuesday the 10th.
Mr Harnick: The 10th.
Ms Jarvalt: Some time in the evening after 6 o'clock.
Mr Harnick: This would be the 10th of December?
Ms Jarvalt: Of December. That is correct.
Mr Harnick: And that profile, just so I am not confused, was exhibit 44?
Ms Jarvalt: I am afraid I do not know.
Mr Harnick: Perhaps you could take a look at exhibit 44 and tell us.
Ms Jarvalt: Well, this is certainly listed under the tab 44, but since I do not recall having seen the profile, I cannot verify whether in fact that was the information that was going to be delivered to me by Deni Allen.
Mr Harnick: Well, can you take a read of exhibit 44 and tell me, please, if that is the information that you discussed with Paul Howard in your discussion on the 10th.
Ms Jarvalt: We did not discuss any information. The only thing that Paul asked me is if I had received what the November 13 e-mail had led me to believe I was going to be receiving. But I do not recall ever having seen the item in exhibit 44 and I certainly cannot indicate whether that is in fact the profile.
Mr Harnick: When he had the discussion with you on the 10th of December, he had a profile with him?
Ms Jarvalt: No, he did not. The only piece of paper he had with him during our discussion was a copy of this November 13 e-mail from Deni Allen.
Mr Harnick: Did he ever indicate to you that as of the 10th of December he had that profile?
Ms Jarvalt: No, he did not.
Mr Harnick: What did he say to you?
Ms Jarvalt: I believe he said to me: "I don't recall having received this. Did you receive this?" I said: "No, I certainly don't. Let me first of all find the e-mail." And when I saw the e-mail and asked the staff in the office, nobody recalled ever having seen any material from Deni Allen, or in fact from any of the other players on this e-mail message, that might have been delivered to my office on the evening of the 13th.
Mr Harnick: Just so I am clear, Paul Howard, we know, received this document --
Ms Jarvalt: Which one are you referring to?
Mr Harnick: -- that we have as exhibit 79.
Ms Jarvalt: The e-mail of November 13?
Mr Harnick: Right.
Ms Jarvalt: Yes.
Mr Harnick: But he never indicated to you that he had received the profile.
Ms Jarvalt: That is correct. He never indicated that. In fact, he said, I think: "I have never seen this. Have you?" For some reason, I remember that being his question when he showed me a copy of the e-mail.
Mr Harnick: Did you have any other discussion with him about Dr Donahue?
Ms Jarvalt: No, not that I can recall.
Mr Harnick: All right. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Harnick, and thank you, Ms Jarvalt. That completes the questioning. I would like to thank you very much for attending before us, thanking you and your counsel.
Ms Jarvalt: You are welcome.
ROBERT WADDELL
The Chair: I would now like to call Mr Robert Waddell. Good morning, Mr Waddell. Mr Robert Waddell is on the agenda as the constituency assistant to the constituency office of Sharon Murdock. Mr Waddell, it has been the practice of this committee that before questioning commences, an oath be administered, and I would ask the clerk to do so.
Robert Waddell, sworn.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Waddell. Again, I would like to advise you and your counsel that in the event you are asked a question which you cannot properly answer without divulging confidential information, could you please advise this committee. If there is not a way to disclose that information without divulging information of a confidential nature, then that matter may be addressed in camera. I would ask you or your counsel to introduce yourself for the purposes of Hansard.
Mr Klippenstein: My name is Murray Klippenstein.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I would now ask Ms Jackson to commence questioning.
Ms Jackson: Mr Waddell, as the chairman has indicated, you are one of the constituency assistants to Sharon Murdock, the MPP for Sudbury.
Mr Waddell: Yes, I am.
Ms Jackson: And I understand you have held that position, Mr Waddell, since September 1990.
Mr Waddell: Yes, I have.
Ms Jackson: Before that, for three years you were the president of the Ontario Council of Hospital Unions, and for 13 years before that you were in the housekeeping department of Laurentian Hospital in Sudbury.
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Mr Waddell, you work in Ms Murdock's office in Sudbury.
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Dealing with, in large measure, constituents' inquiries.
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: In the fall of 1991, and specifically in late October, did you become aware of an issue arising in relation to a Dr Donahue in Sudbury?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Can you tell the committee what your understanding of that issue was.
Mr Waddell: Dr Donahue had circulated a letter to his patients saying that he was being forced to close his office by the NDP government and the Ministry of Health.
Ms Jackson: Can you turn to exhibit 48, which is in the black volumes in front of you? The second page of that exhibit, Mr Waddell, is an announcement of an office closure. Is that the announcement you are referring to?
Mr Waddell: Yes, it is.
Ms Jackson: Did you see a copy of that in or around November 12?
Mr Waddell: The copies that we saw seem to have been on a mimeograph machine. We saw a copy that had been retyped at Floyd Laughren's office because the one we had was impossible to read.
Ms Jackson: So this one was retyped in Mr Laughren's office, was it? This says at the bottom, "Retyped for copying purposes."
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: What is your best recollection of when you first saw or heard of this announced office closing?
Mr Waddell: There had been rumours and reports on the local media that a local doctor was going to be closing his office.
Ms Jackson: When do you recall that being? Was it late October?
Mr Waddell: Late October, yes.
Ms Jackson: All right. As this became an issue, do you recall a meeting with Sharon Murdock and the other constituency assistants in which you discussed the issue of Dr Donahue and what you would say to constituents about that?
Mr Waddell: It was shortly before Remembrance Day.
Ms Jackson: What is your best recollection of what took place in that meeting?
Mr Waddell: We did a quick working of figures to figure out how much money Dr Donahue could have been making if he was coming to the end of his -- if he was approaching his threshold in November.
Ms Jackson: And you understood he was approaching his threshold?
Mr Waddell: That is what he had --
Ms Jackson: What calculation did you do?
Mr Waddell: He had been on the underserviced area program until June 1991, so it meant in about four months he had billed OHIP for close to $400,000, and being about a quarter of a year, we extrapolated that further and came out with about $1.5 million that he would be billing to OHIP over a year.
Ms Jackson: Do you specifically recall coming to the figure $1.5 million?
Mr Waddell: Rounded off, yes.
Ms Jackson: All right. Having come to that estimate of his gross billings, did you make any further calculations as to how much he was netting from that?
Mr Waddell: We worked it out roughly that he was somewhere around $800,000 after you subtracted his 14 employees and his overhead.
Ms Jackson: Do you remember how you came to that calculation?
Mr Waddell: Figures that Dr Donahue and the media supplied seemed to indicate that overhead was around -- for office expenses and what not -- was around 20% and wages for 14 people would work out to somewhere around $300,000-plus.
Ms Jackson: The combination produced a deduction from the $1.5 million of about -- well, 20% of $1.5 million would be $300,000, right?
Mr Waddell: Plus wages on top of that.
Ms Jackson: Plus $300,000 of wages would give you a net of $900,000. Is that about the number you came to?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: The purpose of doing this calculation was so that you could discuss Dr Donahue's situation with constituents?
1110
Mr Waddell: We were getting an awful lot of calls from constituents who were saying: "Give him what he wants, give him what he wants. We need him to stay."
Ms Jackson: Was the purpose of doing this calculation so that you could deal with those constituents?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And in particular that you could give them this calculation.
Mr Waddell: We did not get into it an awful lot, but we had it in the background that Dr Donahue was making a decent living doing what he did.
Ms Jackson: Well, you are saying you did not specifically discuss whether you would use these numbers in conversations with constituents.
Mr Waddell: No, we did not.
Ms Jackson: But, given that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss how you were going to deal with constituents, it would be a natural inference, would it not, that one of the things you might do with these numbers is discuss them with constituents?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: What else did you know as of the time of this meeting, which you have said was just before Remembrance Day, about the nature of Dr Donahue's practice?
Mr Waddell: We knew he was quite heavy into electrolysis.
Ms Jackson: How did you know that?
Mr Waddell: We had been approached in the fall of 1990 by aestheticians who were doing a concerted lobbying of MPPs across the province, protesting about government competition in their line of business, which was hair electrolysis.
Ms Jackson: We heard yesterday from Mr Decter about two groups of private electrolysis technicians, I guess, who were lobbying to have electrolysis de-listed from OHIP. Are those the people whom you are talking about?
Mr Waddell: One of those groups approached our office, yes.
Ms Jackson: And as a result of that, you learned that Dr Donahue was doing electrolysis.
Mr Waddell: I cannot remember them specifically mentioning Dr Donahue, but they did mention a dermatologist in town who was doing electrolysis and other doctors who were doing it.
Ms Jackson: And did you understand the reference to a dermatologist in town to be a reference to any particular person?
Mr Waddell: At that time, no.
Ms Jackson: Did you subsequently?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Whom did you understand it to refer to?
Mr Waddell: Dr Donahue.
Ms Jackson: Was he the only dermatologist in town?
Mr Waddell: There was another dermatologist, a Dr Rinne, who has been around for ages.
Ms Jackson: How did you know they were referring to Dr Donahue versus the other gentleman?
Mr Waddell: I knew Dr Rinne and he was an older gentleman and had a rather restricted practice.
Ms Jackson: And was not doing electrolysis?
Mr Waddell: Not to my knowledge.
Ms Jackson: All right. You have mentioned in that that you have identified Dr Donahue as a dermatologist, and I take it you obviously knew he was a dermatologist.
Mr Waddell: He had been in the newspaper and on the TV.
Ms Jackson: So you knew he was a dermatologist. You knew he did electrolysis. Did you know how much electrolysis he did?
Mr Waddell: I had heard that he had nine electrolysis people working in his office doing electrolysis.
Ms Jackson: Where had you heard that?
Mr Waddell: From the beauticians who had come in.
Ms Jackson: What else did you know about his practice?
Mr Waddell: He was doing an awful lot of work on skin cancer, psoriasis, other skin diseases. He was performing treatments with, in effect, a tanning hut on people with psoriasis and other skin problems.
Ms Jackson: He was using something that was in effect a tanning hut, did you say?
Mr Waddell: In those lines. It was an ultraviolet beam machine with an awful lot of fluorescent tubes.
Ms Jackson: And it looked like a tanning hut to you?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: All right. What else did you know about his practice?
Mr Waddell: That he was performing clinics, outpatient clinics, in Timmins and North Bay.
Ms Jackson: Anything else?
Mr Waddell: He was making a lot of noise.
Ms Jackson: Anything else?
Mr Waddell: No.
Ms Jackson: Did you ever receive any information specifically as to Dr Donahue's actual billing level?
Mr Waddell: Not until I read the local paper where it said that he had billed somewhere around $1.25 million to OHIP the year before.
Ms Jackson: We have in evidence, Mr Waddell, an article in the Toronto Star in January. Is that the article that you are referring to?
Mr Waddell: No. This was in the Sudbury Star or the Northern Life, a Sudbury paper.
Ms Jackson: When was that?
Mr Waddell: January 27.
Ms Jackson: I see. Do you have a copy of that?
Mr Waddell: No, I do not.
Ms Jackson: All right. We will have to look into it. Anything else that you knew about Dr Donahue's practice?
Mr Waddell: In which area?
Ms Jackson: Well, either what he did or how much money he made or where he did it or how many staff he had, anything like that.
Mr Waddell: No.
Ms Jackson: All right. Now, having done the calculation -- in the meeting that you have described you did the calculation that produced the conclusion that he was billing $1.5 million and netting somewhere in the neighbourhood of $900,000. Was there any further discussion at that meeting about Dr Donahue's practice?
Mr Waddell: We had been in a continual battle in the Sudbury area with the Ministry of Health to get health professionals, especially specialists, into the north. Ms Murdock was going to be speaking with the minister to see if there were going to be any exemptions under the threshold agreement that had been reached with the OMA for specialists in the north in underserviced areas.
Ms Jackson: Was that discussed in relation to Dr Donahue?
Mr Waddell: Specialists in general in the north; that there would be exemptions under the agreement between the OMA and the Ministry of Health; that there would be exemptions given in some areas. We were hoping that, especially in the specialist areas, in the north there would be exemptions given to specialists. We had cardiologists and gastro-enterologists and what not who were approaching our office at the same time, saying that they were getting close to their --
Ms Jackson: Were you seeking an -- did you discuss seeking an exemption for Dr Donahue?
Mr Waddell: Not specifically.
Ms Jackson: All right. So the focus of the discussion on exemptions was more towards the cardiologists and the gastro-enterologists?
Mr Waddell: The specialists in general, yes.
Ms Jackson: Any other discussion of Dr Donahue in particular?
Mr Waddell: We were made aware, through people who had been to his office and what not, that there were approximately 14 or 15 working in his office.
Ms Jackson: Anything else?
Mr Waddell: No.
Ms Jackson: All right. Now, did you make your own calculation of Dr Donahue's electrolysis billings?
Mr Waddell: Yes, I did.
Ms Jackson: How did you know about electrolysis and how to make a calculation?
Mr Waddell: The information that had been given to us by the beauticians who had visited the office.
Ms Jackson: And what had they told you that assisted you in this calculation?
Mr Waddell: They had told us that if electrolysis was billed to OHIP at somewhere between $40 and $45 an hour, the people performing the electrolysis were paid approximately $15 an hour.
Ms Jackson: Did you have any other information about electrolysis and its effect on the medical system in Ontario?
Mr Waddell: Ostensibly, before anyone became eligible for electrolysis under OHIP, they would have to undergo some sort of blood test to establish if there was a hormone imbalance, a medical cause for the excessive hair, and that the cost of these tests was somewhere around $750 a test.
Ms Jackson: Did you have any information as to the growth in electrolysis billings in the province over recent years?
Mr Waddell: Yes, we did, once again from the aesthetists that had been in and from a later background sheet that came from the Ministry of Health.
Ms Jackson: And what was your information?
Mr Waddell: My information was that between 1984 and 1989-90 it had gone somewhere from around $57,000 to $6.5 million.
Ms Jackson: And did you have a view about the propriety of that?
Mr Waddell: I thought it was an awful drain on the health care system.
Ms Jackson: Did you think it was scandalous?
Mr Waddell: I figured that someone had seen an opening in the system and driven a transport truck through it.
Interjections.
Ms Jackson: Now, with that information about electrolysis, what calculation did you do of Dr Donahue's electrolysis billings?
Mr Waddell: Multiplied the $40 to $45 an hour times nine employees.
Ms Jackson: And the nine employees was the number that you had received from whom?
Mr Waddell: The aesthetician.
Ms Jackson: All right.
1120
Mr Waddell: Times eight hours a day, times five days a week, times 26 weeks for half a year.
Ms Jackson: Now, why did you caculate Dr Donahue's electrolysis billings on the basis of a half-year?
Mr Waddell: It had been six months from April to November, about six months at that time that the electrolysis was coming off of the OHIP formulary.
Ms Jackson: Now, did you calculate that six months from April to November or from January until June?
Mr Waddell: From January to June he was on the underserviced area program, so he was able to bill whatever he wanted at that time.
Ms Jackson: Did you understand that when you did this calculation?
Mr Waddell: Not real well.
Ms Jackson: All right. When you did this calculation, the six-month period that you were working from, was it January to June or April to November?
Mr Waddell: I am not sure of that.
Ms Jackson: All right. It was a six-month calculation --
Mr Waddell: A six-month period.
Ms Jackson: -- and you are not really sure why you chose six months, is that right?
Mr Waddell: We were about halfway through a fiscal year and he had also had half a calendar year on the underserviced area program.
Ms Jackson: Well, you said you were not sure you knew that when you did this calculation. Is that right?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Did you understand at some point that his electrolysis billings were not going to be covered by OHIP any more?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Did that have anything to do with why you chose six months?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Can you explain that to the committee?
Mr Waddell: From April to November, when the electrolysis came off of OHIP, was about a six-month period.
Ms Jackson: Is that why you chose six months?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Do you remember telling me earlier today you chose the period January to June for the six-month period? Do you remember that?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Why has it changed? You are not very clear about why six months, I think is the impression I am getting. Is that fair?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: All right. You know it was six months. You cannot now reconstruct why you chose six months?
Mr Waddell: No.
Ms Jackson: All right. You have said you took the $45 an hour times nine employees, times eight hours a day, times five days a week, times 26 weeks and you got what number?
Mr Waddell: I do not have the figures in front of me.
Ms Jackson: You earlier said you knew that the electrolysis --
Mr Waddell: Forty dollars to $45 an hour was what was I was working on, which was about $360 an hour, about $12,000 a week.
Ms Jackson: Did you make any deductions for wages?
Mr Waddell: Then I deducted approximately $15 an hour for wages plus 30% for benefits on top of that. It worked out to somewhere around $220,000 and I just rounded that out to $200,000.
Ms Jackson: All right. In your mind, then, you concluded that Dr Donahue billed about $200,000 in a six-month period for electrolysis?
Mr Waddell: Cleared about $200,000.
Ms Jackson: Correct, cleared about $200,000 for electrolysis, and would have billed about a third again as much?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Or a little bit more than a third again as much, would have probably billed something over $300,000?
Mr Waddell: Well, yes.
Ms Jackson: Having done that calculation and the calculation that you and Ms Murdock and others did in the meeting, let's just see where you stand in terms of your mind. You had calculated that Dr Donahue had gross billings of $1.5 million and perhaps net billings of $800,000 to $900,000, right?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: You had calculated that he had cleared, in respect of electrolysis, about $200,000 or a little bit more over a six-month period?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: In your own view the fact that money for electrolysis had come out of the OHIP budget was considerably less than satisfactory. Is that a fair way of putting it?
Mr Waddell: It would have been money better spent on taking care of skin cancers and serious dermatological problems.
Ms Jackson: You felt fairly strongly about that, did you not?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Is it fair that you concluded that Dr Donahue was making an awful lot of money?
Mr Waddell: Making a real good living, yes.
Ms Jackson: And that the health care system should not be worrying about putting a threshold on a doctor who was making that much money?
Mr Waddell: It was quite evident that the health care system had been gobbling up money at a horrendous rate. The budget had doubled from 1985 to 1991 and it was consuming well over a third of the provincial budget. We had to get some control over the health care system. If dollars were to be spent in the health care system, they should be spent on saving lives.
Ms Jackson: There should be some constraints put on what Dr Donahue was doing?
Mr Waddell: Doctors in general.
Ms Jackson: And Dr Donahue in particular?
Mr Waddell: Dr Donahue was an example. I bore him no malice. He was one doctor who was complaining about the system.
Ms Jackson: You were doing these calculations and putting this all together in your mind so that you could deal with constituents, right?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Over the next several weeks, it is the case, as I understand it, that you had a very large number of calls from constituents about Dr Donahue?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Can you estimate how many?
Mr Waddell: Probably close to 100.
Ms Jackson: In those conversations, do you recall saying to people that Dr Donahue had billed $200,000 for electrolysis?
Mr Waddell: I recall saying that if he had billed $200,000, that was $200,000 that was not available for treating skin cancers and other diseases.
Ms Jackson: Do you recall saying specifically that Dr Donahue had billed at least $200,000 for electrolysis?
Mr Waddell: I said "could have."
Ms Jackson: Do you recall saying to people that Dr Donahue's gross billings would be in the area of $1.5 million?
Mr Waddell: That they could have been -- that or larger.
Ms Jackson: And that his net billings could have been as high as $800,000 to $900,000?
Mr Waddell: I do not ever remember using that figure.
Ms Jackson: Do you recall saying to people that something had to be done to put a stop to this?
Mr Waddell: To put a stop to the abuses of the health care system, yes.
Ms Jackson: And that what Dr Donahue was doing was unacceptable?
Mr Waddell: I never made that statement.
Ms Jackson: You have not made that statement?
Mr Waddell: No, not that I recall.
Ms Jackson: I have to, in fairness, put to you, Mr Waddell, that there is some information before the committee that suggests that kind of statement was made by a male person in Ms Murdock's office. Is it possible that you made such a statement?
Mr Waddell: I am the only male person in the office, yes.
Ms Jackson: Is it possible that you made such a statement?
Mr Waddell: It is possible I could have said.
Ms Jackson: Is it possible that you said, "We're going to put a stop to this"?
Mr Waddell: We were putting a stop to it at the time in that electrolysis was coming off the formulary.
Ms Jackson: So it is quite possible that you said, "We're putting a stop to this"?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: You said you talked to approximately 100 people, and Ms Murdock and you have been good enough to provide us with some telephone logs of conversations. I wonder if we could distribute those to members and provide Mr Waddell and his counsel with a copy of them.
The Chair: The exhibit being distributed will be marked as exhibit 81.
Ms Jackson: Do you have a copy of that yet, Mr Waddell? As I understand these documents, Mr Waddell, they are logs of telephone calls that are received in Ms Murdock's constituency office?
Mr Waddell: These sheets are constituency case sheets. When a constituent phones in and provides us with their name, we copy it down on one of these and it is the beginning of our file on whatever is done to assist that constituent.
Ms Jackson: In the case of the calls in relation to Dr Donahue, I understand that in many cases logs such as those in exhibit 81 were made of the calls?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: But in many cases they were not?
Mr Waddell: There were many people who just phoned in, complained and refused to leave their names.
Ms Jackson: You would have conversations with people whether or not they were willing to leave their names?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: So the kinds of comments we have been talking about would equally be made to people who did not leave their names as those who did? Is that fair?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Going through those, we see a number of different handwritings. I just want to have you identify -- unfortunately, we start with a bad xerox on the first page -- the calls you can tell. As I understand it, Mr Waddell, if you filled out the form, that is an indication that you had the telephone call?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: The first page, the name of which is a little hard to read, is one that you made?
Mr Waddell: Mine.
1130
Ms Jackson: The next handwritten page is not?
Mr Waddell: Not mine.
Ms Jackson: Is that right?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: The third handwritten page, Ms Bot, was not you?
Mr Waddell: No.
Ms Jackson: Pat Cundar is? Is that right?
Mr Waddell: Cundari, yes.
Ms Jackson: Joseph LeBlanc is?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Mr Muir is?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Ms Trayner is?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: The next one is not?
Mr Waddell: No.
Ms Jackson: Ms Hamill is you?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Mr Waddell, can we continue with the page that has the address in Stead? Do you have that one?
Mr Waddell: Skead.
Ms Jackson: Skead? That is a call that you took?
Mr Waddell: Yes, from outside the riding.
Ms Jackson: Then there is an address on Bancroft. That is a call that you took?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Then there is an address on Cumberland. That is a call you took?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And a call on Ramsey? That is a call you took?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And a call on Delwood? You took that?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And a call on Copper Cliff. You took that?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And the next call you did not take?
Mr Waddell: No.
Ms Jackson: The next call on Maple you did?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: The next call you did not?
Mr Waddell: No.
Ms Jackson: The call on Ramsey you did?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: The call on Medorsk you did?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: The next one you did not?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: The next one on on Calder or Cander Street you did?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: The next call on St Jean, you did?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: The next one you did not?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: The next one you did not?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: The next one you did not.
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: The call on Caruso you did?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: The next call you did not. The next call you did not. The next call you did not. The call from Arnold Street you did?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: The next call you did not.
Mr Waddell: No.
Ms Jackson: The call on Hawthorne you did?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: The call on Drummond you did.
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: The next call you did not?
Mr Waddell: No.
Ms Jackson: The next call you did not?
Mr Waddell: No.
Ms Jackson: The call on Wembley you did?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: The call on Aspenwood you did?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: The call on Lively you did?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: The next one you did not?
Mr Waddell: No.
Ms Jackson: Mr Waddell, did you understand whether there were any constraints on your ability to obtain information concerning a specific doctor's billings from the Ministry of Health?
Mr Waddell: Specific figures, I understood, were the property of the Ministry of Health and were not to be distributed, would not be distributed.
Ms Jackson: Any information on a particular doctor's actual billings, were you to have it, would be information you could not pass on?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: The reason for that is not because the information is inaccurate, but to protect the doctor's privacy, right?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Mr Waddell, the result of your using estimates instead of actuals is that you do not have the problem of invading his privacy, correct?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: As you saw it, at least.
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Ms Jackson: But in the result you may be using numbers that are very inaccurate, right?
Mr Waddell: Yes, but the doctor was not revealing his figures, either.
Ms Jackson: But did you consider whether using inaccurate numbers was a greater invasion of his rights than invading his privacy? Did that occur to you?
Mr Waddell: No.
Ms Jackson: No? Thank you, Mr Waddell. Those are my questions.
The Chair: Thank you. We will commence with questioning and we will move to the official opposition. I would like to indicate that we will be giving 30 minutes per caucus.
Mr Conway: Thank you, Mr Waddell. I appreciate your testimony, and I am not going to be very long. It is quite clear from the batch of constituent inquiries running from November 12 through to December 10, I think it is, that the phones were pretty busy.
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Mr Conway: This issue was an issue facing the Sudbury basin in pretty regular detail.
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Mr Conway: This Donahue guy was in the middle of all this, right?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Mr Conway: If I had dropped into Sudbury any time after about the end of October, and perhaps even a bit sooner, but certainly from about the end of October through till early December, I would not have had to be in town very long before I would have known that there was a controversy involving this recently arrived-at cap on physicians' incomes that seemed to have gotten the attention of a lot of people around Sudbury and had a number of the medical specialists and other people in the medical community complaining; that is correct?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Mr Conway: Would I also be right in saying that from the vantage point of the constituency office -- I have a lot of sympathy for you, because there were a lot of calls. That is not a complete log; I assume that there were other calls.
Mr Waddell: Yes, where the --
Mr Conway: I assume that when you went home, people bugged you at home and said -- is it Bob?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Mr Conway: "Bob, what's going on here? What's happening?" Would I be right in saying that for that five- or six-week period of late October to early December this was the single most active constituency file?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Mr Conway: I am really impressed, actually, by your calculations. You have a background, of course, in health care, so you would have some involvement in some of these issues just generally, but you and your colleagues certainly were capable of some things that I do not think my constituency staff would do. I am quite frankly impressed by your enterprise and your computation. I guess my question in that respect is, when people were talking to you about what this cap was going to do to physicians in the Sudbury area, did they have any understanding of what the government policy was or were they just simply, by and large, taking the doctors' line?
Mr Waddell: Many of them were taking the doctors' line.
Mr Conway: Judging from some of the other evidence that I have seen in the course of this inquiry, people like Dr Donahue, in their public statements, were making very little effort to separate out the issues of epilation from other issues related to the threshold. It was getting all tangled up in one big confused and confusing ball of facts and inaccuracies. Would that be a fair representation from your point of view?
Mr Waddell: Yes, it would.
Mr Conway: Now, these beauty care people who came to see you, when did they come to see you again?
Mr Waddell: November of 1990.
Mr Conway: So they had been in the year before and they were doing a province-wide lobby. I do not think I was lobbied, though I am interested to check. I do not think we have anybody doing much of this kind of activity in my part of eastern Ontario, though it is quite obvious that there was a lot of activity going on in Sudbury, and that seemed to have attracted the attention of these beauticians. What is the proper word?
Mr Waddell: Aestheticians, they call themselves.
Mr Conway: Aestheticians.
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Mr Conway: So they came to see you and others in the Sudbury area in the fall of 1990, as I understood your testimony, to express their concern about the insured service opportunities OHIP was providing to certain doctors. That was having a real negative effect on their business.
Mr Waddell: They felt the government was putting them out of business.
1140
Mr Conway: When they came to see you, did they talk specifically about any local practitioners who seemed to be particularly active in areas where you, the government, might take a look?
Mr Waddell: Not specifically by name.
Mr Conway: Did you have any indication that while no names were mentioned, some people were clearly in these beauty care people's minds?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Mr Conway: And that individual would have a name that starts with D?
Mr Waddell: They said that generally across Ontario in some places doctors' wives were setting up the clinics and having the people referred over there.
Mr Conway: Now back to the situation in which you find yourself. It is October, November, the poor old constituency office is just getting it left, right and centre, these calls coming day in and day out. You know, I am just looking at some of the concern. What is going to happen when Dr D leaves? "What happens if he leaves town?" And on and on it goes.
I presume that in the normal course of your activities you would be talking to people in Ms Martel's and Mr Laughren's offices. I mean, you would probably talk back and forth to those offices at least a couple of times a day on average.
Mr Waddell: A couple of times a week.
Mr Conway: A couple of times a week. Would I be right in thinking that when you checked with your colleagues over at the Treasurer's office and the Minister of Northern Development's office that their phone logs were starting to look very similar to yours?
Mr Waddell: I would check with their constituency offices.
Mr Conway: That is right, I mean their constituency offices.
Mr Waddell: They were getting plenty of calls.
Mr Conway: So you had discussed some of this; there had been some involvement. As I understood your responses to Ms Jackson, you had met with some of those other people to talk about how you were going to respond. Or was that meeting just with --
Mr Waddell: That was within our own office.
Mr Conway: That was just your own office. Had you ever talked to Nuala Doherty in Mr Laughren's office about this issue?
Mr Waddell: Not on this issue.
Mr Conway: Never.
Mr Waddell: Never.
Mr Conway: Did you ever talk to David Sword about this issue?
Mr Waddell: No.
Mr Conway: You know who David Sword is?
Mr Waddell: I have heard of him. I have never met him or talked to him.
Mr Conway: But you had never talked to him about this issue?
Mr Waddell: He would not be one of the people that I would be contacting at the Ministry of Health.
Mr Conway: So when you had the meeting to discuss how you were going to respond, I take it that no one raised at that time a concern about putting out some of these guesstimates as to what Dr Donahue might be earning, using the assumptions and the data that was available from your earlier meeting of November 1990 with the beauticians. Nobody said to you, "This might be a little dicey because we're starting to speculate about incomes"?
Mr Waddell: No.
Mr Conway: Would I be right in thinking that it might have crossed your mind that since this guy is out there and he is really giving the government a good ride on the threshold, that a person's got to defend oneself and, you know, it is fair ball to fight back and indicate to people what this guy could be earning.
Mr Waddell: No. I felt that we should be getting down to the real case there that was the threshold and what the threshold involved.
Mr Conway: But the temptation to -- I am trying to imagine now what you have told me. Every day you go to work; you are getting these phone calls. Just about every second day on the radio or in the Sudbury Star and Northern Life you are reading about doctors upset and particularly one doctor. Am I right in saying that by the time we get to early November it is a general concern in the Sudbury medical community, but one doctor stands out above and beyond all others as the focal point for the concern?
Mr Waddell: One doctor was coming forward more than the others, vocally. Other doctors were corresponding with our office about their threshold problems.
Mr Conway: But if I had simply been a fly on the wall in Sharon Murdock's constituency office for that six-week period from late October to early December, and if there had been one doctor associated with the resistance of the Sudbury medical community to the framework agreement and the cap, that one doctor would have been Dr Donahue. There were others, but he was the leader of the pack, so to speak.
Mr Waddell: He was the one who was on the TV and the radio.
Mr Conway: But he was roughing up the government somewhat, was he not? He was saying things or creating the impression that the government did not really know what it had negotiated, that there was a real north-south bias in this framework agreement. By that I mean that he was suggesting that the NDP had made a deal that was going to, at the very least, inadvertently discriminate against northern communities. He was saying some of those things, was he not?
Mr Waddell: He was implying those things, yes.
Mr Conway: You are sitting there and you have talked to these beauticians and they tell you about what is going on, and you do some quick calculations and it quickly takes you into the stratosphere of income. You do not feel the urge at all to use any of this stuff to deal with this burr under the government's saddle? That is not any part of your motivation?
Mr Waddell: I felt that the money could have been spent better elsewhere than on electrolysis.
Mr Conway: I understand that and that seems to me a very good argument. I am kind of puzzled, then, why you would get into any discussion with people out there with the degree of specifics, apparently, that you did that this guy could be in fact grossing $1.5 million annually. Why would you do that if your case was that whatever he was billing -- everyone knew, apparently, that a good bit of that billing was in the area of electrolysis and that the government was quite rightly delisting that because of the reasons that had been cited by, among others, the beauticians.
Mr Waddell: Excuse me?
Mr Conway: You are in a constituency office and you are talking to people about their concerns relative to the cap issue. I am not at all surprised to hear you say that you were concerned about rising health costs; that would make perfectly good sense. But I am a bit surprised that you would get into the business of starting to talk to those constituents about your estimates of what Dr Donahue's gross billings might be. Did you not see that as a slippery slope?
Mr Waddell: Part of the entire agreement was to get control of the health care costs, and this was a glaring point of money that was being spent in health care that was not being spent on saving lives, from my point of view.
Mr Conway: You see, Mr Waddell, if I phoned you and in the context that I now know is the context of Sudbury in the fall of 1991, and I heard you say some of the things that you said, I would be quite impressed, and I would agree with you. But if you told me at some point in this conversation, "Did you know that by my estimate this guy is potentially grossing $1.5 million?" then you would really start to get my attention at a different level.
You work for a member of the Legislature, a parliamentary assistant; you have got to be in the know, I would think, if I am, you know, a shift guy up at the plant and you are starting to throw around those kinds of numbers. Then I gather from your earlier testimony you were estimating what the epilation billings might have been. That never crossed your mind as having, perhaps, a second message that could be received by people at the other end of the line?
Mr Waddell: Excuse me?
Mr Conway: I am just saying that you did not see using those data, estimating those figures and attaching them to a specific doctor, as having a second message beyond the one you said, which was that we are concerned about rising health costs and we want the money to be applied to those insured services that are central to the maintenance of good health care.
Mr Waddell: Yes.
1150
Mr Conway: It would not have crossed your mind telling Conway on the phone that, "Yeah, well, this doctor, you know, this Dr D., the man who's leading this charge, could be earning a million and a half bucks gross and, boy, a big chunk of that is in epilation."
Mr Waddell: If Dr Donahue was doing all this work in skin cancer and other real skin diseases that were affecting people, I would not mind that money being spent. We were at the time from our office trying to get an exemption for northern specialists.
Mr Conway: Did you at any point ever talk to anyone is Ms Lankin's office? Did you ever talk to Larry Corea or Paul Howard or Sue Colley about the pressure that Dr Donahue was applying to the government in Sudbury on account of the cap?
Mr Waddell: Not on those subjects, no.
Mr Conway: But you had talked to staff in Ms Lankin's office?
Mr Waddell: Mr Corea at one time was a constituency liaison person and, from my understanding, in the Health Minister's office.
Mr Conway: So you spoke to Mr Corea at some point?
Mr Waddell: I may have.
Mr Conway: Did you ever speak to Ms Colley?
Mr Waddell: No.
Mr Conway: Did you ever speak to Mr Howard?
Mr Waddell: No.
Mr Conway: Did you ever speak to anyone in the deputy's office?
Mr Waddell: No.
Mr Conway: Did you ever speak to Dr Eugene LeBlanc?
Mr Waddell: Not in the Health Minister's office. I did contact him once while he was in Sudbury so that I could arrange a meeting for Sharon.
Mr Conway: But you never talked to anyone in the office of the Minister of Health, Ms Lankin, about the concerns that were at issue in Sudbury with respect to the cap?
Mr Waddell: No, sir.
Mr Conway: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Conway. Mr Harnick?
Mr Harnick: Can you tell me, sir, what you knew about the kind of practice medically speaking that Dr Donahue had?
Mr Waddell: Dr Donahue was a dermatologist treating skin cancers, other skin diseases and doing electrolysis. He was conducting clinics throughout the north.
Mr Harnick: Is there anything wrong with the kind of practice that he had?
Mr Waddell: No.
Mr Harnick: Was there anything wrong with him conducting clinics through the north?
Mr Waddell: I thought that was a real benefit to the north.
Mr Harnick: Was there anything wrong with his treatment of skin cancers and the like?
Mr Waddell: No, it would save people from having to travel down to Toronto.
Mr Harnick: So that the only qualms that you had about Dr Donahue's practice was the fact that he earned $200,000, by your calculation, from electrolysis.
Mr Waddell: May have earned $200,000.
Mr Harnick: Yes.
Mr Waddell: In a six-month period.
Mr Harnick: And the balance of his income would be from the kind of medical practice that you approved of?
Mr Waddell: That I thought necessary.
Mr Harnick: Well, and you approved of what he was doing?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Mr Harnick: All right. At some stage you went to a meeting, I gather, that you told us about to develop a strategy. Is that correct?
Mr Waddell: We had a meeting in the office.
Mr Harnick: Who was at that meeting?
Mr Waddell: Sharon Murdock and the other two constituency assistants.
Mr Harnick: Did you discuss at that meeting a particular strategy that you wanted to embark upon in order to deal with Dr Donahue?
Mr Waddell: No.
Mr Harnick: Well, did you just sit down and pull out your calculators?
Mr Waddell: We did some rough calculations on what his income may have been.
Mr Harnick: But I suspect that before you did that you had some kind of discussion, before you decided to embark upon your calculations, did you not?
Mr Waddell: A discussion that there should be a more complete explanation of the threshold agreement between the Ontario Medical Association and the Ministry of Health so that people realized exactly what the agreement was.
Mr Harnick: Well, how would doing these calculations provide that explanation to your constituents?
Mr Waddell: People were calling in and saying to pay the doctor whatever he wanted, that they did not want to leave him, that he was closing his office on the 15th of the month and they were due to have an operation on the 23rd, what were they going to do?
Mr Harnick: What I am a little bit confused about is that you were providing an explanation to people who were calling, and the explanation was that Dr Donahue was doing $200,000 in electrolysis and he billed $1.5 million last year. Now, how was that explanation going to further people's understanding of the threshold issue?
Mr Waddell: I do not follow you.
Mr Harnick: You told me that before you sat down and pulled out your calculator, you did have a little discussion -- you just did not sit down and whip out your calculators -- and your discussion was to the effect that you wanted people to better understand the issue of the threshold. Now, it was at that stage that you whipped out your calculators and you began to compute these figures, and what I am asking you is how the computation of these figures and the disclosure of this information to people who were calling was going to permit them to better understand the threshold.
Mr Waddell: That if the epilation billings were not taken into account, then there would be plenty of money there to provide the services of Dr Donahue.
Mr Harnick: By my quick calculation -- and I could be wrong, because I do not have my calculator with me -- but you thought that Dr Donahue cleared I think you said about $800,000. Is that correct?
Mr Waddell: In the neighbourhood of.
Mr Harnick: And if you took off the $200,000 from electrolysis, it leaves you with $600,000 over about a four- or five- or six-month period. Is that correct?
Mr Waddell: No.
Mr Harnick: It is not correct. You told us before that he was over the threshold in four months.
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Mr Harnick: So even if you took the electrolysis off, over a period of a year he is still going to be over the threshold, is he not, from his other practice that you indicated was a very legitimate practice?
Mr Waddell: He would be around $500,000, extrapolating it over a full year.
Mr Harnick: And that is over the threshold.
Mr Waddell: Slightly.
Mr Harnick: Yes. Are you telling me then that when you pulled out your calculators to make this calculation, you had no other discussion with Ms Murdock or with the other constituency person?
Mr Waddell: Persons.
Mr Harnick: Well, who else was present? There was you, there was Ms Murdock --
Mr Waddell: And the two other constituency assistants.
Mr Harnick: -- and the two other constituency assistants. So basically you sat down and you said, "Well, let's help the people of Sudbury better understand the threshold," and you pulled out your calculators and you said, "This newspaper says this, so we'll put that figure down" --
Mr Waddell: No.
Mr Harnick: -- "and these aestheticians" -- or whatever you call them -- "said that he had nine employees and it was $45 an hour," and you just started banging out the numbers. Did you have any other discussion about why you were doing what you were doing?
Mr Waddell: That was something that I did. That was not the conversation that we had with Ms Murdock.
Mr Harnick: So you are telling me now that you sat down with Ms Murdock --
Mr Waddell: And figured out the approximate gross billings of Dr Donahue.
Mr Harnick: Did you not discuss with Ms Murdock why you were going through this exercise?
Mr Waddell: Ms Murdock did the rough calculations of his gross billings.
1200
Mr Harnick: Well, did she tell you why she needed that information?
Mr Waddell: She sat down and figured it out on a sheet of paper.
Mr Harnick: But did you not discuss why you were doing it?
Mr Waddell: For an overview of what the doctor was complaining about.
Mr Harnick: Did you have some kind of a strategy in mind that you were going to start to develop?
Mr Waddell: We were just going to be replying to the constituents' concerns.
Mr Harnick: And really, this was the way you were going to go on the attack to defend the government, right?
Mr Waddell: Just figures to have for our use in the --
Mr Harnick: No, they were not just for your use. You were spreading them through the community, were you not?
Mr Waddell: They would come up during conversations, and they were not just calls saying, "Give him the money," "No, he's making too much."
Mr Harnick: You were disclosing this information within the community, right?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Mr Harnick: And the strategy was -- and I am sure you talked about it; I do not know why you will not tell us -- that you had to justify that this doctor was not being hard done by. Is that not correct?
Mr Waddell: We felt that there were better examples of physicians who were approaching the threshold in the city.
Mr Harnick: Well, if there were better examples of physicians, why were you using Dr Donahue?
Mr Waddell: People were not phoning about other physicians; they were phoning about Dr Donahue.
Mr Harnick: So the idea was to justify your government's policies by singling out Dr Donahue, is that correct?
Mr Waddell: We were not singling -- Dr Donahue was singling himself out.
Mr Harnick: Dr Donahue was not talking about how much money he was making, was he?
Mr Waddell: He was alluding to having to borrow money four months into a fiscal year because he had passed through his threshold.
Mr Harnick: And you wanted to prove to the people of Sudbury that Dr Donahue was mistaken, right?
Mr Waddell: Could have been, yes.
Mr Harnick: And you wanted to prove that, did you not?
Mr Waddell: We hoped to make things a little clearer so the emotion was removed from the constituents' phone calls and they were looking at the real facts.
Mr Harnick: You wanted to justify what the government was doing.
Mr Waddell: What the Ministry of Health was doing?
Mr Harnick: Yes.
Mr Waddell: That the ministry and the doctors' association had reached an agreement.
Mr Harnick: And you wanted to justify that that was a proper agreement. Is that correct?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Mr Harnick: And you wanted to promote that agreement in Sudbury?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Mr Harnick: And you were going to do that by showing that Dr Donahue was not right. Is that correct?
Mr Waddell: That there was an awful lot of emotion involved in the issue and the people should be looking at the real facts of it, yes.
Mr Harnick: And you made up some numbers. You extrapolated some numbers.
Mr Waddell: Guesstimates.
Mr Harnick: Guesstimates. And you started to spread those guesstimates through the community.
Mr Waddell: Used them in conversation.
Mr Harnick: Describe it any way you like, you told people about what those guesstimates were.
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Mr Harnick: So you were essentially using guesswork to justify a government policy. Yes?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Mr Harnick: And whose idea was it to embark upon this plan? Was it your idea or was it Ms Murdock's idea or was it the idea of the other two people?
Mr Waddell: There was no plan that was drawn up to do this. This is a --
Mr Harnick: Well, after you came up with all of these figures, did you not have a discussion with Ms Murdock about how you were going to use them?
Mr Waddell: No.
Mr Harnick: You never told her that when people were going to call, you were going to start passing these figures through the community to justify government policy?
Mr Waddell: No.
Mr Harnick: In terms of what you were doing, would it have been obvious to Ms Murdock that this is how you were going to use these figures?
Mr Waddell: I do not follow you.
Mr Harnick: Did Ms Murdock say to you, "Don't spread these figures in the community," or did she say to you, "Go ahead and use these figures, and that's the way to explain this threshold to people"?
Mr Waddell: The figures on Dr Donahue had nothing to do with the threshold. Dr Donahue --
Mr Harnick: What I am after is whether Ms Murdock said to you at any time, "Go ahead and use this as the ammunition to fight against Dr Donahue and tell the public about the figures that we've come up with"?
Mr Waddell: No, she did not.
Mr Harnick: Did she ever learn after November 12 and up to the 10th of December that you were in fact providing those figures to people?
Mr Waddell: No.
Mr Harnick: So you are saying Ms Murdock knew nothing about what you were doing with these figures?
Mr Waddell: No.
Mr Harnick: Ms Murdock had no idea that you were going ahead and spreading these figures through the community?
Mr Waddell: The first conversation on that was when the Donovan article appeared in the Toronto Star.
Mr Harnick: So Ms Murdock worked out these figures with you and then knew nothing about what you were using them for until some time in January?
Mr Waddell: The only figures she worked out were his gross billing figures.
Mr Harnick: And you used those in your discussions with constituents, did you not? I think you told us earlier that you did.
Mr Waddell: That I may have, yes.
Mr Harnick: Did Ms Murdock know you were doing that?
Mr Waddell: She knew that the figures were available to us.
Mr Harnick: Did she know that you were discussing them with people in the community?
Mr Waddell: She never questioned me on it.
Mr Harnick: Did she know that you were using them and discussing them in the community? Yes or no?
Mr Waddell: I do not know.
The Chair: Mr Harnick, I would just like to remind you that you are about 15 or 16 minutes into your questioning and we are over the time. If you would like, we could recess now, or if you are prepared to finish it off, that would be --
Mr Owens: No, let's finish it up.
Mr Harnick: I am quite content to come back and finish off after lunch.
Mr Christopherson: We are prepared to finish it up, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: But if the committee is ready to sit for the next 10 or 15 minutes?
Interjection: You bet.
The Chair: Thank you. Continue.
Mr Harnick: After you started spreading your guesstimates through the community, did you ever have any discussion with the people in Ms Martel's office about how you were handling this situation?
Mr Waddell: No.
Mr Harnick: Did you ever have any discussions with the constituency people in Mr Laughren's office about how you were handling these calls?
Mr Waddell: No.
Mr Harnick: Do you really expect people to believe that?
Mr Waddell: We were busy enough that we asked them, "Are your phones ringing off the hook with this Dr Donahue stuff?" and they said yes. Then another phone would be ringing and they would be back on a call.
Mr Harnick: Did you never say to them, "What are you telling them when they call?" or was it just so busy that you would say, "We're getting swamped with Dr Donahue calls; gotta go," and you hung up the phone?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Mr Harnick: Did you never discuss or have 30 seconds to say, "What are you telling the people?"
Mr Waddell: I did not have much time for it.
Mr Harnick: You stretch my imagination when you tell me that you had no discussions with Ms Martel's constituency people and with Mr Laughren's constituency people, who were all getting the same phone calls you were. You never discussed with them what the responses were?
Mr Waddell: We never got into any real specifics on it.
Mr Harnick: What specifics did you get into? Surely you told them about your numbers?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Mr Harnick: Of course you did. And you told them that he was billing $1.5 million a year, did you not?
Mr Waddell: We said that we had estimated.
Mr Harnick: Yes. You also told them about the figures you extrapolated for electrolysis, did you not?
Mr Waddell: I may have.
Mr Harnick: If you did the other figure of $1.5 million, you surely did this figure. You told them that, did you not?
Mr Waddell: Most of my comments around the $200,000 were that if he had billed the $200,000, then that was money that was not available for skin cancers.
Mr Harnick: But you told that to Ms Martel's people.
Mr Waddell: I told them that was the answer I was giving.
Mr Harnick: Yes, of course you would have. And you told that to Mr Laughren's people, did you not?
Mr Waddell: I do not remember having a specific conversation with Mr Laughren's people about that.
Mr Harnick: But you definitely did with Martel's people?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
1210
Mr Harnick: And had Martel's people calculated any numbers on their own, or were they using your numbers?
Mr Waddell: I am not sure.
Mr Harnick: It is pretty safe to say that your numbers that you were guessing on were being delivered to the community through your office and through Ms Martel's office. Is that not correct?
Mr Waddell: I am not sure of that.
Mr Harnick: You certainly conveyed the information to Ms Martel's office. You have told us that.
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Mr Harnick: Would it be unreasonable to assume that they were using the same arguments you were using?
Mr Waddell: I am not sure. I was not sitting in their office.
Mr Harnick: You discussed it with them.
Mr Waddell: Briefly.
Mr Harnick: And you had to get together on the responses you were going to give, did you not?
Mr Waddell: No.
Mr Harnick: So you at least were consistent in your guesswork.
You told us earlier something about your knowledge of the underserviced area program and how it affected Dr Donahue by way of dates and timing. Is that correct?
Mr Waddell: Excuse me?
Mr Harnick: In your evidence you said that Dr Donahue had been on the underserviced area program --
Mr Waddell: We understood that he was, yes.
Mr Harnick: In fact, you went so far as to tell us you knew that the underserviced area program had ended for Dr Donahue.
Mr Waddell: We found that information out, yes.
Mr Harnick: You would have done that before these telephone conversations started to occur because that factored into your calculations, you told us. Is that correct?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Mr Harnick: Where did you get the information that he was on the underserviced area program?
Mr Waddell: I cannot recall.
Mr Harnick: Would it have been a month before this? Would it have been back in the time when the electrolysis association was coming to see you in 1990?
Mr Waddell: I was not aware that he was on the program at that time. I was not even aware of his name at that time.
Mr Harnick: How did you become aware that he was on the underserviced area program?
Mr Waddell: Some time during this entire month, month and a half.
Mr Harnick: It would have been before the 12th of November -- is that correct? -- which is the date of the first telephone log conversation in exhibit 81. Am I correct in that?
Mr Waddell: I am not sure of that.
Mr Harnick: Where did you get the information from?
Mr Waddell: From Ms Murdock.
Mr Harnick: Ms Murdock told you that he was involved in the underserviced area program?
Mr Waddell: And it was in the paper also.
Mr Harnick: I an not interested in what you read. I am interested in what Ms Murdock told you.
Mr Waddell: Dr Donahue had stated it in the paper.
Mr Harnick: Pardon?
Mr Waddell: Dr Donahue had stated it in the paper.
Mr Harnick: Did Ms Murdock also tell you about it?
Mr Waddell: About the underserviced area program?
Mr Harnick: Yes.
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Mr Harnick: When did she tell you that?
Mr Waddell: About the underserviced area program?
Mr Harnick: Yes.
Mr Waddell: She started giving explanations on that, oh, probably back in February of 1991.
Mr Harnick: February of 1991.
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Mr Harnick: Do you know where she obtained the information from?
Mr Waddell: Information on the underserviced area program?
Mr Harnick: No, that Dr Donahue was part of it.
Mr Waddell: Oh. Back in February we were talking about the underserviced area program because we were trying to get more physicians and specialists into the city.
Mr Harnick: When did you find out that Dr Donahue was on that program?
Mr Waddell: In November of 1991.
Mr Harnick: You found that out through Ms Murdock?
Mr Waddell: And the newspaper, from Dr Donahue himself.
Mr Harnick: Have you told me about all the discussions you had with Ms Martel's constituency staff regarding Dr Donahue?
Mr Waddell: All the conversations.
Mr Harnick: Were there any other conversations you had?
Mr Waddell: "Are they still calling you on Dr Donahue?"
Mr Harnick: No, I want to know if you have had any further discussions with Ms Martel or her constituency staff about Dr Donahue.
Mr Waddell: In which area?
Mr Harnick: Anything.
Mr Waddell: "Are we still getting calls on him?" That died down some time --
Mr Harnick: Did you ever discuss any other issues dealing with Dr Donahue?
Mr Waddell: I am not sure what you are getting at.
Mr Harnick: Let me try another way. When Ms Martel went to Thunder Bay and had her heated argument, at some stage after that you heard about the contents of that discussion she had with Mrs Dodds. Is that correct?
Mr Waddell: Yes, when the entire province found out about it.
Mr Harnick: Were you surprised about what Ms Martel said?
Mr Waddell: Yes, I was.
Mr Harnick: Why?
Mr Waddell: It did not seem like Shelley.
Mr Harnick: In what sense did it not seem like Shelley?
Mr Waddell: She had always seemed pretty cool and in control.
Mr Harnick: And did the contents of what she said about Dr Donahue surprise you?
Mr Waddell: Yes.
Mr Harnick: What were you surprised about?
Mr Waddell: The mention of investigations and what not.
Mr Harnick: Was there anything else dealing with that discussion you were surprised about?
Mr Waddell: Excuse me?
Mr Harnick: Well, the issue of dealing with the file, "I've seen his file"; did that surprise you?
Mr Waddell: I did not know what file they were speaking of. There are files and there are files.
Mr Harnick: What did you think was the relevant --
Mr Waddell: This is our Dr Donahue file.
Mr Harnick: When you heard that Ms Martel had seen his file, did it conjure up, to you, what it was that she had probably seen about Dr Donahue?
Mr Waddell: In what way, sir? No.
Mr Harnick: Did it relate, or did you think in any way of the things you had been telling people in Sudbury?
Mr Waddell: I still do not follow you.
Mr Harnick: Those are my questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Harnick. We are past the recess. Mr Christopherson?
Mr Christopherson: Mr Chair, in the interest of time -- I know we want to get through as many witnesses as we can -- we are prepared to waive any questions we have with Mr Waddell.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Christopherson. I would like to thank you, Mr Waddell, for coming before us with your counsel.
Members, just before we break, I would like to indicate that we are distributing as exhibit 82 the edited transcripts of the Minister of Health of an in camera proceeding. It is marked as exhibit 82.
We will recess until 2 pm.
The committee recessed at 1218.
AFTERNOON SITTING
The committee resumed at 1406.
SHARON MURDOCK
The Chair: We will call the afternoon session of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly to order. This afternoon we have with us Sharon Murdock, MPP for the riding of Sudbury and parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour. With her is her counsel, whom I will ask to identify himself for the purposes of Hansard.
Mr Klippenstein: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Murray Klippenstein is the name.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Ms Murdock, it has been the procedure in this committee that before any witness gives testimony an oath is administered, and I would like to ask the clerk to do that at this time.
Sharon Murdock, sworn.
The Chair: Ms Murdock, for everyone who has come before the committee, a warning has been issued which I would just like to provide to you, and that is that in the event you are asked a question which you cannot properly answer without divulging confidential information, then we would ask you or your counsel to advise the committee of this. If a response cannot be given without divulging such confidential information, then the matter may be addressed in an in camera proceeding. So I alert you to that possibility. To members of the committee, I am advised by counsel that there will be the need for an in camera session with Ms Murdock.
Having said those preliminaries, as is the custom of the committee I will invite our counsel, Patricia Jackson, to commence questioning, after which time there will then be a rotation of questions from caucus to caucus. Ms Jackson.
Ms Jackson: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Miss Murdock, you are the MPP for Sudbury?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: You were first elected to the Legislature in 1990?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: I understand that before your career in the Legislature you did a number of things, including teaching school for 13 years?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Then you attended commerce courses at the University of Windsor from the summer of 1979 to the fall of 1981 and are just a very few credits short of a degree in commerce?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Thereafter you attended the law school at the University of Windsor?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And graduated in 1984?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Articled with the crown?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Were called to the bar in 1986?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Then saw a better way out and got out of the law and began, in 1986, working for Mr Elie Martel?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Then in 1987 ran for the first time, unsuccessfully, for the provincial Legislature?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: After that you continued working, this time for Mr Martel's daughter, Ms Shelley Martel, as a constituency assistant in her office?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: You did that until you were elected to the Legislature in September of 1990?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Before we turn to your evidence on the matters in issue, I understand that you saw the evidence that we heard this morning on television.
Ms S. Murdock: That is right.
Ms Jackson: And have been able to locate for us -- indeed, you tell me that you had already provided to me, and I have no doubt you are right -- an article from the Sudbury Star dated January 27, 1992, which certainly appears to be the article that Mr Waddell was referring to this morning. Mr Chairman, might I suggest, so the record is complete, that we mark that as the next exhibit?
The Chair: Yes, we will make copies and distribute them and it will be marked as exhibit 83.
Ms Jackson: Thank you. That will be circulated to members.
Ms Murdock, I understand that in terms of knowing of or knowing Dr Donahue, you in fact were a patient of his on one occasion in 1987?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Having been to his office the one time, what did you know, if anything, about his practice?
Ms S. Murdock: At that one time in 1987?
Ms Jackson: As a result of simply being a patient; I am going to try to accumulate what you knew about Dr Donahue and when, and that, I guess, is the first piece of information.
Ms S. Murdock: Okay. Well, he had just opened his new office in Sudbury in -- I was calling it the WCB building, but in that office building -- the Scotia Tower, I guess it is, and it was brand new; you could still smell the paint. There were a number of rooms but I only saw the receptionist and his nurse at that time, so that is all I knew.
Ms Jackson: So you knew he was a dermatologist, I assume?
Ms S. Murdock: Oh yes, right. I was glad he came to Sudbury. We had Dr Rinne but he had been around since I was a kid and I just was glad we had a new one.
Ms Jackson: So all you knew as a result of that one visit was that he was a new dermatologist starting out in Sudbury?
Ms S. Murdock: Right.
Ms Jackson: All right. Now, I understand that in terms of the threshold agreement between the OMA and the Ontario government you, like every other member of the Legislature, became aware of it when it was announced in the Legislature, I think in June of last year.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: But you had no particular occasion to become familiar with its provisions until the fall of 1991.
Ms S. Murdock: True.
Ms Jackson: However, I understand that at some point during this period you became generally aware of what has been described in these hearings as the epilation issue, or the delisting of epilation from the OHIP schedule.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes, mostly because I sit on the legislation/regulations cabinet committee.
Ms Jackson: All right. You have provided to me -- and perhaps I can ask that it be circulated -- a two-page description of the status of electrolysis. Maybe we could wait until that is in front of everybody. Mr Chairman, could we mark that as the next exhibit, 84?
The Chair: Yes. That will be marked as exhibit 84.
Ms Jackson: I understand, Ms Murdock, that this two-page description of the status of electrolysis was actually prepared for you some time in November. Is that right?
Ms S. Murdock: This two-page --
Ms Jackson: Yes.
Ms S. Murdock: I got another copy of it because I could not find my copy and so I phoned the Ministry of Health and asked them to send it to me, yes, in November.
Ms Jackson: But you had this very same document earlier on --
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: -- when you sat on the committee that was considering the delisting?
Ms S. Murdock: I do not know whether it was this very same document because I do not keep any of the documents in the leg/regs committee. I would have handed those back to the clerk of that committee, and I do not recall it being in the same format as this. After the regulation was passed or approved by cabinet, then we were given this as a background piece of information.
Ms Jackson: In any event, whatever form it was in, the information that is in exhibit 84 --
Ms S. Murdock: Oh, yes.
Ms Jackson: -- came to you when you sat on, as you say, the leg/regs committee?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And that would be approximately when?
Ms S. Murdock: Hmm. I should have checked with the committee clerk to find out, but I would say that it generally works out to be about six weeks before it actually is approved, so it would probably have been at the beginning of October, around there -- end of September, beginning of October.
Ms Jackson: Just to deal with this document, I understand that in the latter part of November you were invited on a television program where you anticipated you would be speaking about electrolysis and you requested this document from the ministry.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And in fact you did not speak about electrolysis, as it turned out.
Ms S. Murdock: No, they did not ask me one single question on doctors in Sudbury.
Ms Jackson: It is like the exam, where the questions are not what you expect. All right. With that sort of background in mind, can you tell the committee when you first became aware that the threshold agreement per se was becoming an issue in Sudbury, and its impact on local doctors?
Ms S. Murdock: Actually, I became aware of it through Dr Corringham, who is the director of the northeastern cancer care treatment centre. In a conversation with him he advised me that we were going to lose Dr Donahue, which to him was a real concern because of the cancer aspect of his job, and Dr Donahue was quite prevalent in that.
Ms Jackson: Are you able to locate in time when that issue was raised with you?
Ms S. Murdock: My recollection is the end of October, but it was the kind of meeting -- it was done at the end of a day. Dr Corringham and I met on a number of other issues and then Dr Donahue's issue came up at the end of the conversation. It is not in my agenda book; I checked it. It is not listed as an appointment, so my recollection is the end of October.
Ms Jackson: In any event, you were told there was a risk of losing Dr Donahue as a result of the threshold agreement?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes, my recollection is that. Dr Corringham was quite familiar with the issue of threshold and underserviced area programming. That had always been an issue in Sudbury for -- well, from since I worked with Elie right through to now. It still is an issue.
Ms Jackson: Now, you have given me -- and I would ask that it be distributed to committee members -- a bundle of correspondence that came through your office in the late part of October dealing with this issue.
The Chair: That is now being distributed and being marked as exhibit 85.
Ms Jackson: If you could turn to the back part of that bundle of documents, there is a letter of October 22, 1991, to yourself from Dr Donahue, describing in general terms some of the financial implications of the threshold agreement, and an attached example of the costs of psoriasis treatment on an outpatient basis with a local dermatologist versus an inpatient basis in Toronto. That letter is dated October 22 and is directed to you in Toronto. I see that on top of it is a letter from you to Dr Donahue acknowledging the letter. Do you recall receiving this?
Ms S. Murdock: No. It was sent to my Toronto office. Our procedure is that all constituency matters are handled in my constituency and not through my legislative assistant. Somehow or other this got into my Toronto Ministry of Health file and I never saw it till yesterday.
Ms Jackson: Is this your signature on the letter?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes. That is dated October 30; yes, I signed that. It was the standard letter that we were doing with all the questions that were being asked on threshold. We were sending them over to the Ministry of Health because everything was still under review.
Ms Jackson: All right. At the last part of Dr Donahue's letter he indicates that he will make himself available in person, writing or telephone to discuss the contents of the letter with you or to clarify any points.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Did anybody on your behalf or did you ever take him up on that offer?
Ms S. Murdock: No. In fact I, not having seen this letter, believed all this time that Dr Donahue had never tried to contact me either in writing or by phone.
1420
Ms Jackson: All right. Then moving forward in the bundle, we have a letter from Gilles Bisson on October 30 to yourself enclosing a letter from Dr de Blacam concerning Dr Donahue.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: You did see that letter, did you?
Ms S. Murdock: I did not see the one addressed to me but I did see that letter because he sent it everywhere.
Ms Jackson: Well, you saw the letter from Mr Bisson, to start with?
Ms S. Murdock: Oh, for sure.
Ms Jackson: All right. And the enclosed letter of Dr de Blacam, did you not see that?
Ms S. Murdock: That was not attached when I brought it to the House so I did not see it at that time. I saw it at another time.
Ms Jackson: Do you remember when you saw it?
Ms S. Murdock: My recollection yesterday was it was new to me. But in checking with my staff in Sudbury, this letter had appeared in other places. To my mind I had not seen it either, but it had been in my pile of correspondence when I --
Ms Jackson: In Toronto or in --
Ms S. Murdock: In Sudbury.
Ms Jackson: In Sudbury.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: All right. Just for the edification of those in the room, on the second page of the letter from Dr de Blacam, it is very hard to read and there are several lines that are stroked out, but it appears to me that the lines that are stroked out are reproduced exactly in the second page of a similar letter to Dr Mitchell within the same bundle.
Ms S. Murdock: That is correct. The letter addressed to Dr Mitchell was the one that was attached to Gilles Bisson's letter.
Ms Jackson: I see. But it is the same letter as --
Ms S. Murdock: Oh, yes, the content of the letter is identical. I did check that.
Ms Jackson: So you saw this letter but you saw it in a version directed to someone other than yourself, namely, to Dr Mitchell?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes, and it was just a skimming thing. I did not read the whole letter. I knew the issue was threshold and I was not up on every detail of the threshold issue, so that is what I decided when this came, that I had to find out more about it.
Ms Jackson: And are you able in your memory to remember whether this came before -- "this" being the letter of October 30 from Mr Bisson -- or after your conversation with Dr Corringham?
Ms S. Murdock: Oh, I do not know.
Ms Jackson: Okay. They were all at about the same time, is that fair?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: All right. So you have had one communication that you were fleetingly aware of, I guess to the extent of signing a return letter to Dr Donahue, but that you did not remember, a conversation with Corringham, and now a letter from Mr Bisson. By the way, why would Mr Bisson forward this to you?
Ms S. Murdock: I am a member from Sudbury and Dr Donahue is a member of my riding.
Ms Jackson: I see. All right. So you have got three incidents at least of raising this issue of the impact of thresholds and they are all centred on Dr Donahue?
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Ms Jackson: Is it fair that Dr Donahue is becoming a bit of a constituency issue?
Ms S. Murdock: I would say so. Yes.
Ms Jackson: All right. Now, what are the arrangements, if any, among yourself, Mr Laughren and Ms Martel for dealing with issues that arise in your area?
Ms S. Murdock: Well, we discovered early on that we could not all three of us meet with everyone, which is what we attempted to do at the beginning, so we decided in about January 1991 that whoever got contacted first on an issue would be the lead on it. Instead of having all three of us attend a meeting only one of us would and would keep the other two informed.
Ms Jackson: All right. With respect to the issue of Dr Donahue, who then of the three of you was the lead?
Ms S. Murdock: Shelley was. When I had talked to her about Corringham having spoken with me, she had already gotten correspondence on it and had already started it, so she unfortunately got it, but yes.
Ms Jackson: And did she say what she had done at that point?
Ms S. Murdock: That she was already talking to Frances and that they were looking at the whole underserviced area issue.
Ms Jackson: And did she tell you any more about what she was doing or had done?
Ms S. Murdock: No.
Ms Jackson: All right. If she is then taking the lead on this issue in terms of the Dr Donahue issue, what does that mean she will do?
Ms S. Murdock: Any meetings that would be involved, she would initiate them and if all of us had to attend, she would let us know. If anything hot was coming up or that we thought was necessary for us to meet, she would make sure we would know that, or if nothing was happening she just would not let us know. So if she did not come over and tell us -- usually in the House if the House is in session -- if she did not let us know, then we knew things -- nothing had changed since the last time.
Ms Jackson: Does this mean that any information you need on this issue you would expect to get from her?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: All right. Having received these communications and having learned from Shelley Martel that she was taking the lead on this issue, did you do anything about it to --
Ms S. Murdock: How do you mean?
Ms Jackson: Did you do anything to learn more about the issue, or to take the matter forward?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: What did you do?
Ms S. Murdock: I was in the House and I had Gilles Bisson's letter. I must have had House duty. It must have been a Tuesday. You do not normally stay in for debate unless you have to. Frances was there and I thought it was an ideal opportunity to grab her and find out what the threshold meant. So I did. I went up to her. As she was somewhat preoccupied -- I do not know what debate was coming up, but it was something in Health -- she advised me to see Eugene LeBlanc, who was sitting behind the Speaker's chair, which I did.
Ms Jackson: And what is your best estimate of when, in point of time, this conversation took place?
Ms S. Murdock: It would have been after -- I cannot remember. I did check with the House debate records to see what piece of Health legislation had come up for debate, but it is not unusual for things to be on the agenda and not get debated the day that they are supposed to be, so nothing indicates when it would have been, except my recollection is that it would have been after October 30, obviously, and early November, that week, that first week of November.
Ms Jackson: And you had a conversation then with Dr LeBlanc?
Ms S. Murdock: Oh yes; lengthy.
Ms Jackson: Lengthy being how long?
Ms S. Murdock: Easily 45 minutes to an hour.
Ms Jackson: And what, in summary, did you learn about the threshold agreement in that conversation?
Ms S. Murdock: Well, if you look at that October 30 Gilles Bisson letter, I had that with me and --
Ms Jackson: These are notes you made at the time, are they?
Ms S. Murdock: On the bottom. The upper -- "How is the service re `underserviced' going to be determined for exemption purposes?" -- was done afterwards. But the bottom part was the notes I made with Dr LeBlanc.
Ms Jackson: Can you, with the aid of those notes, summarize what you learned about the threshold agreement?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes. It was an agreement worked out between the OMA and the Ministry of Health, which would basically -- that fees could be charged to OHIP up to $400,000, where you would get dollar for dollar for return; $400,000 to $450,000, you would get two thirds, the doctor who had billed would get two thirds back, and anything after $450,000 ad infinitum would go for one third. So it was a discounted practice.
Ms Jackson: And you note there that it does not include income from non-OHIP sources.
Ms S. Murdock: Right.
Ms Jackson: And it does not include technical charges?
Ms S. Murdock: That is right. Mind you, I must admit that part of it, I mean the WCB consultations -- if you were a doctor working for the Workers' Compensation Board or doing something for them -- that I understood. But the technical fees I was not clear on, nor did I get a clarification at that particular meeting, but I did later.
Ms Jackson: And then the last part of the note says that, "At a certain point fixed costs have to be" -- there is no word there -- "ie, if a radiologist does one X-ray or one" -- something or another.
Ms S. Murdock: "One million"
Ms Jackson: -- "or one million, the machine costs stay the same."
Ms S. Murdock: And "payments stay the same."
Ms Jackson: Can you explain what that note means.
Ms S. Murdock: Well, if I am a doctor and I buy an X-ray machine, my costs obviously can be put out over time. But at the beginning, if I take one X-ray or 1,000 X-rays, my cost is still going to be the same every month in terms of the payments I have to make. But at some point in time that machine is paid for, and then that cost is eliminated as a cost. That is what that meant to me. That is what that tells me, reading that.
Ms Jackson: Is this the statement that the machine is being depreciated over time?
Ms S. Murdock: Right.
Ms Jackson: Anything else that you learned about the threshold agreement on that occasion?
Ms S. Murdock: Well, we talked about underserviced area programs in that conversation too, because that was when I found out Kitchener-Waterloo was underserviced in terms of cardiovascular surgeons, so that was a -- we were looking at the whole underserviced area program in terms of the threshold and how we could look at that.
1430
Ms Jackson: Did you learn or did you know that people on the underserviced area program were exempt from the threshold?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Was there any discussion about whether Dr Donahue was on the underserviced area program?
Ms S. Murdock: We discussed Dr Donahue in that meeting in terms of how the threshold was going to work with him and that he was on the underserviced area program, yes.
Ms Jackson: Did you discuss any other impact of the threshold on Dr Donahue?
Ms S. Murdock: Other impact?
Ms Jackson: Yes.
Ms S. Murdock: I do not get what you mean.
Ms Jackson: Well, you said you discussed Dr Donahue in terms of the threshold.
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Ms Jackson: The one point being that he was on the underserviced area program and therefore, to some extent, was not going to be covered by the threshold. Let me ask you this: Did you know for how long he would be on the underserviced area program?
Ms S. Murdock: I do not know if I knew that that day, but I knew it was -- Shelley told me it was June, but I do not know whether I knew then or whether I knew a little later.
Ms Jackson: When did Shelley tell you it was June?
Ms S. Murdock: Well, when we -- it must have been in and around that time, at the beginning of November. I think somehow, in the back of my mind, I knew that he was on the underserviced program but I had no idea at that time, like, knowing that he is in Sudbury, when he was going to be off it. I mean, I know that the underserviced area program is four years long, but I did not know when his four years were up.
Ms Jackson: Okay.
Ms S. Murdock: And Shelley told me it was June.
Ms Jackson: Do you remember whether that was before or after you had your conversation with Dr LeBlanc?
Ms S. Murdock: I do not think I knew it at the time with Dr LeBlanc, no.
Ms Jackson: Okay. Was there any discussion of Dr Donahue and electrolysis charges?
Ms S. Murdock: In that conversation?
Ms Jackson: Yes.
Ms S. Murdock: No.
Ms Jackson: Any other discussion of Dr Donahue?
Ms S. Murdock: No, we were talking more about threshold. He had to explain this to me. I was not too quick on the uptake in understanding exactly how it worked, so he had to explain it to me a number of times.
Ms Jackson: All right. Then the note that you say is written on the top of exhibit 85, that you said was written later, reads, "How is the service re `underserviced' going to be determined for exemption purposes?" First of all, what does that note mean?
Ms S. Murdock: I wanted to know what exemptions were going to be included in the underserviced area program. We were already talking about it, like, early November, of using the underserviced area program to cover our problem in the north specifically, but in smaller communities everywhere, to handle the problem with getting specialists to --
Ms Jackson: So you are talking about extending the underserviced area program exemption?
Ms S. Murdock: Well, we did not know how we were going to do that, but we knew probably the only way we were going to work it so that specialists would not leave was through the underserviced area program, so I wrote that down as a note to my legislative assistant to get the information for me.
Ms Jackson: From whom?
Ms S. Murdock: Eugene LeBlanc.
Ms Jackson: When did you write that note?
Ms S. Murdock: Probably within a day or so after this, after the meeting with Eugene. It was a question that I had not asked in our meeting and I wanted a little more detail on it.
Ms Jackson: Who is your legislative assistant?
Ms S. Murdock: David Shantz.
Ms Jackson: And did he get that information?
Ms S. Murdock: He had called Eugene, because I had Eugene's number, but -- and yes, he did, he talked to him about it and he got the information. Well, they were reviewing it. I mean, it was not any information at that time, it was still under discussion.
Ms Jackson: All right. Could you turn up exhibit 10 in the black volume in front of you.
Ms S. Murdock: The transcripts?
Ms Jackson: It is a transcript of November 8, an interview with Dr Donahue on electrolysis. Were you aware of that interview?
Ms S. Murdock: I am in the wrong one. There are two black books here. Okay, no. That is the one we looked at in your office? No.
Ms Jackson: All right. In exhibit 48 there is a copy of an office closure notice from Dr Donahue.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And Mr Waddell indicated that this was a retyped version of Dr Donahue's closure notice that had been retyped in Mr Laughren's office.
Ms S. Murdock: I have no idea.
Ms Jackson: You did not know that. I understand, in any event, you got a copy of this notice.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And that you did get your copy from Mr Laughren's office.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And that was about November 12?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes, around there.
Ms Jackson: Do you know why you got this from Mr Laughren's office as opposed to --
Ms S. Murdock: Well, it is hearsay. It is what my staff told me as to why they got it from Mr Laughren's office. He wanted --
Ms Jackson: What did they tell you?
Ms S. Murdock: They said that the copy they had was illegible and Floyd had a legible copy that they had retyped.
Ms Jackson: All right. So that is the only reason. Your office had already received an illegible copy of the same notice.
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Ms Jackson: All right. Then can you look at exhibit 11 which is the transcript of Dr Donahue's interview on November 13 concerning his office closure. Did you hear that broadcast?
Ms S. Murdock: CBC?
Ms Jackson: Yes.
Ms S. Murdock: On a Wednesday?
Ms Jackson: Yes.
Ms S. Murdock: No.
Ms Jackson: Did you hear about it?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: About that time?
Ms S. Murdock: Well, I left Sudbury that day so I would not have heard it then. I did not come back till a week the following Friday so --
Ms Jackson: Now, we marked this morning -- and you will have seen it on television -- a record of the telephone logs of some calls that you started to get about Dr Donahue. Those are exhibit 81. You were generally aware, were you, that your office was getting a very large number of calls concerning Dr Donahue?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And you can confirm, as did Mr Waddell, that what we see in exhibit 81 was not a complete record of every single call received.
Ms S. Murdock: True.
Ms Jackson: In addition, as I understand it, your office received some letters from constituents, and I am going to ask that those be circulated and marked as the next exhibit. I should tell you, Ms Murdock, that in the case of the letters, since some people indicate they are patients of Dr Donahue and make reference to their condition, I have deleted their names.
The Chair: Those letters will be marked as exhibit 86.
Ms Jackson: It is fair, is it not, that by far the vast majority of telephone calls and correspondence that your office received dealing with the threshold issue related to Dr Donahue?
Ms S. Murdock: Oh, yes. Initially, yes.
Ms Jackson: Well, during this period, in --
Ms S. Murdock: We are talking of early November? Yes.
Ms Jackson: Early November through at least the third week of November.
Ms S. Murdock: Early November, I would say, probably more. Certainly it was -- I think it was all Dr Donahue. I would say that changed as the months progressed.
Ms Jackson: All right, and other specialists became involved in discussions with the government as you moved through November.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Did you approve of what Dr Donahue was doing in suggesting that all of this might cause him to close his office?
Ms S. Murdock: Approve?
Ms Jackson: Approve.
Ms S. Murdock: Well, I do not think that is the word I would use, but I -- in terms of his threat to close his office?
Ms Jackson: Yes.
Ms S. Murdock: No, in that respect, I would say that I did not think it was proper to use that as a threat, no.
Ms Jackson: Did you consider that it was a kind of blackmail?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Did you say that to people?
Ms S. Murdock: No. Well, I did in your office, but I did not say it outside, no.
Ms Jackson: Did you consider that it was misleading?
Ms S. Murdock: I thought the information that Dr Donahue was disseminating through newspapers, radio -- he attended meetings uninvited just to relay the information about his situation, and I thought that the information that he was relaying was incorrect.
Ms Jackson: In what respect did you consider it was blackmail or misleading?
Ms S. Murdock: Well, first of all, albeit he certainly stated that he was on the underserviced area program, I do not think the understanding in the public was that the threshold would not affect him while he was on the underserviced area program; that was not a clear understanding. I do not think he tried to have the people understand that that was -- at least not from what I heard or saw in the paper -- that he tried to have them understand that he was not affected by the threshold while he was on the underserviced area program, and by then I understood that the epilation would have been a technical fee, and he was not explaining that all those technical fees were not affected by the threshold either. So I think that in just those two instances alone it was quite misleading. And then the financial aspect, I mean, he was quoting figures in the paper and leading people to believe that he was going to go bankrupt, and I could not see it.
1440
Ms Jackson: Just so we understand exactly what you are saying, you knew he was on the underserviced area program, and you thought that was till the end of June.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: So you knew that for at least that period of time he would not be subject to the threshold.
Ms S. Murdock: That is correct.
Ms Jackson: And you thought he was misleading people by not making that clear?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And then on epilation, you knew that epilation --
Ms S. Murdock: Well, if I might go back just to that last part?
Ms Jackson: Sure.
Ms S. Murdock: The fact, yes, that because he was making finances such an issue in his arguments as to why he had to close, I think it was imperative then that he explain it properly, how the threshold was truly going to affect him, yes.
Ms Jackson: If he understood, I suppose.
Ms S. Murdock: Well, he is a very bright man. I would think he would, yes.
Ms Jackson: All right. With respect to epilation, the point I think you are making there is that his epilation income, to the extent that he had one, would not be subject to the threshold.
Ms S. Murdock: That is right; at any time.
Ms Jackson: All right. And when did you learn that?
Ms S. Murdock: Well, I mean, the epilation was going to be terminated November 15, so in any case it was not going to be part of the whole parcel anyway. So that is number one. So that would be in my head. And number two, when I discovered that the epilation was a technical fee was probably the week of, let's see, 11th -- 18th, probably around there some time.
Ms Jackson: So you learned on November 18 that in addition to being delisted on November 15, any income before that would not be included in the threshold.
Ms S. Murdock: That is correct.
Ms Jackson: How did you come to learn that in the week of November 18?
Ms S. Murdock: I think finally it clicked in that it was a technical fee and, like, I was thinking of technical fees as X-rays and blood tests and that kind of thing. I was not thinking of electrolysis for the purposes of hair removal as being a technical fee. I finally understood that it would have been. It was not a professional fee.
Ms Jackson: And the import of that is that technical fees are deducted from a physician's income in --
Ms S. Murdock: I did not know that, though, until December 5. I mean, I did not understand that until December 5.
Ms Jackson: And in the week of November 18, what did you think technical fees were?
Ms S. Murdock: X-rays, blood tests --
Ms Jackson: And epilation.
Ms S. Murdock: Well, yes, as of that week I realized that it would have been a technical fee because a piece of equipment was being used.
Ms Jackson: And if you did not know that technical fees were deducted from the income for purposes of the threshold, what did you think the significance of epilation being a technical fee was, in the week of November 18?
Ms S. Murdock: I do not know if I am following you; sorry.
Ms Jackson: I thought you just told me that you did not understand that technical fees were not included in a physician's income --
Ms S. Murdock: Oh, okay.
Ms Jackson: -- for purposes of the threshold until December 5, right?
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm. Right. I just assumed that they were included in whatever he billed, like, that the threshold applied to whatever you billed.
Ms Jackson: Including epilation.
Ms S. Murdock: At that time, yes.
Ms Jackson: And even --
Ms S. Murdock: Well, until November 15, and then after that it did not apply any more.
Ms Jackson: All right. November 18 you learned something about epilation income that you thought was significant. What did you learn?
Ms S. Murdock: No, I do not think I "learned" anything, using the term, putting the word "learned" in quotation marks here. It just suddenly clicked that when Eugene explained this to me in early November -- and I am looking at the Gilles Bisson letter dated October 30 -- I at that time put "nor does it include technical charges." I had no real internalization of that information and it was not until November 18 in terms of talking -- I mean, everywhere you went you talked about this -- that it suddenly clicked that epilation was a technical fee. I do not think anybody came and told me that.
Ms Jackson: If it is a technical fee, what does that mean in terms of whether it is or is not included in the threshold, as you understood it during the week of November 18?
Ms S. Murdock: It would not have been. Technical fees were not included in the threshold.
Ms Jackson: But you did not know that until December 5?
Ms S. Murdock: No, no, no, no. I did not know the threshold was only calculated after technical fees were reduced, yes. So I guess we are saying the same thing.
Ms Jackson: I do not think we are.
Ms S. Murdock: Okay.
Ms Jackson: I want to know -- maybe I will try and make this simpler -- when you learned that epilation income, including epilation income before November 15, was not included in the threshold.
Ms S. Murdock: I do not know.
Ms Jackson: All right.
Ms S. Murdock: I am sorry. When I knew that? I do not know.
Ms Jackson: Are you able to say whether you knew it by the middle of November?
Ms S. Murdock: I knew that epilation was not included in the threshold? Yes, I can say that.
Ms Jackson: And that is one of the things that you thought was misleading about Dr Donahue's presentation?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And specifically that was that he was not telling people that a portion of his income would not be included in the threshold because it was epilation?
Ms S. Murdock: Do you want to say the last part of that again, please?
Ms Jackson: Epilation is not included in the threshold, right?
Ms S. Murdock: Right.
Ms Jackson: Dr Donahue does epilation. Dr Donahue may do a significant amount of epilation, right? In your understanding?
Ms S. Murdock: My understanding is that, yes.
Ms Jackson: And that portion of his income therefore is not included in the threshold.
Ms S. Murdock: Right. I would have known that.
Ms Jackson: But he is not telling people that.
Ms S. Murdock: That is right.
Ms Jackson: I take it that is one of the things that you thought --
Ms S. Murdock: Well, I thought all the time that the whole issue was really epilation and not threshold in Dr Donahue's instance.
Ms Jackson: All right, but we will come to that.
Ms S. Murdock: Okay.
Ms Jackson: All this started by my asking you what it was that he was doing that you thought was misleading and you told me this epilation point was misleading.
Ms S. Murdock: Right.
Ms Jackson: Is it misleading because he is not telling people that that portion of his income is not included in the threshold?
Ms S. Murdock: That is right. He was not making the distinction publicly at all.
Ms Jackson: Was there any other aspect of this epilation point that you thought was misleading?
Ms S. Murdock: No.
Ms Jackson: All right. And the last thing that you said was misleading was the financial aspect, the suggestion that he would be in bankruptcy.
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Ms Jackson: What was misleading about that?
Ms S. Murdock: Well, as a cause of threshold. I mean, in the newspaper articles, TV appearances, radio and so on, he was stating that threshold was causing him to be in financial difficulty, and based on my understanding of the threshold and how it worked and was going to be, I did not think that he was stating the case as it should have been stated. So I thought it was misleading.
Ms Jackson: You thought the threshold was not going to have a financial impact on him?
Ms S. Murdock: Well, of course the threshold is going to have a financial impact on all of them. I mean, that is why you negotiated it with the doctors themselves. The government of the day did not pick $400,000 as the mark, the doctors did. In Sudbury they voted against it, but they are the only ones, so we had to work something out with them. But of course it was going to affect him.
Ms Jackson: Now, having come to the conclusion that the position that Dr Donahue was taking was misleading people, I understand you had a meeting with your constituency workers to discuss how to respond to Dr Donahue.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes. Well, it was not specifically for that, but yes.
Ms Jackson: But that was in the end a substantial portion of what you did discuss in that meeting?
Ms S. Murdock: Substantial?
Ms Jackson: Yes.
Ms S. Murdock: No, I would not say that. It was certainly a part of it, though.
Ms Jackson: All right. And you met for how long?
Ms S. Murdock: About an hour. I closed my office for half an hour in order to continue the discussion, because we started it at lunch-hour.
Ms Jackson: And this was a meeting of yourself and Mr Waddell?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And who else?
Ms S. Murdock: Colleen Johnson-Malette and Giselle Adams, my other two CAs.
Ms Jackson: What is your best recollection of when this was?
Ms S. Murdock: It was before Remembrance Day, and in my recollection the Friday before Remembrance Day, which would have been November 8.
1450
Ms Jackson: And it is essentially a meeting -- you say it is at least in part a meeting to decide how to deal with the Dr Donahue issue as you are receiving it from your constituents, right?
Ms S. Murdock: When I came in that Friday morning, Colleen, who is the one who answers the phone -- she is the first person anyone has contact with in my office, generally -- was quite concerned because the phones were ringing and she had no answer and she did not know what "threshold" was and wanted me to explain. So, yes, I thought it was important that I sit them down.
Ms Jackson: And at that time you had talked to Dr LeBlanc.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And had you at that time learned from Shelley Martel that Dr Donahue was on the underserviced area program?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And had you learned anything else from Shelley Martel about Dr Donahue, as of the date of this meeting?
Ms S. Murdock: I do not think so, no.
Ms Jackson: All right. So you want to explain to people how to deal with the threshold issue as it is being presented by your constituents.
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm. Well, I wanted my constituency assistants to know how I felt, and since they are representing me, what I wanted; I wanted them to understand what my position was.
Ms Jackson: So that they could reflect that in their conversations with your constituents.
Ms S. Murdock: In their conversations, yes.
Ms Jackson: And at that time, as you have said, the way that issue was being presented in your constituency was in terms of Dr Donahue, chiefly.
Ms S. Murdock: You mean in my riding?
Ms Jackson: Yes.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes, Dr Donahue was the one who was making the press; that is true. But that was not my focus. I mean, he was the catalyst, for sure; there is no question. Frankly I think he should be commended in some ways, because if it had not been for him I am sure we would still be talking to the Ministry of Health about underserviced area programs. He sort of got everybody going, all the other doctors. So it had gone greater than Dr Donahue, you know what I mean?
Ms Jackson: All right.
Ms S. Murdock: So it was important that my staff understood the threshold and explained our policy on threshold. That is what I felt was important.
Ms Jackson: And it was also important, I take it, to correct the elements of the issue that you thought were misleading people.
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Ms Jackson: In particular, the misleading elements of what Dr Donahue was leading people to believe.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: All right.
Ms S. Murdock: Well, I mean, if somebody on the phone raised that as a point, yes, I would expect -- but if -- I mean, people talked to me about it all over the place, and unless they got into a financial discussion, I never did.
Ms Jackson: All right. And in that meeting I understand that you did a calculation of Dr Donahue's gross billings.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And you wrote it down?
Ms S. Murdock: I used a scrap piece of paper in the office, yes.
Ms Jackson: But you did not keep the scrap?
Ms S. Murdock: No. We searched for it when you called and asked for all our materials, and no.
Ms Jackson: All right. Now, I would like you to explain to the committee as completely as you can how you formulated this calculation of Dr Donahue's gross billings.
Ms S. Murdock: Okay, and I know this is important, so I will -- I figured -- he had already come on radio a number of times and had gone public, saying that he was out of pocket for the past three months, that he was over the threshold, and on that basis, I figured, well, if he was on the underserviced area program until the end of June, threshold would not apply. So if he was over the threshold, and this would have been early November, then that meant that he was over $400,000 by early November, which is -- what? -- a third of the year, I guess. And I just figured, well, he has to be over $400,000 and a third of the year, so multiply that by three, and I figured he was around $1.2 million to $1.5 million, annual billings to OHIP. That is how I arrived at that one.
Ms Jackson: All right. And you explained that calculation to your constituency assistants?
Ms S. Murdock: Well, yes, sort of very quickly, just -- yes. But I mean, I was just -- how I used that was, we were talking about threshold, and as much as I was explaining it, they were not having a clear understanding of it, so I took a piece of paper and said, "Well, like, for instance now," and I went through the whole -- that is how, and just ran through it that way.
Ms Jackson: But this was a calculation that related to -- the basis of it, as you have said, is Dr Donahue's pronounced statements?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes, we used him as an example since that was who we were getting all the calls about at that point in time.
Ms Jackson: Now, did you do anything further in terms of calculating what Dr Donahue's situation was, having arrived at this gross billing number of $1.2 million to $1.5 million?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes, we did -- or I did. Sorry. I believed in the threshold, and I did not believe it was wrong of any government to put some kind of restrictions on billings that the taxpayers of this province are paying for. As a consequence, I wanted to see how much -- talking on a rounded-off kind of basis, because obviously I do not know -- you would net or come down to and whether or not it was a fair living. If our threshold was going to really encumber someone, then I might have some sympathy, but if my calculations proved otherwise, then that is the way I worked it. So I subtracted what I thought might be his overhead costs -- well, first of all, I worked out the threshold on the $1.5 million, presuming it was going to be an annual basis from now on -- and worked out the $400,000 and the $50,000.
Ms Jackson: So on the first $400,000 of his income, he gets $400,000.
Ms S. Murdock: Dollar for dollar.
Ms Jackson: On the next $50,000 of his income, he gets --
Ms S. Murdock: He gets two thirds.
Ms Jackson: So he gets $33,000.
Ms S. Murdock: Whatever, rounded off. Then from the next $450,000 right through to the $1.5 million, he would get one third of that.
Ms Jackson: So he gets one third on just over $1 million.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And that comes out to a total income of about $800,000.
Ms S. Murdock: I guess. If you are calculating that, and that is what you get, yes. I did not --
Ms Jackson: Is that what you got?
Ms S. Murdock: My memory of it is that, but I do not know. Since I cannot find the paper, I cannot tell you for sure. I only did it once.
Ms Jackson: Any further calculations?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes. I made an estimate of how much it would cost to run your office, like salaries and overhead, and I think it was around $500,000.
Ms Jackson: The salaries and overhead would be about $500,000.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes, I thought around that. As my memory serves me in the example I gave, that is about what -- I was trying to pick round kinds of figures so it would be easy to subtract.
Ms Jackson: So that produces a net income?
Ms S. Murdock: No. I took off taxes. I mean, you do pay taxes, Canada and the province, so I took off about 40%. I figured it would be around the 40% mark.
Ms Jackson: If you take off the overhead and salaries of $500,000, you are down to $300,000, and you say you take off taxes on that too.
Ms S. Murdock: Well, I do not know, because my memory was that he ended up with a figure of around $300,000, but I am not sure.
Ms Jackson: Now, Mr Waddell's recollection this morning, I think, was that the net income to Dr Donahue as a result of this calculation was in the $800,000 to $900,000 range. Is that possible?
Ms S. Murdock: No. I do not recall it being that high. Obviously our calculations were different. I was the only one who was writing anything down at that time in the meeting I had, so if his recollection is $800,000 to $900,000, that sounds awfully high anyway, but I do not know.
Ms Jackson: It certainly might have been considerably higher than $300,000 at the time you did the calculation. Is that possible?
Ms S. Murdock: Considerably higher?
Ms Jackson: Yes.
Ms S. Murdock: No. I do not -- no. My recollection is, it was around the $300,000 mark.
Ms Jackson: After tax.
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Ms Jackson: All right. And all of this was to --
Ms S. Murdock: So whatever -- in meeting with you, we have had to focus our minds on meetings that occurred in the past. My recollection is around $300,000 as the end result, and it is only because of questions you have asked that I have -- I mean, that is the kind of thinking I would have done -- I think I would have done -- in order to arrive at that.
Ms Jackson: All right. You remember starting at about $1.5 million and ending at about $300,000, and you are not terribly clear about how you got there. Is that fair?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes, right. That is fair.
Ms Jackson: Okay. And the purpose of all of this was to establish that in fact Dr Donahue was not going to be --
Ms S. Murdock: Starving.
Ms Jackson: -- financially threatened by the threshold or forced into bankruptcy.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And therefore, in dealing with your constituents, your assistants would understand that.
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Ms Jackson: And indeed might pass it on.
Ms S. Murdock: That was never discussed. It was only used as an example, based on the information Dr Donahue had already provided.
1500
Ms Jackson: But it was your best assessment of what the impact on Dr Donahue would be, right?
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Ms Jackson: The purpose of making that assessment of impact was to be able to respond to constituents who said you are driving this man out. Is that not right?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes. My understanding was that the questions that were coming were, yes, "Dr Donahue, we do not want him to go." I did not want him to go either, so we are of the same mind in that respect. When they were saying we were driving him to bankruptcy, I think that then, yes, I wanted my staff to understand how the threshold worked in terms of explaining that to the constituents so they would have a better understanding of what this threshold meant.
Ms Jackson: And in particular how it would work in relation to the issue they were raising, namely Dr Donahue.
Ms S. Murdock: The issue was Dr Donahue, yes. Some of them started calling in on their heart doctors. I would say the cardiovasculars and Dr Donahue were the two biggies in the issue.
Ms Jackson: So this calculation is the response to those who were calling about Dr Donahue, not cardiologists.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes. At that point in time, the meeting was a result of Dr Donahue's announcement that he was going to close up shop.
Ms Jackson: All right. As we see in the telephone records for a period of time after November 8, which is when this meeting probably was --
Ms S. Murdock: My recollection is it was around there, yes.
Ms Jackson: -- you continued to get a large number of telephone calls --
Ms S. Murdock: Oh, yes.
Ms Jackson: -- about Dr Donahue.
Ms S. Murdock: Continued.
Ms Jackson: So it would not surprise you if the response by your constituency assistants to those telephone calls was along the lines of, "This is a man who is billing gross billings of about $1.5 million and clearing as much as $300,000."
Ms S. Murdock: I do not know if they used the figures. I heard Bob this morning, obviously, and he did, but -- yes.
Ms Jackson: It would not surprise you, after that meeting, if that is what happened.
Ms S. Murdock: No. I did not instruct them not to say it; that is true.
Ms Jackson: And you never inquired as to what they were saying.
Ms S. Murdock: Anybody who was reading newspapers or listening to the radio, with the exception of anyone having an understanding of the underserviced area program, could have made the same kinds of calculations, so I do not think it was untoward for them to do that.
Ms Jackson: Therefore you did not make inquiries.
Ms S. Murdock: No. Right.
Ms Jackson: Now, you have indicated that one of the reasons you did this was that you wanted to know what was the effect of the threshold on Dr Donahue.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And the result of it is that you assumed he is still financially solid. May I put it that way?
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Ms Jackson: Is it fair that the conclusion from that would be that he does not probably need a further exemption from the threshold?
Ms S. Murdock: No. I do not think that is a --
Ms Jackson: In any event, knowing to what extent he is affected by the threshold is something you presumably felt you needed to know to help formulate your own view of the appropriate policy here. Is that right?
Ms S. Murdock: To help form my own view of policy?
Ms Jackson: Of the appropriate policy for dealing with Dr Donahue.
Ms S. Murdock: I see what you are saying. Okay. I did not believe, and I told my staff this, that the threshold was the real issue. The cutting off of epilation was more at issue, and since Dr Donahue himself was using threshold as the argument for why he was going to have to close up his doors, we had to explain that the threshold was not the cause of his closure, if he chose to close. That was the reason for the meeting.
Ms Jackson: So it does help you formulate what you think is the appropriate policy issue --
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: -- in respect of Dr Donahue; namely, you do not think he has a threshold problem.
Ms S. Murdock: That is right.
Ms Jackson: It also is important for you in assessing not only what policy position to take but how to respond to your constituents on the policy issue.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: You would agree, would you not, that in both areas, determining the appropriate policy response and dealing with your constituents, it would be better to know what his actual situation was than to guess?
Ms S. Murdock: The information we were using was from him, so I did not think he was saying that what was not there was not there.
Ms Jackson: But you would agree, as a general proposition at least, it would be better to know than to guess?
Ms S. Murdock: Well, we could not know.
Ms Jackson: Why not?
Ms S. Murdock: First of all, unless he was going to tell me -- I mean, we could not get it through the Ministry of Health. I knew that. I would never even have thought of asking. It never even rose up in my mind. That issue never arose because Dr Donahue put it on the media himself. He told us what his figures were. I have only found out from Dr Donahue himself, or at least the reporting of what Dr Donahue has said was that he owes $129,000 to his bank and he is going to owe, after the next payroll, $150,000; that he has been paying out of his own pocket for the last three months; that he is over threshold; that he needs $800,000 to $1 million a year for operating costs. I did not get this out of my own head or from any other source except Dr Donahue himself.
Ms Jackson: First of all, if he was reported correctly.
Ms S. Murdock: If, and I did preface my remarks with that comment.
Ms Jackson: Secondly, if you have the right date for the underserviced area program.
Ms S. Murdock: Pardon?
Ms Jackson: If you have the right date for the underserviced area program.
Ms S. Murdock: In relation to?
Ms Jackson: Dr Donahue.
Ms S. Murdock: No, I realize in relation to Dr Donahue, but in relation to?
Ms Jackson: The calculation that you did depended on assuming he came off the underserviced area program at the end of June.
Ms S. Murdock: No, it did not. That calculation was an annual calculation once threshold was in place, so it is irrelevant.
Ms Jackson: You started by saying that you assumed he had made $400,000 over the period since he came off the underserviced area program, which you thought was the end of June.
Ms S. Murdock: No. If I left you with that impression, that is wrong. He was saying that he was over threshold and obviously therefore over $400,000 at that point in time, and that he was doing that in a quarter of the year or a third of the year, and then if you multiplied that by three, I took an annual figure of about $1.5 million. It had nothing to do with whether he was on the underserviced area program at all. It was Dr Donahue because he was the issue, but I was using it as an annual figure to show threshold. It had nothing to do with Dr Donahue on a personal level and in regard to his own first third of the year being on the underserviced area program.
Ms Jackson: You would go this far with me, would you not? It would be best to know, in determining the impact of the threshold on Dr Donahue, to know when he comes off the underserviced area program, right?
Ms S. Murdock: For the calculation I used or just generally speaking?
Ms Jackson: In terms of trying to assess the impact on him of the threshold.
Ms S. Murdock: You see, that was not --
Ms Jackson: One example being that if he happened to be on the underserviced area program until the end of December, that would tell you a lot about the impact on him of the threshold.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes, but for the purposes of that meeting, that is not how I calculated that.
Ms Jackson: If you were wrong on that, you would be wrong on the impact of the threshold?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: If he is on the underserviced area program until the end of December, your calculation of the impact on him of the threshold is all wet, is it not?
Ms S. Murdock: Well, he probably would not have been making it an issue, because it would not have hit him.
Ms Jackson: If he had understood it.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes. I think he understood.
Ms Jackson: If you had exact information as to his billings by month and you knew what those really were, you would be better off in terms of calculating the impact on him of the threshold, would you not?
Ms S. Murdock: If I knew his billings by month?
Ms Jackson: Yes.
Ms S. Murdock: Well, yes, I guess that makes good sense.
Ms Jackson: And if you knew how much of his billings were epilation billings, you would know how much of his income was really part of the threshold?
Ms S. Murdock: No, because epilation would not have been under threshold.
Ms Jackson: If half of his annual income, for example, was epilation -- in your calculation, you assume all of his income is subject to the threshold.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: If half of his income in fact is epilation, that tells you a lot about the impact on him of the threshold, does it not?
Ms S. Murdock: No. I was not even looking at epilation at that point in time. I figured November 15, he was not getting it anyway. Do you know what I mean? It was just an example that was simply used, as any doctor, but we used him as an example in terms of number of staff and all that kind of thing.
1510
Ms Jackson: Maybe we can shorten this. It is an example that makes a number of assumptions, is it not?
Ms S. Murdock: Oh, sure.
Ms Jackson: It would be a better --
Ms S. Murdock: I mean, Dr Donahue did not provide me with all of this.
Ms Jackson: I understand that, and that is why you made the assumptions.
Ms S. Murdock: Right.
Ms Jackson: You would get a better idea of the impact of the threshold on him if you knew what his actual situation was?
Ms S. Murdock: Oh, sure, yes.
Ms Jackson: Okay. And you did not ask the Ministry of Health what his actual situation was because you knew you could not that information.
Ms S. Murdock: It never entered my head to even think about calling them.
Ms Jackson: You knew you could not get that information.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Did you know that Mr Laughren's office had been attempting to obtain information on Dr Donahue's -- as they put it -- "actual position"?
Ms S. Murdock: No.
Ms Jackson: I had showed you just at noonhour, and I would ask you to look at it again, exhibit 49.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: That is where I take that request from. You did not see this document, as I understand it.
Ms S. Murdock: No.
Ms Jackson: Did you discuss with anyone in Mr Laughren's office what they were trying to do in terms of obtaining information on Dr Donahue?
Ms S. Murdock: No.
Ms Jackson: Are you able to help us in understanding, given that Shelley Martel is taking the lead on this issue, why Mr Laughren's office would be pressing to get information on Dr Donahue?
Ms S. Murdock: The only thing I can see is that this memo is from Betty Notar -- I am strictly making a presumption here -- who is EA to the Treasurer. The agreement we had in terms of a lead in the constituency was done from the three constituencies, so maybe his Toronto staff did not know that. I do not know that; you would have to ask them.
Ms Jackson: Did you ever take any steps to check the accuracy of the estimated calculation you did on Dr Donahue?
Ms S. Murdock: No. I made that calculation in that meeting and I never referred to it again.
Ms Jackson: I understand the only time you ever had a conversation specifically with a staff member about what they were saying about Dr Donahue's billings came after the article that was by Mr Donovan in the Star.
Ms S. Murdock: That is right.
Ms Jackson: We perhaps should turn that up.
Ms S. Murdock: I have it in the file.
Ms Jackson: I should be able to give everybody the exhibit number, though. Just let me see if I can find it -- exhibit 21. That is the article that indicates near the end:
"In one instance a Sudbury man, who does not want his identity revealed, telephoned the office of Sudbury MPP Sharon Murdock to voice his displeasure that Donahue had been forced to close his office. An unidentified aide in Murdock's office responded: `Don't worry about him. He billed $200,000 for epilation last year.'"
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Ms Jackson: Did you discuss that with anyone on your staff or in your constituency office?
Ms S. Murdock: I was called at 9:15 on the Sunday morning to advise me that this was in the paper, and assuming that since Bob does most of my outreach -- Bob Waddell, that is -- he was probably the one who had been spoken to about it, I called and asked him if he said it.
Ms Jackson: He said yes?
Ms S. Murdock: No, he did not say it that way, but he thinks he was the unidentified person. It is not the greatest, most reliable source of reporting here when an unidentified person is talking to unidentified persons.
Ms Jackson: Did he confirm that was the general statement he provided, perhaps not in those words, but that is the general --
Ms S. Murdock: No, he said he did not say that. He said that if $200,000 was used for epilation, then it could not be used for other medical services, or something along that line. That is what he told me on the phone.
Ms Jackson: You heard this morning that he said he might well have said or been understood to say that Dr Donahue was billing $200,000 for epilation.
Ms S. Murdock: Frankly, and it was only this morning, I cannot recall.
Ms Jackson: All right. Well, he said what he said; I will not trouble you to take you back to that. Did you have any comment on the propriety of that when you heard it?
Ms S. Murdock: No. I just wanted to confirm whether he had said that or something different and whether it was him or not, because I do have two other people. I only have the one man in the office, but there was no indication in that paragraph whether it was a male or a female that the person had spoken to, so I just wanted to confirm that it was him or one of the others.
Ms Jackson: Have you ever made inquiries about what your other constituency assistants were saying about Dr Donahue's billings?
Ms S. Murdock: Since this article?
Ms Jackson: Yes.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes, I did. They did not feel as comfortable with the figures, so they were not using figures particularly. And, you know --
Ms Jackson: Have you ever spoken to Dr Donahue?
Ms S. Murdock: Other than when I went to him as a dermatologist?
Ms Jackson: Yes, other than that.
Ms S. Murdock: Just in the airport one time, about a year and a half or so ago. Other than that, no, not on this issue.
Ms Jackson: Have you ever spoken to anyone in Mr Laughren's office about this issue?
Ms S. Murdock: No.
Ms Jackson: Have you ever spoken to Mr Laughren about Dr Donahue?
Ms S. Murdock: Well, Shelley, Floyd and I used to have quick little scrums before question period whenever we had to on a -- like when the cardiovascular meeting was coming up and that kind of thing, yes.
Ms Jackson: I will come back to the cardiovascular meeting. Any conversation with Ms Martel's office about Dr Donahue?
Ms S. Murdock: No.
Ms Jackson: Now, there was a meeting on November 15 at which some local MPPs and Dr Donahue were in attendance in Sudbury. Were you there?
Ms S. Murdock: No.
Ms Jackson: Did you know the meeting was going to take place?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Did you know that Dr Donahue was going to be there?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And what were you told afterwards about the meeting?
Ms S. Murdock: Just that it had gone as expected.
Ms Jackson: Which meant what?
Ms S. Murdock: To me? What it meant was it was complaints about how the government of the day was sending doctors to the States.
Ms Jackson: And in particular, Dr Donahue?
Ms S. Murdock: Dr Donahue was the main focus of that November 15 meeting, as I recall.
Ms Jackson: Can I ask you to turn to exhibit 36, and in it an article on November 29 which is about eight pages in from the back. That is the Sudbury Star article of November 29. You have seen that before?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes, I am pretty sure I have.
Ms Jackson: This is the one that includes statements like, "Donahue estimates that he needs a billing allowance equal to two or two and a half times the $400,000 cap or $800,000 to $1 million."
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Did you see that -- November 29 would be a Friday. Did you see that on the Friday?
Ms S. Murdock: I saw everything. My staff were cutting the clippings out for me, so even though I was not there during the week, when I came in on Fridays I had my reading for the weekend. I do get the Sudbury Star here in Toronto, but it is usually about two days behind. So I was reading the articles, yes.
Ms Jackson: On this occasion, you were up in Sudbury on November 30, were you not?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: So you saw this before --
Ms S. Murdock: Yes, I saw it Friday night.
Ms Jackson: And Saturday morning you and Ms Martel and Mr Laughren met with the cardiologists?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes, and John Rodriguez, yes.
Ms Jackson: And before you met with the cardiologists you had a breakfast meeting?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: With, among others, Dr MacMillan, Dr LeBlanc and someone else from the ministry?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And I understand that --
Ms S. Murdock: Well, Floyd did not come till quite late. I was a little late, too, but I -- it started at 8 and I might have arrived at 5 or 10 after, but Floyd did not arrive until around nine-ish.
Ms Jackson: This meeting takes place with you all sitting around a breakfast table.
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Ms Jackson: And as I understand it, your recollection is that you were sitting across from John Rodriguez who was there also?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: To your right was Shelley Martel?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Across from her was Dr MacMillan?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: To Shelley Martel's right was Dr LeBlanc?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: To your left was the man from the ministry?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And when Mr Laughren arrived he sat opposite the man from the ministry?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And at the end was Mr Wood, Mr Laughren's assistant?
Ms S. Murdock: Right.
Ms Jackson: Both Mr Laughren and Mr Wood arriving very late at the end?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Do you recall any discussion that arose from this newspaper article of November 29?
Ms S. Murdock: No. I know you asked me this before. I do not recall this at all. I do not recall discussing it to any great length at that particular meeting.
Ms Jackson: Do you recall a discussion about procedures for reviewing billings within the ministry?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes. That is because I asked a question. yes.
1520
Ms Jackson: Was that question prompted in any way by this article the previous day?
Ms S. Murdock: Well, if I do not remember the article, I do not think it was. But it could have been part of their discussion. I do not remember the article being discussed to initiate a discussion on review procedures.
Ms Jackson: What was the question you asked?
Ms S. Murdock: I wanted to know what triggered Dr MacMillan's -- I do not know what the word would be -- mind to have a file reviewed. Like, what would make him or cause him to look at a file? I mean, he gets -- there are 20,000 doctors in the province. I could not imagine that he would be going through on a monthly basis every single one of the 20,000. You know, something had to -- or the computer would have to be programmed to twig on to something, and I wanted to know how that worked.
Ms Jackson: Did you already know that there was a review procedure?
Ms S. Murdock: No, no. I thought MacMillan did it. That is why I asked him. I figured he is the director in Kingston and he is in charge of all these records and these files and he would know.
Ms Jackson: Does he ever do anything to review the billings? Is that the question?
Ms S. Murdock: Pardon?
Ms Jackson: Is your question, did he ever do anything to review the billings?
Ms S. Murdock: No, my question was, what caused him to look at a file, you know, in comparison to not looking at a file.
Ms Jackson: All right. And what did he tell you?
Ms S. Murdock: Well, he said it was a number of things, that sometimes you would look at if there was a sudden increase from one year's billing to the next year's billing, or if there were the same kind of tests being done -- a large number of the same kinds of tests suddenly being done -- or if there was the same patient number being used all the time. I do not know exactly all the inner workings, but there were a number of things that triggered him to look at a file.
Ms Jackson: And did he describe what happened when he looked at such a file, and what the review procedure was?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes, because I then said: "Well, what happens if you look at something? What's the procedure then?" So he told me that there was this review committee in place.
Ms Jackson: At the College of Physicians and Surgeons?
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
He would send over the file, or the doctor who was -- who he had suspicions of, or whatever. And then they would -- and it was left to them. He said quite proudly that he thought -- my recollection is that it was about 70% of the files that were sent over were found either that an error was made or whatever, but that his suspicions were correct.
Ms Jackson: Was there any discussion of Dr Donahue in the context of this description of the review process?
Ms S. Murdock: No.
Ms Jackson: Was there any connection in your mind?
Ms S. Murdock: Not consciously, I do not think, no.
Ms Jackson: Do you know if Ms Martel was part of this discussion of what a review process was?
Ms S. Murdock: There were a number of us at the table, and there were a number of conversations going on at different times. Like, John had to be explained the whole underserviced, I am sorry, the whole threshold issue had to be explained to John Rodriguez because he had no idea what it meant. So I know that conversation was going on, and I did not bother listening to that one. I got into a conversation with Eugene.
Ms Jackson: So you are having a conversation with Dr MacMillan, who is diagonally across from you, about review procedures, while Ms Martel is beside you.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: So the only way she would not have been a part of that conversation was if she was talking to Dr LeBlanc.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes, but mind you, my memory of that morning was that there were conversations going across and back, because I know that John and Eugene, at one point, were having a conversation, and MacMillan and I were having a conversation, and that was at crosspurposes, too. I mean --
Ms Jackson: Do you recall any conversation that morning about Dr Donahue?
Ms S. Murdock: We must have. I mean, it just makes sense that we must have, but I do not recall it. It would not have been anything different than we had discussed before.
Ms Jackson: And at that point -- you have told us already that with Ms Martel you had discussed whether he was on the underserviced area program.
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Ms Jackson: Had you discussed with her anything else about Dr Donahue by then?
Ms S. Murdock: No. Our conversation in that breakfast meeting was mainly on the cardiovasculars, particularly with John there, because he had had --
Ms Jackson: I am sorry. I am saying, as of that time when you went into that breakfast meeting had you discussed with Ms Martel anything about Dr Donahue, other than the fact that he was on the underserviced area program?
Ms S. Murdock: Well, that we both were in agreement that the threshold did not affect him. I mean, we had discussed our policy of threshold in the agreement in relation to Dr Donahue and whether Floyd, Shelley or I thought that it did affect him, or had an effect, to the degree that he was describing -- and those kinds of conversations, but no.
Ms Jackson: Did you describe your calculation of the effect on him?
Ms S. Murdock: No, never. I never did discuss it with anyone other than, as an example, in my office.
Ms Jackson: You have indicated you thought that it was not a threshold issue; it was an epilation issue. Was there discussion of that among you and Mr Laughren as well?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes. I mean, we were in agreement with that too. You do not have to discuss those kinds of things that you are in agreement on. Do you know what I mean?
Ms Jackson: Did you discuss anything else that you can recall about Dr Donahue?
Ms S. Murdock: No.
Ms Jackson: After the breakfast meeting you went on to a meeting with the cardiologists. Was there any discussion of Dr Donahue then?
Ms S. Murdock: I do not recall any. It was a long meeting. It went from 9:30 to about 12:30 and most of it was taken up by the cardiovascular surgeons and the cardiologists themselves explaining how their outreach programs worked, and trying to get us to understand how they would like us to bill, or allow them to bill, and we had a slide presentation by the director of the hospital. I mean, it was focused very much on the cardiovascular.
Ms Jackson: All right. We have heard some evidence that after the meeting Dr MacMillan and Ms Martel, at least, and I think Dr LeBlanc, had lunch together briefly. Were you there?
Ms S. Murdock: No. I was being an artist.
Ms Jackson: Did you have any other discussion with anyone about Dr Donahue that day?
Ms S. Murdock: No.
Ms Jackson: Then I understand that after that you were ill, and in fact in bed for most of the week until the December 5 meeting with the doctors.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: But you did attend the doctors' meeting.
Ms S. Murdock: Oh, yes.
Ms Jackson: Now you have provided from your file a copy of something called the Sudbury trip checklist. I would ask if we could distribute that and put it in front of you.
The Chair: That will be marked as exhibit 87.
Ms Jackson: This is a document that you first saw when, Ms Murdock?
Ms S. Murdock: Sunday afternoon in your office.
Ms Jackson: Well, so that we are clear on it, you provided it to us.
Ms S. Murdock: Oh, yes, for sure. When we got the letter for me to attend here, I just phoned my staff in Sudbury and said, "Pack up the doctors' file and send it off to Tory Tory," and that is what they did, and this was included.
Ms Jackson: Are you able to assist the committee at all as to what this document is?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes. Well, I did check on it. You did ask me to check on it, so I did. But again, this is not firsthand information. The writing, as I identified on Sunday, is definitely from my executive assistant at Labour, Alan Ernst, and this was a meeting he had attended on, I believe, December 3 in regard to the contents of the media package that was going to be distributed at the December 5 meeting.
Ms Jackson: Who was the meeting with?
Ms S. Murdock: Hmm. Well, the document you showed me had the names of three people on the top, but I have no idea who was at that meeting. I believe -- well, I should not say that. Alan of course was there, Nuala Doherty, David Sword and Larry Corea, or whatever his last name is.
Ms Jackson: And that was to prepare for the December 5 meeting and the media pack?
Ms S. Murdock: What he told me was that this was a checklist as to what was going to be the contents of the media kit, the package that was going to be distributed, that this is what they had a meeting about, to discuss this, whether this was going to go into the meeting or whether it was not going to go.
Ms Jackson: Under the heading "Intelligence" -- the notes on this are Mr Ernst's, are they?
Ms S. Murdock: They are, and I did check that word because we were having difficulty reading it and it is "scour."
Ms Jackson: Next to the words, "Donahue -- details of practise in media -- analysis," he has written "scour his version."
Ms S. Murdock: Right.
1530
Ms Jackson: What does that mean? Did you ask Mr Ernst?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes, I did ask him. He said that -- well, you know, this is so difficult. Just that it was since the media certainly was prevalent with Dr Donahue's version of the threshold, we were going to have to really explain that and clear up any misconceptions of Dr Donahue's version of the threshold issue.
Ms Jackson: And there is a note there that says "analysis." Did he tell you what analysis that referred to?
Ms S. Murdock: No.
Ms Jackson: On the second page there is a note about the underserviced area program, and we know that a list of the underserviced area program participants found its way into the media package that has been marked in these proceedings as exhibit 8. Could you turn that up for a minute?
Ms S. Murdock: Exhibit --
Ms Jackson: Eight.
Ms S. Murdock: Any particular part?
Ms Jackson: Yes, the list of specialists on the underserviced area program, which you will find about two thirds of the way in.
Ms S. Murdock: Right.
Ms Jackson: You have seen that list before?
Ms S. Murdock: No. I did not look at the kit until afterwards. I knew it was there, but I did not pay any attention to it.
Ms Jackson: Were you ever given any information as to the specific dates on which Dr Donahue joined the underserviced area program, apart from the information you had had from Ms Martel about June?
Ms S. Murdock: No, my understanding was it was the end of June. This says it is the end of August.
Ms Jackson: Under the heading "Other" on page 2, are you able from your conversation with Mr Ernst to give us any assistance as to what these items refer to?
Ms S. Murdock: No, I did not ask him for any of that.
Ms Jackson: All right. You referred to a document that I showed you with people's names on it. That would be exhibit 63.
Ms S. Murdock: Okay, one second here. Yes, right.
Ms Jackson: Are you able to say, was this generated as a result of this meeting on December 3?
Ms S. Murdock: I am not able to say.
Ms Jackson: All right. Did Mr Ernst pass any of the information from this meeting on to you prior to your attending the meeting in Sudbury on December 5?
Ms S. Murdock: Well, he said he called me. I had that flu that was going around in December and I have no recollection whatsoever that I even spoke to anyone on the phone for about four days, but he says I did. I do not remember it at all.
Ms Jackson: Did he say what he told you?
Ms S. Murdock: Just that they were going to be sending a media package up, he said, and that he had attended this meeting, but I do not remember that even.
Ms Jackson: Did you ask him whether he received any information about Dr Donahue's practice at this meeting?
Ms S. Murdock: I asked nothing. I was quite perturbed that anyone would even call me at home when I was that ill, so --
Ms Jackson: No, I am sorry, when you were talking about this as a result of my inquiries to you.
Ms S. Murdock: Oh, yesterday, no.
Ms Jackson: I think, in view of the time remaining for the committee, I am going to ask you to make those inquiries, because it may be difficult to have Mr Ernst here himself. Could you inquire of him --
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: -- what information, if any, he learned in this meeting, or in any discussions with Ms Doherty or Mr Sword --
Ms S. Murdock: Regarding Dr Donahue?
Ms Jackson: -- or Mr Corea, regarding Dr Donahue's practice?
Ms S. Murdock: Okay.
Ms Jackson: And if he did receive any information, what information he received and where he understood it came from.
Ms S. Murdock: Okay.
Ms Jackson: If you could let me know that through your counsel, I can put it before the committee.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes. I am sure he is watching as we speak, so we can get that done.
Ms Jackson: He can start on it early.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Would you also ask him if he recalls whether he passed any such information on to you? I take it you do not recall because you were ill.
December 5 you attended the doctors' meeting of which we have heard quite a bit already.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Did you learn anything about the threshold agreement that you did not know before?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes, I did.
Ms Jackson: What was that?
Ms S. Murdock: Well, actually two things. One was that the threshold did not kick in until after technical fees were subtracted, which I had not realized until Michael Decter explained that at his portion of the meeting. And then when Michael Decter was speaking, one of the people from the audience yelled out about knowing doctors' overhead costs and how much would you calculate those to be, and Mr Decter explained that he could not know that because overhead costs were an expense that the doctors would know, and then the editor of the Sudbury Star yelled out, "You mean to say you make a decision without knowing what the overhead costs were?" Michael Decter said, "Well, actually, as a rule of thumb, the technical fees are usually 40% of gross billings and overhead costs work out to be about 40%," so except in the cases of GPs, this was a rule of thumb that they used. That was news to me, which meant then in my mind -- I presume you are going to ask me what it meant. You want me to go on?
Ms Jackson: Well, all right, what does that mean to you?
Ms S. Murdock: In my mind it suddenly struck me then that the costs, the technical fees, which were not under threshold, would cover overhead costs in most offices of specialists, and then that really reinforced my feeling that the threshold system was the correct one to go.
Ms Jackson: And it also indicated that one of the assumptions underlying your calculation of the impact of the threshold on Dr Donahue was wrong.
Ms S. Murdock: Say this again? Sorry?
Ms Jackson: It indicated that one of the assumptions upon which you calculated the impact of the threshold on Dr Donahue was wrong.
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm, but it actually would have assisted my argument.
Ms Jackson: It would have changed the financial impact for him.
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Ms Jackson: Dr Donahue was at the December 5 meeting?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Do you recall learning anything more about his situation or practice beyond what you had already known?
Ms S. Murdock: No.
Ms Jackson: After the meeting, I understand that people repaired to the bar, to some extent to lick their wounds from the meeting?
Ms S. Murdock: Yep. Actually, the meeting from a political point of view was not nearly in my view as bad as the bureaucrats thought it was. I mean, it could have been much, much worse, in my view, so it was not all that bad.
Ms Jackson: In any event, you repaired to the bar?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes, we sure did.
Ms Jackson: Do you recall if there was any discussion about Dr Donahue then?
Ms S. Murdock: No. No, we talked about the meeting and what we had to do to get people to understand about the threshold, because it was pretty evident even from the meeting that we still did not have people understanding how the threshold worked, like, the actual methodology of the threshold.
Ms Jackson: I want to just review with you as of that date, December 5, what you knew about Dr Donahue from what you had read and accumulated.
Ms S. Murdock: On December 5?
Ms Jackson: Yes. You knew he was a dermatologist.
Ms S. Murdock: Oh, sure.
Ms Jackson: And you knew he did electrolysis.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Did you know how much?
Ms S. Murdock: No. Well --
Ms Jackson: Did you make an estimate of how much?
Ms S. Murdock: You mean in terms of a percentage of his practice?
Ms Jackson: Yes.
Ms S. Murdock: No, I never did that. I had heard -- I mean, you have got to understand the situation in Sudbury at the time, which was you could not go anywhere without it being discussed. I mean, this was the hot issue, doctors leaving Sudbury after we fight so hard to get our specialists. So at some function, a dinner function I was at, someone at the table that I was sitting at said that Dr Donahue had five electrologists, and I heard Bob say nine, so rumours were running rampant in the city. I mean, everybody had versions of everything.
Ms Jackson: On the basis of five electrologists, had you made an assumption about the amount of electrolysis work he was doing?
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm. I had.
Ms Jackson: Which was what?
Ms S. Murdock: I figured that the epilation portion of his practice had to amount to about $400,000 to $500,000 annually.
Ms Jackson: And had you come to a conclusion about whether your $1.5-million gross billing number was on the money, as it were, or whether it was conservative or whether it was --
Ms S. Murdock: It was conservative. In my view? I thought the $1.5 million was quite conservative.
Ms Jackson: Any information about other practice areas of Dr Donahue besides dermatology?
Ms S. Murdock: Well, I knew he did the skin cancer. I mean, anything that had to do with dermatology I assumed he was doing. With a catchment area of 500,000 to 600,000 people in northern Ontario, the man would hardly have time to do anything else but dermatology.
1540
Ms Jackson: You share an apartment in Sudbury with Andrea Valentini?
Ms S. Murdock: That is correct.
Ms Jackson: And she is an assistant to Ms Martel?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Have you discussed Dr Donahue with her?
Ms S. Murdock: In terms of when the newspapers and TV and so on, yes.
Ms Jackson: When he is in the media you have discussed him.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes. While you are sitting in the living room and he comes on television, yes, you discuss him.
Ms Jackson: Have you ever talked with her about the level of his gross billings?
Ms S. Murdock: No.
Ms Jackson: Of the amount of epilation he does?
Ms S. Murdock: I probably discussed the epilation aspect, or at least when on one of my -- it would not have been a discussion; it would have been me pontificating.
Ms Jackson: That he does a lot of epilation?
Ms S. Murdock: Pardon?
Ms Jackson: That he did a lot of epilation?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And did you ever discuss with her your estimate of his billings?
Ms S. Murdock: Not to my recollection.
Ms Jackson: Did she give you any information about Dr Donahue?
Ms S. Murdock: No.
Ms Jackson: Do you know if she was responsible for dealing with this issue for Ms Martel?
Ms S. Murdock: She would not have been. She deals with Miss Martel as the Minister of Northern Development and does not really handle any of the constituency issues.
Ms Jackson: When did you first hear of the Thunder Bay incident involving Ms Martel?
Ms S. Murdock: Question period on Monday.
Ms Jackson: December 9?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And later that day you were asked to join a meeting of the northern MPPs to discuss the underserviced area program issues?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes. Well, okay, after the December 5 meeting on the Friday night, Eugene had stayed in town all day Friday and had met with doctors, and I had met with Doctor Hollingsworth, Dr de Blacam, Eugene, Mark Mieto and myself, and we had discussed the underserviced area program and how we could alter it or work out an agreement to change the situation for underserviced areas. They had discussed it in all-day meetings and again the next day and had worked out something, which Eugene then felt he had to bring back to the minister and look at, and then of course they would still have to discuss it with OMA. So this meeting on Monday was in relation to that information and what Eugene's feel of the OMA had been.
Ms Jackson: Did some of those people congregate for that meeting?
Ms S. Murdock: Some of which people?
Ms Jackson: The people who were to meet to discuss this?
Ms S. Murdock: Well, Floyd, Shelley and I were told -- I got the message in the House, I guess, that day that I was to be at this meeting at 6:30 in the room outside the cabinet room. I was sitting on leg/regs, so I left the resources development committee to go to leg regs and then left there to go to this meeting. Shelley, Floyd and I were supposed to be there. Floyd never came. And Frances was supposed to be there, and Frances was chairing P and P, so she could not come out. So we had Sue Colley, Shelley Martel, who showed up late, me, Michael Decter and Eugene LeBlanc.
Ms Jackson: Was there any discussion of the Thunder Bay incident?
Ms S. Murdock: No. We discussed the underserviced program.
Ms Jackson: You heard Ms Martel's explanation of the incident in the House on Monday and again on Tuesday?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Did you become concerned about that explanation?
Ms S. Murdock: Concerned?
Ms Jackson: Yes.
Ms S. Murdock: No.
Ms Jackson: Is there anything about it that struck you as unusual?
Ms S. Murdock: Shelley's demeanour was somewhat different than she would normally be.
Ms Jackson: Anything else?
Ms S. Murdock: No.
Ms Jackson: Did you talk to her about her explanation?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes. On -- well, the first day I did not really take it seriously. I mean, it was from the opposition and I did not think it was real. On Tuesday, when Shelley continued --
Mr Elston: That tells us a lot.
Ms S. Murdock: Well, sorry, but that is the reality of this. So on Tuesday, when Shelley continued being very humble and quiet --
Mr Harnick: Disdain for the system.
The Chair: Order.
Ms S. Murdock: -- I took it more seriously. I do not remember if it was the Tuesday that I got to talk to her, because as soon as she got out of question period her staff went to talk to her, but it may have been the Tuesday or the Wednesday, and I talked to her about where I thought she might have gotten the idea of an investigation.
Ms Jackson: What did you say to her?
Ms S. Murdock: First of all, I went up and asked her if she had attended any meetings that I had not attended, other than the November 15 one, to which she had answered no, and I said, "Then you've seen what I've seen and I haven't seen anything, so therefore I don't know what the big hullabaloo is about." Then I said to her, "Where would you have gotten that idea," except maybe at the meeting on November 30 when Dr MacMillan and I were talking about the review process.
Ms Jackson: Did she say anything?
Ms S. Murdock: No. She just looked questioning, and then her staff whisked her out for the scrum with the press.
Ms Jackson: Did she ever give you any explanation of what she said in Thunder Bay?
Ms S. Murdock: No.
Ms Jackson: Have you ever attended or discussed with anyone how this matter should be handled in the House?
Ms S. Murdock: No, other than, do you mean when caucus decided we were going to sit over Christmas? That kind of decision-making I had, but in terms of private conversations about this, no.
Ms Jackson: Have you ever discussed with Ms Martel what it was that caused her to say what she said?
Ms S. Murdock: No. We do not get to see each other very much. It is unfortunate that, as minister, she does not have time. And because this became an issue -- we never discussed it before December 5, obviously, since it had not occurred, and after December 5, Shelley was somewhat preoccupied with it, so we never had a chance to talk. Then we were told not to, once the hearing was agreed to.
Ms Jackson: Who told you not to?
Ms S. Murdock: We were instructed by the House leader's office not to speak to anyone who might be involved in any way with this.
Ms Jackson: I want to turn to something else very briefly. You have provided us with two letters you received from Dr Hollingsworth. I would like to turn to those now. Could we distribute them? There is one of November 12, 1991, to Ms Betty Murdock. I take it that is in fact meant to be to you, as far as you understand it.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And a letter of November 20, 1991, to Mrs Sharon Murdock.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Was that to be to you?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
The Chair: The letter of November 12 will be marked as exhibit 88, and the letter of November 20 is marked as exhibit 89.
Ms Jackson: Both of these letters were received in your office?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: It appears from them that they were sent to other area MPPs as well. Is that your understanding?
Ms S. Murdock: It is my understanding. I do not know that for a fact.
Ms Jackson: Dr Hollingsworth indicates in here that he is applying for an exemption from the threshold, right?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: And it would be a fair reading of these letters, since he is applying for an exemption from the threshold, that the implication appears to be that he is over the threshold. Is that a fair implication from these letters?
Ms S. Murdock: I did not go that deeply into it, but I guess.
Ms Jackson: Have you ever learned that he is not over the threshold?
Ms S. Murdock: No, other than I watched him on this show.
Ms Jackson: I would like to come back for a second to this understanding you had of what you could get from the ministry. You have said you knew you could not get specific information on Dr Donahue's billings. That is because that information was confidential?
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm. I mean, it never even entered my head to ask for that, first because I sat on this committee, the Legislative Assembly committee, at the beginning when we started the review on the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and we had been provided with the act, and there were many, many discussions and articles, plus I sat on the committee with Mr Elston and Mr Sterling in choosing the new Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Commissioner, and again it was quite interesting. So we did a lot of reading. It just never entered my head to even ask.
Ms Jackson: You knew that personal, confidential information on doctors' billings cannot be obtained from the ministry, right?
Ms S. Murdock: Right.
Ms Jackson: And cannot be disseminated.
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Ms Jackson: And that it would be an invasion of Dr Donahue's rights to obtain or to disseminate that information.
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Ms Jackson: His right to privacy.
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Ms Jackson: The solution it appears you have used to the fact that you cannot get that information directly is to make the guesstimate you have indicated you made of his gross billings.
Ms S. Murdock: I would say "estimate" before "guesstimate," but yes.
Ms Jackson: In any event, we have seen your estimate or guesstimate could well be inaccurate.
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Ms Jackson: Indeed, we have seen it is inaccurate.
Ms S. Murdock: I would say it was lower, yes.
Ms Jackson: It is fair, is it not, that the extent to which that estimate is repeated to people by you or your constituency assistants, people would be inclined to think that was an accurate statement of Dr Donahue's billings?
Ms S. Murdock: I do not know what people would think.
1550
Ms Jackson: If a person is told by a constituency assistant when he calls to inquire about Dr Donahue's situation that he is billing in the neighbourhood of $1.5 million, he would likely assume that was accurate, would he not?
Ms S. Murdock: If they were told that in that phraseology, I would probably guess that is true, yes. I mean, your verb tense is very important, I think.
Ms Jackson: Realistically, somebody who calls a constituency office is not listening to the verb tense, is he?
Ms S. Murdock: If you are having that length -- I do not think these conversations, in truth -- I mean, I do not know. I was not there. I was not the one answering the telephone. But having been a constituency assistant for four years, I would say these conversations and those kinds of issues would not have been a short little message with a hang up. You would have had quite a lengthy conversation with the constituent in the matter. I do not think the impression at the end of the conversation would have been that it was a set of facts, but rather that it was indeed an estimate.
Ms Jackson: In response to the question this morning to Mr Waddell, "Do you recall saying to people that Dr Donahue's gross billings would be in the area of $1.5 million?" Mr Waddell said they could have been that or larger. If he said that to someone, they would have no reason to think he was inaccurate, would they?
Ms S. Murdock: Depending on the rest of the conversation, no. That is correct.
Ms Jackson: The result then may be a fairly broad dissemination of information which, while not strictly speaking a breach of Dr Donahue's privacy, is inaccurate.
Ms S. Murdock: Based on your interpretation, yes. I still think the information which was provided by Dr Donahue and on which the calculations were based -- I mean, unless Dr Donahue's information was incorrect, then ours was not.
Ms Jackson: I want to obviously ask you the question I asked Mr Waddell. Do you not think it is a greater invasion of Dr Donahue's rights to disseminate inaccurate information about him than to disseminate accurate but private information about him?
Ms S. Murdock: I guess I would break that down into two parts and say that the latter part of the question you just asked is yes. The first part of the question is that we would never have even got into a financial example if Dr Donahue himself had not made the issue a financial one.
Ms Jackson: And therefore it is appropriate?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Thank you. Those are my questions.
Ms S. Murdock: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Jackson. I would like to call a recess for 10 minutes and then we will return at 4 o'clock to commence questioning.
The committee recessed at 1553.
1607
The Chair: We will call this meeting back to order after a short recess. Just before recess, counsel had completed questioning with Ms Murdock. Now we will go on rotation. It will be a 45-minute time allocation for each caucus. I would also like to remind members that there will be the necessity for what I am advised will be a short in camera session after this rotation of questions. I invite Mr Harnick to commence.
Mr Harnick: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Ms Murdock, you told us about your meeting, which I gather was in your constituency office, on November 8. Is that correct?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Mr Harnick: At that time the phones had been ringing and you had become concerned. I believe that is what you told us.
Ms S. Murdock: My staff did not know what to answer.
Mr Harnick: That was my very next question. I was going to say, "And your staff had no answers."
Ms S. Murdock: They were the ones who asked me to explain the threshold to them.
Mr Harnick: All right. I think what you said is that it became important to sit them down and to describe for them how the threshold operated.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Mr Harnick: In order to describe how the threshold operated, you decided to go through the exercise of mental gymnastics and first calculate what Dr Donahue's gross billings were. Is that correct?
Ms S. Murdock: It was certainly an exercise, but I would not say of mental gymnastics.
Mr Harnick: It was certainly part and parcel of the way in which you wanted to explain the threshold to your staff.
Ms S. Murdock: It was part of it, yes. It was not the focus.
Mr Harnick: You do not have to be a genius to say that if you earn $400,000, you get the full $400,000; if you earn $450,000, you get two thirds of the $50,000 above the $400,000, correct?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Mr Harnick: And if you earn more than $450,000, you only get a third of whatever you bill above $450,000. Is that correct?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes, that is absolutely correct.
Mr Harnick: Really that is the whole explanation there is to be made about the concept of the threshold, correct?
Ms S. Murdock: No, I would not agree with you on that, on the basis of the issue as it was in Sudbury.
Mr Harnick: We are going to get to that in a second, but I am just talking about the concept of the threshold before you throw Sudbury into the mix.
Ms S. Murdock: Okay. That is exactly the concept. Having said that, I think you and I both understand that if you do not have a basic understanding of the whole issue, it means nothing to you.
Mr Harnick: All right --
Ms S. Murdock: It just gets confusing.
Mr Harnick: I do not want to cut you off, but I am coming to that, I promise you.
Ms S. Murdock: Okay.
Mr Harnick: Right now.
Ms S. Murdock: Right.
Mr Harnick: After you would have explained that basic concept to anybody, be he in Sudbury or in Sarnia or in my riding of Willowdale, it would have been pretty understandable how the concept of threshold works, correct?
Ms S. Murdock: I would go that far, yes.
Mr Harnick: But now you had another problem in Sudbury, and that is, you had this Dr Donahue who, I do not think it is unfair to say, was causing the government some small aggravation, correct?
Ms S. Murdock: He was certainly making an issue in Sudbury of it, yes.
Mr Harnick: That is right.
Ms S. Murdock: The government? I do not know whether I --
Mr Harnick: He was the only full-time dermatologist in northern Ontario.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Mr Harnick: And he was talking about closing up his office.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Mr Harnick: And people were becoming concerned.
Ms S. Murdock: Very.
Mr Harnick: Particularly his patients.
Ms S. Murdock: Very emotional about it, yes.
Mr Harnick: Particularly his patients?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes. That is who we were getting all the calls from.
Mr Harnick: I think you in fact said: "He was making the press. He was the catalyst."
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Mr Harnick: Right?
Ms S. Murdock: He was definitely the catalyst to cause the Ministry of Health to talk about the underserviced area program on a speedier basis, yes. That is my reading of it. You are asking my perceptions. That is the way I looked at it.
Mr Harnick: But we know with Dr Donahue, particularly your evidence that enlightened us today, that as of August the underserviced area program no longer applied to him.
Ms S. Murdock: True.
Mr Harnick: Correct?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Mr Harnick: So in terms of our discussions with Dr Donahue, we are not really talking about the underserviced area program.
Ms S. Murdock: No, exactly my point.
Mr Harnick: Right. We are talking about the threshold and Dr Donahue.
Ms S. Murdock: No. We are talking about the threshold and specialists in the north.
Mr Harnick: All right. In order to illustrate that, we make Dr Donahue the example?
Ms S. Murdock: No, he made himself an example.
Mr Harnick: No. With respect --
Ms S. Murdock: With respect.
Mr Harnick: With respect, when you sat down with your office people, you used Dr Donahue as the example to show how the threshold was going to operate, correct?
Ms S. Murdock: He was the only one who had given out any information about his financial position, so he was the only one you could have used.
Mr Harnick: In fact, he was the one that was causing the government and the members representing the Sudbury ridings some small aggravation. You have already told me that was true.
Ms S. Murdock: No, I did not quite say it that way, Mr Harnick.
Mr Harnick: So I am giving you a chance to change your answer.
Ms S. Murdock: That is not quite true if you look at it. I would say the reason I used Dr Donahue as a catalyst is because through him all the doctors in Sudbury, specifically the Sudbury medical association and Dr de Blacam, who then became quite prominent in the debate, if you want to call it that, and the cardiovascular surgeons became a real problem for us. I would say that is why the focus was not on Dr Donahue. Although he may have initiated the whole process, the focus was really on the whole concept of specialists leaving the north.
Mr Harnick: In order to further that discussion, you sat down with your staff and you calculated Dr Donahue's gross income.
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Mr Harnick: Correct?
Ms S. Murdock: What I estimated it to be on the information he provided in the news.
Mr Harnick: You are going to have to really explain carefully to me, as I am sure you did to your own constituency people, how explaining Dr Donahue's gross income, which you calculated by making many assumptions to be $1.5 million, had anything at all to do with the cardiologists in Sudbury.
Ms S. Murdock: Okay, I will try and explain it to you.
Mr Harnick: Why don't you tell me how that $1.5-million calculation on inaccurate assumptions had anything to do with any other doctor in the north beyond Dr Donahue?
Ms S. Murdock: I could not use any other example because I had no idea what any other doctor's information would have been. Dr Donahue was very vociferous in terms of describing the fact that he was over the threshold, out of pocket for three months. From that, I can take -- he is the only one I could have used. There was nobody else. Dr Kosar or Dr Maki or Dr Abdulla, none of them had come forward and given that information, so I could not have used them as an example.
Mr Harnick: But in fact you really did not need any example to describe how the threshold worked to your people.
Ms S. Murdock: No. I could have said, "Suppose a doctor bills $1.5 million." Right.
Mr Harnick: But you used him as an example because you were getting phone calls particularly pertaining to his leaving and you had to figure out a way for your staff to answer those queries, right?
Ms S. Murdock: I used him as the example for the deductions, that is true.
Mr Harnick: And you wanted him in the mix so that your staff would be in a position to answer the queries that were coming in, because your staff had no answers.
Ms S. Murdock: That is putting a complexion on it in hindsight, which is fine, but the thing is that at the time, I do not believe that is where we were at. It was simply explaining the threshold, and I explained it. There was not any real clarity. I said, "Well, okay, let me use an example," and I went through that. That is how that came to be.
Mr Harnick: But you did not have to go through what I describe as the mental gymnastics of calculating Dr Donahue's income.
Ms S. Murdock: It could have been anybody's, if I had had the basic information.
Mr Harnick: You did not have to calculate anybody's income if all you wanted to do was explain how the threshold works. That is all I want.
Ms S. Murdock: No, I do not agree with you. I obviously do not agree with you or we would not be having this continued argument.
Mr Harnick: Well, you are going to have trouble convincing me and I suspect many other people. At any rate, you have now gone through this exercise and you now have your staff understanding that based on your calculations and your inaccurate assumptions, Dr Donahue grossed $1.5 million, correct?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes, around there.
Mr Harnick: And somewhere along the way we also have calculations -- because Mr Waddell told us quite clearly -- that indicated his billings for epilation were $200,000, so I suspect that came out of the meeting as well.
Ms S. Murdock: No, that did not.
Mr Harnick: He said it did.
Ms S. Murdock: No, he did not, at least not according to what I heard this morning.
Mr Harnick: I understood his evidence to be that there was a meeting --
The Chair: With the committee's indulgence.
Mr Harnick: Am I mistaken about that?
Ms Jackson: I think you are, yes. That calculation, as I understand it, was done by him separately.
Mr Harnick: Oh, okay. Just to confirm then, that was not done at the same meeting?
Ms S. Murdock: No, that is correct.
Mr Harnick: At some stage, you learned about that.
Ms S. Murdock: In the Kevin Donovan article, yes.
Mr Harnick: All right, but the $1.5 million he learned about at that meeting.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes, absolutely.
Mr Harnick: He also told us -- and again, you can interrupt me if I am wrong -- but when people were calling, he was telling people on the telephone something to the effect that, "You don't have to feel sorry for Dr Donahue; he billed $1.5 million."
Ms S. Murdock: He may have. My understanding of this morning's testimony was that he may have said that. I presume it would not have been to each and every telephone caller.
Mr Harnick: But he did to some?
Ms S. Murdock: Oh, for sure.
1620
Mr Harnick: And he also indicated that he spoke to Ms Martel's office --
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Mr Harnick: -- and indicated to them what those calculations were.
Ms S. Murdock: What he was saying as a way -- by way of explanation?
Mr Harnick: Yes.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Mr Harnick: And I suspect he did that so that the answers to the queries that office was receiving would be somewhat consistent with yours.
Ms S. Murdock: I do not know why he -- I mean, I believe you asked him that this morning. He did not speak of that to me.
Mr Harnick: I personally have not been involved in politics for as long as you have, but you have had certainly the widest experience of any rookie politician, probably, in this place, in that you were a constituency assistant; you have a legal background; you are now an elected representative. Do you think that there is anything wrong with calculating the income of one of your constituents, discussing it with your staff and permitting your staff to go public with that information?
Ms S. Murdock: I guess that is three questions? The answer to the first question is, given that the issue had been made a financial one by the constituent himself and he provided the financial information, no, I do not think it is wrong for me to have made an estimate. Second, discussing it with my constituency assistants, no, I do not think it is wrong to use that as an example when all the calls are coming in at that point in time on the particular constituent. And, third, as long as it was clear that it was an estimate and in no way a confirmed figure, I do not have any problem with releasing that, no.
Mr Harnick: Except that your staff, based on the evidence of Mr Waddell who disseminated the information, did not tell people it was an estimate.
Ms S. Murdock: Well, he said "could have been." Well, my recollection of that --
Mr Harnick: He said, as I recall, that he would tell people, "You don't have to feel sorry for Dr Donahue because he had gross billings of $1.5 million."
Ms S. Murdock: I do not remember it quite that clearly.
Mr Harnick: I think it is fair to say and conclude that you used Dr Donahue as an example because it was the strategy to centre him out and discredit him to justify the imposition of the threshold.
Ms S. Murdock: Well, that is your opinion.
Mr Harnick: Certainly my opinion is reinforced by the evidence that both you and Mr Waddell have given here today. Is that an assumption that you do not think can realistically be drawn?
Ms S. Murdock: I think that as an opposition member you can draw almost any kind of conclusion you wish, depending on your interpretation of any facts.
Mr Harnick: Do you think it is right for information that in reality is nothing more than conjecture, perhaps even only rumour, to emanate from an office that is an office of the government of Ontario?
Ms S. Murdock: If it was something that was initiated by that office, yes, I agree with you.
Mr Harnick: When I look at your Sudbury trip checklist, I see printed under Roman numeral III, the heading "Intelligence," I guess it is the fourth item down, "Donahue -- details of practice in media -- analysis" and written in pen beside that, "scour his version," with "scour" underlined. That is pretty venomous language.
Ms S. Murdock: Given that I was not party to it, I do not know what context it was in.
Mr Harnick: But it sure would lead one to believe that there was a concerted effort to single out Dr Donahue to justify the threshold policy.
Ms S. Murdock: No, I do not agree with you.
Mr Harnick: Okay. Now, I gather that during the months of November and December the Sudbury media -- the TV, the radio, the newspaper -- all had pretty constant stories about Dr Donahue.
Ms S. Murdock: I would certainly say at the beginning of November it was very prevalent everywhere. But yes, and not only that but everywhere you went, everyone was talking about the closing possibility.
Mr Harnick: And you were in Sudbury at the time?
Ms S. Murdock: Not the week of the 11th. I mean, I was there for Remembrance Day. I left that week.
Mr Harnick: But up until, say, the 11th, you would have been there.
Ms S. Murdock: On Friday, Saturday, Sunday, as we normally are, yes.
Mr Harnick: And you would have seen those papers and heard those TV and radio reports?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Mr Harnick: And in fact it was during this period of media concentration, if I can call it that, that you in fact made your calculations.
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Mr Harnick: And you would have done that on --
Ms S. Murdock: Around the 8th.
Mr Harnick: -- the 8th, which would have been Friday.
Ms S. Murdock: My recollection is the 8th, yes.
Mr Harnick: Which would have been a Friday. And then you went home to your apartment that you shared with a Ms Valentini, who happens to work for Ms Martel.
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Mr Harnick: Yes?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Mr Harnick: You tell us that you, after doing all this calculating and coming up with this brilliant number -- this huge number, this brilliant piece of work -- never told Ms Valentini what you had discovered?
Ms S. Murdock: Yeah. There was no need to.
Mr Harnick: In the midst of all of this media --
Ms S. Murdock: Like, I do not know about you --
Mr Harnick: -- and hundreds of phone calls coming into your office and letters --
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Mr Harnick: -- and you never discussed this with your room-mate who happened to work for Shelley Martel.
Ms S. Murdock: Right. I mean, I get home on weekends and, frankly, when I get into my apartment I do not want to talk about anything. I just do not want to do it. I would like to be able to read and I would like to be able to look at something other than politics when I am alone, or in my own home.
Mr Harnick: Pretty hard to do when you flick on the television and you see Dr Donahue on the news, or when you flick on the radio and you hear him on the news and when you open up your newspaper on Saturday morning and there is Dr Donahue.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes. No question --
Mr Harnick: Pretty hard to escape that, is it not?
Ms S. Murdock: When the newspaper came and we would read the article -- and I have already stated that quite clearly, we did discuss it in those particular times in relation to whatever was being said in the media piece that was being presented at the time. But in terms of me walking in and talking about a calculation which at the time was very insignificant, has only become significant in these past few weeks, I mean, it meant nothing to me to go home and discuss it with my room-mate, no.
Mr Harnick: So you would be sitting in front of the television and Dr Donahue would come on and he would say, "Going broke, cannot afford to run my practice," and you would just sit there after you have come up with this $1.5-million calculation, with your room-mate sitting in the same room, and you would say, "Gee, I feel sorry for him."
Ms S. Murdock: No. I never, ever said I felt sorry for him.
Mr Harnick: All right. That is because you told your room-mate in fact that what he was saying you believed to be erroneous based on your calculations.
Interjections.
The Chair: Mr Harnick, if you have a question to pose, please do so to Ms Murdock and give her the opportunity to respond to that question. I think that you have posed that question a number of times and Ms Murdock has responded.
Mr Harnick: I just heard all these people yelling on the other side, "Order, order, stop, stop."
1630
Ms S. Murdock: It is imputing motives, I believe.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please. Order.
Mr Harnick: Now, you were in the Legislature when Ms Martel gave her answer --
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Mr Harnick: -- about the remarks being unfounded and untrue, and, "I've apologized." And she kept repeating that answer over and over again. The Minister of Health described the answer that Ms Martel gave as being scripted and unsatisfactory. How do you describe Ms Martel's answer in the Legislature?
Ms S. Murdock: I called it a mantra.
Mr Harnick: A mantra?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Mr Harnick: Can you explain that to me?
Ms S. Murdock: It was very much a rote kind of answer.
Mr Harnick: And did you find that to be a satisfactory answer?
Mr Owens: Excuse me, Mr Chair, point of order.
The Chair: There is a point of order here.
Mr Owens: I think, if Mr Harnick checks the record, I am pretty sure that the Minister of Health did not give that response, that it in fact was a staff person from the Ministry of Health in the person of Larry Corea.
Ms S. Murdock: No.
The Chair: Thank you for your point. It is not a point of order. I will endeavour to check with counsel, with the transcripts, but I believe that the wording used by Mr Harnick may very well be accurate.
Mr Harnick: At any rate, you describe it as a mantra.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Mr Harnick: Can you give me an explanation of that?
Ms S. Murdock: It is a repeated saying that comes from the east and it is sort of a repeated saying that gives you some solace.
Mr Harnick: And did you, because of that, ask --
Ms S. Murdock: Because of?
Mr Harnick: Because of that kind of repeated -- what you said was -- I cannot remember the word you used the first time and then we were interrupted with a non-point of order.
Mr Owens: Just like your non-questions.
The Chair: Order.
Mr Harnick: They get a little excited late in the day.
The Chair: Order, please. Let me remind all members of the committee, as we are continuing to question Ms Murdock, that interruptions are certainly out of order and they do not really give the proper respect to the witness that should be given. I would remind and caution all members of that.
Mr Harnick: Did you find that answer to be satisfactory?
Ms S. Murdock: I did not -- well, it was -- I do not know whether "satisfactory" is the right word. It just was a very un-Shelley-like response.
Mr Harnick: In what sense?
Ms S. Murdock: Well, Shelley is very dynamic, articulate. It was a very quiet response.
Mr Harnick: Have you had occasion, before you were told by the House leader not to discuss this matter, to have any discussion with Shelley Martel at all?
Ms S. Murdock: In relation to any testimony I gave here?
Mr Harnick: In relation to her answer and any explanation she may have given you for it.
Ms S. Murdock: No.
Mr Harnick: Have you spoken with Ms Valentini at all about the answers that Ms Martel may have provided to her?
Ms S. Murdock: Shelley's demeanour, I have spoken to Andrea about.
Mr Harnick: And what have you learned about that?
Ms S. Murdock: About her demeanour?
Mr Harnick: Well, I mean, if you had a discussion with Ms Valentini --
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm --
Mr Harnick: -- about --
Ms S. Murdock: "Discussion" is the wrong word. I came in and I said -- I made my -- I stated my opinion. It was not a discussion, per se, it was me stating an opinion and Andrea agreeing with me.
Mr Harnick: Well, why do you not tell us your opinion?
Ms S. Murdock: I have already stated it to you, that it was mantralike.
Mr Harnick: Oh, all right. Those are my questions. Thank you.
Ms S. Murdock: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Harnick. Mr Eves.
Mr Eves: I just have a couple of questions, Mr Chairman. Ms Murdock, who from the House leader's office told you not to discuss this matter with anyone, can you recall?
Ms S. Murdock: Garth Dee.
Mr Eves: Has Garth Dee gone over your recollection of any events with respect to Dr Donahue with you prior to your attendance here?
Ms S. Murdock: He asked me what meetings I had attended that Shelley had attended.
Mr Eves: Did he take any notes? Did he make any computer entries when he was doing this?
Ms S. Murdock: No, I do not recollect that, because the only thing he seemed surprised about was that we had met on December 9.
Mr Eves: Would it seem unusual to you that the executive assistant to the government House leader would want to go over your recollection of events in connection with the Donahue matter with you?
Ms S. Murdock: Well, no. The resolution in the House had been parlayed by the House leader. His executive assistant, I presume, like most executive assistants, is privy to whatever the member designates him to do, and I just assumed they were going to be setting up the format for this. So, no, it did not surprise me at all.
Mr Eves: Would it surprise you to know that Garth Dee, according to Larry Corea's testimony, went over and reviewed Larry Corea's recollection of these events with him and sat at a computer and inputted his recollection of these events? Do you think that is appropriate conduct for an executive assistant to a government House leader?
Ms S. Murdock: I have not ever given that much thought, obviously. I really truthfully would not care.
Mr Eves: That does not bother you?
Ms S. Murdock: No.
Mr Eves: Okay. With respect to Shelley's conduct in Thunder Bay on December 5, 1991, and accepting the fact that the explanation Shelley gave in the House is the correct one, that the remarks she made had no foundation in fact and in fact were untrue and that she apologized for them, do you think her conduct in Thunder Bay on December 5 was conduct that is appropriate for a minister of the crown?
Ms S. Murdock: It is not for me to decide.
Mr Eves: I asked you if you thought -- okay, let me phrase the question another way. The Premier made quite an issue actually, when his government took over, about the fact that the previous government's guidelines for cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants, of whom I believe you are one, was not very clear to members of the cabinet or parliamentary assistants and that he was going to make it abundantly clear to his cabinet and his parliamentary assistants what his guidelines for conduct were. As you understand the Premier's guidelines, being a parliamentary assistant, was Ms Martel's conduct in Thunder Bay on December 5, 1991, in breach of the Premier's guidelines or in fact is that an acceptable form of conduct for a cabinet minister under your Premier's guidelines as you understand them?
Ms S. Murdock: I would say it would probably be in breach, and it would be a determination by the Premier as to what -- I do not want to use the word "punishment" -- decision would be made as to how it would be handled. If that was removal from cabinet, which is the far end of the continuum, or an apology, which is at the beginning of the continuum, that is the Premier's decision to make.
Mr Eves: It is fair comment. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Eves. Mr Hope, I just wish to bring forward the point of order of Mr Owens in response to a question by Mr Harnick that upon the checking of transcript, that question and the adjectives used were accurate.
Mr Hope: Thank you, Mr Chair. Ms Murdock, or Sharon -- you do not mind Sharon?
Ms S. Murdock: No, I do not mind Sharon.
Mr Hope: Oh, good. Sharon, I was interested that during your testimony you talked about being a patient of Dr D's.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Mr Hope: What year was that again?
Ms S. Murdock: Around 1987.
1640
Mr Hope: About 1987.
Ms S. Murdock: It was a guess. I came back to Sudbury in 1986, so I estimated it was about a year later.
Mr Hope: So he is new in the territory or he is just starting out?
Ms S. Murdock: Oh, no, born and raised in Sudbury, but --
Mr Hope: No, but I mean Dr D.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes, he was new.
Mr Hope: Just new, starting out. It may be a little personal here, but I am going to ask you about your visit with Dr D, when you went into his office and just --
Ms S. Murdock: In truth, I would think it would be far outside the parameters of this resolution. I thought I was going to be saying that to the opposition.
The Chair: That is probably outside the parameters of this.
Ms S. Murdock: I never thought I would be saying it to my own.
The Chair: I am sensitive to what I believe to be an objection by the witness to that particular question.
Mr Hope: Okay. That is why I brought it to her attention first. I knew it was a little touchy.
The Chair: I would ask if you might ask another question.
Mr Hope: No problem, I will continue; no problem whatsoever. When you went to Dr D. how long were you there? I do not want to ask specifically, but how long were you in his office?
Ms S. Murdock: I do not know. I have absolutely no recollection. Long enough to be examined and have a discussion over the issue.
Mr Hope: Okay. I was just curious about the time.
Ms S. Murdock: I did not have to wait, that is one thing I will say, unlike most specialists' offices. There were no other patients at the time.
Mr Hope: Okay. I am just trying to put the content of things together here. I want you to refer to exhibit 76. Do you ever remember listening to or reading this MediaReach at all?
Ms S. Murdock: Oh, yes, I heard about this.
Mr Hope: You heard about that?
Ms S. Murdock: Well, actually, she is the one I go to.
Mr Hope: She is the one you go to?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Mr Hope: Do you ever find it amazing some of the comments that were made in here about the number of staff and how she operates it and finds it interesting?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Mr Hope: Where she only has two staff versus 14 or whatever the number is?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Mr Hope: Did you ever talk about some of the concerns around that field with that doctor by any chance?
Ms S. Murdock: I am sorry?
Mr Hope: Did you ever talk to the doctor in general about specialists in this area?
Ms S. Murdock: Dr Hradsky, you mean?
Mr Hope: Yes.
Ms S. Murdock: No, I never did discuss it with her.
Mr Hope: Okay. I want to go back to the November 30 meeting. I know I am jumping around here, but I am trying to put the pieces together. The November 30 meeting was a breakfast meeting, right?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes. Well, the first part of it was.
Mr Hope: The first part of it was, and to your recollection there was no confidential information talked about, nothing that would be ear-burning?
Ms S. Murdock: No.
Mr Hope: Nothing at all. December 5 was the so-called heated discussion. I have not had a chance to view that tape yet, but I heard it was a little warm.
Ms S. Murdock: The doctors' meeting, you mean?
Mr Hope: Yes, the overall one.
Ms S. Murdock: There are two incidents on December 5, so I just wanted to make sure which one you meant.
Mr Hope: Okay. There are two events?
Ms S. Murdock: There is the doctors' meeting in Sudbury, and there is the reception incident in Thunder Bay.
Mr Harnick: Both were warm.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Mr Hope: The one in Sudbury is the one I want to focus on. Did you get a chance to meet Dr MacMillan or the deputy minister by any chance?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes. That was the first time I had met -- had I met MacMillan before that? No. It was the first time I met both of them.
Mr Hope: It was the first time you met both of them. Did you see anything unusual where a file of any kind was sitting out with a certain doctor's name on it or marked confidential?
Ms S. Murdock: No.
The Chair: Order, please. You had asked a question that maybe Ms Murdock wishes to revisit.
Ms Jackson: I think you just indicated, Ms Murdock, that you met Dr MacMillan for the first time on December 5, and you have earlier testified that you saw him on November 30.
Ms S. Murdock: No, that is the November 30.
Ms Jackson: I apologize.
Ms S. Murdock: I am understanding that you are asking me about the November 30 meeting.
Mr Hope: December 5; sorry, my mistake. I keep jumping.
Ms S. Murdock: I am glad you clarified.
The Chair: Maybe, Mr Hope, when you are posing questions be very specific as to the times.
Mr Hope: Well, it is nice that you make reference to me being specific, but the jumping around. I am just trying --
Ms S. Murdock: Sorry.
Mr Hope: Okay, we will get it straight.
The Chair: I am just trying to assist the witness.
Mr Hope: December 5 is where I am focusing, okay?
Ms S. Murdock: Okay, thank you. Sorry, I misunderstood.
Mr Hope: I know the problem you just went through with the Tories trying to pose questions and jumping all over you. I am not trying to play games; I am trying to get specific answers here.
Mr Harnick: Excuse me --
Mr Hope: December 5 --
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr Harnick: On a point of order, Mr Chair: He is the one asking the questions and getting the dates wrong. Nobody else asked the questions and got the dates wrong and confused the witness, so reference to other people confusing the witness are somewhat uncalled for.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr Harnick: If he would spend more time preparing his questions, we would not take so long.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Harnick. That is not a point of order. Mr Hope, could you continue with your questioning, please.
Mr Hope: Hey, no problem whatsoever.
The Chair: The only thing I would ask is, for the assistance of the witnesses, if you could be a little more specific.
Mr Hope: Yes, I will be very specific. At the December 5 meeting, did you see any confidential file?
Ms S. Murdock: No. Where I was sitting it would have been impossible for me, anyway, in relation to where they were sitting.
Mr Hope: In relation to where you were sitting, okay. Also at the December 5 meeting, was there anything we may call different or unusual other than what has been going on as far as the media hype, as far as the doctors' issues? Was there anything different than that? I am trying to set the tone of that meeting that was happening on December 5. Was it consistent with what has been going on?
Ms S. Murdock: Oh, yes. When we walked in, the centre of the room had tables with two-foot-high bright yellow Bristol board pieces on it naming us, and it was very much a Christians-versus-lions atmosphere, I think. Other than that, the only thing that happened that I thought was different was that the editor of the Sudbury Star was there, asked a question and got a clarification that I thought was important. Other than that I would say no.
Mr Hope: One thing we are trying to do is, when you are trying to explain to us how you came up with this calculation -- and I made a comment that you stole one of my questions dealing with it -- where did you get the media? What media was it you were able to pick the public information from that was there?
Ms S. Murdock: Well, I keep any newspaper articles relating obviously to me, but if an issue comes up in Sudbury we also keep newspaper articles on it as well. My staff have been keeping all of this: The November 12 Sudbury Star article with Dr Donahue saying that he was going in the hole and that he was paying out of pocket for the last three months; on the 15th he came out with: "`I personally owe the bank $129,000, and there is a payroll sitting in my office to be signed. Once it is signed, I will owe the bank $150,000,' he said at a press conference Thursday evening called by the Sudbury and District Medical Association"; and November 29 he gets into how, just to cover his overhead, it would cost him $800,000 to $1 million.
He was coming out with those kinds of things at news meetings, in the newspapers, on radio and television. I know that at the November 30 meeting John Rodriguez said he had been at a meeting on women the night before and that Dr Donahue had shown up and explained his argument. I had heard that he was doing that around town, arriving at different meetings that were scheduled and explaining his position. So he was quite vocal about it.
Mr Hope: So he was not hiding any of his personal finances at all? He was very open with it, publicizing it throughout the media and that is where you grabbed the information?
Ms S. Murdock: At the December 5 meeting he made it quite clear to Mr Decter that he was not going to open his books, and he had said that in the paper, I think, on the weekend, or on the news, on MCTV. The information that was provided in terms of finances was provided by Dr Donahue himself.
The Chair: I am sorry, I do not want to interrupt except that after these hearings we will check, and those newspaper articles that have not been marked as exhibits will be marked and distributed to members as exhibits to the hearings. Please continue.
Ms S. Murdock: Thank you.
Mr Hope: So when you are looking at public information out of newspaper articles, trying to explain to your staff -- because it is an area problem, not necessarily somebody else's problem, southwestern Ontario's -- when you are trying to bring specifics so your staff understand how you are using those public information numbers, there are no confidential information numbers?
1650
Ms S. Murdock: The only information at the meeting I would have with my staff on the 8th was the fact that he was out of pocket for three months, because when he said it, was that week.
Mr Hope: Mm-hmm.
Ms S. Murdock: Every week another piece would come out -- he would bring out another piece of information. So by the December 5 meeting, yes, all of that information was out there provided by Dr Donahue. But by the time I talked with my staff to make the calculation, the only thing I would have had was that he was over threshold and out of pocket.
Mr Hope: Okay. I am going to start asking some very direct questions. Did you instruct your staff to use those numbers to destroy the credibility of Dr Donahue in Sudbury?
Ms S. Murdock: No.
Mr Hope: Did you at any time receive any confidential information whether it be written, vocal or otherwise, on Dr Donahue?
Ms S. Murdock: No.
Mr Harnick: Made it up.
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr Hope: Did you at any time try to, I guess, distract personal information from any other source, like out in the community, take any other information from any other source other than the public information? I am trying to get behind this confidential, but number one, did you receive any confidential information from the Ministry of Health?
Ms S. Murdock: No. I see. Did I get any information from anywhere else?
Mr Hope: Yes. Did you get any information from anywhere else?
Ms S. Murdock: No.
Mr Hope: Were you in any contact with the district health council during this process?
Ms S. Murdock: No.
Mr Hope: Okay. Were you, acting on behalf of, I guess, your constituents, who would also include the doctor, trying to make the government understand the particular differences between southwestern Ontario and northern Ontario with providing doctors?
Ms S. Murdock: It is something that we have been doing for years or trying to do for years in terms of getting the north recognized. It is a real problem for us in northern Ontario. I did not dispute for one single minute that the doctors were absolutely right in their concerns about leaving and that in the north that would be devastation, absolute devastation. We have a hard enough time getting people to come there. They do not know how wonderful it is to live up there, but we have a real hard time having them to stay. Even when we get them on the underserviced area program, they do their four years, get their grant and then they take off to the south again.
So we have a real problem with that. I know that I have certainly told the minister, both Evelyn Gigantes when she was Minister of Health and now Frances Lankin, that the groups that have been appointed are all predominantly Toronto or southern Ontario people who are making decisions for people in the north and that has to change, so the whole attitude has to change.
What is nifty about this underserviced area agreement is that it is going to cover areas like Kitchener-Waterloo. It is going to cover all of Ontario but the north can take full credit for being the spearhead to get that whole thing changed. If it had not have been our fighting from the north it would not have ended up covering all the province in the underserviced area. So that I am quite pleased about.
Mr Hope: So what I am understanding then, when you worked for Elie --
Ms S. Murdock: Well, Elie.
Mr Hope: Mr Martel.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Mr Hope: You fought on behalf of trying to get more doctors in, trying to improve the health care in northern Ontario?
Ms S. Murdock: Okay. Elie was very instrumental and very vocal -- anybody who knows Elie, and I am sure some members do -- has been and continues to be, actually, on the whole issue of the services in the north. He really fought to get the residency program in Sudbury. Shelley, when she got elected, really worked hard so that last June the residency program, which is getting residents who are in the residency level of their medical training to work with GPs in the area in Thunder Bay and Sudbury, started out with us last year. She has been working hard on that and the focus has been on the whole underserviced problem that we have in the north.
Mr Hope: So by knowledge, I guess, you have been involved with this for quite some time around helping the health care system in the province of Ontario, especially in the north, trying to improve it.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes, I would certainly agree. I actually take quite a lot of pride in the fact that Frances, now if she sees me coming, says, "What does the north want now?" So it is not so much what we want as what we have to have. Anyway.
Mr Hope: Okay. I guess my final question would be -- I know you did not see any confidential information, because you told me that. Did you pass any confidential information on to anyone?
Ms S. Murdock: Well, I did not have any to pass on.
Mr Hope: So you had used all public information in communications that you talked about?
Ms S. Murdock: That is correct.
Mr Hope: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr Christopherson?
Mr Christopherson: Just a brief clarification: The media exhibits that you are going to receive: Would that just be Sharon's media brief in its entirety, or were you going to just select those things that are not yet in the exhibit book?
Ms Jackson: I was going to do the latter.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Christopherson: It will be the latter?
The Chair: Yes.
Ms Jackson: Or we can do, if you prefer, the other. I am in a mode of trying to cut down the paper, but --
Mr Christopherson: I can appreciate that. I just wanted to make sure that everything that was contained in that brief and that was acknowledged, that indeed we could refer to it as a media brief if we needed to when referring to exhibits.
The Chair: It would be our intention that if anybody wished to refer to an exhibit that was the subject matter of any response by Ms Murdock, it would be available in our exhibits.
Ms Jackson: As I reflect on this, Mr Christopherson, it appears to me that there is at least conceivable relevance to knowing exactly what Ms Murdock had. So I think, on reflection, perhaps the best thing would be to take everything she has got and mark it as one exhibit.
Mr Christopherson: It is probably the simplest way. Thank you.
The Chair: Mr Christopherson?
Mr Christopherson: And we are fine, thanks.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We will now move to Mr Conway.
Mr Conway: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, and thank you, Ms Murdock. You have been a very expansive witness, and I appreciate that.
I want to begin by having you review a little bit of your educational and your work background prior to becoming a member of the Legislature. Can you tell me, am I correct, for example, in recalling that you spent some time, in fact I think took a law degree, at the University of Ottawa?
Ms S. Murdock: Windsor.
Mr Conway: At the University of Windsor.
Ms S. Murdock: University of Windsor law school, the youngest in the country, yes.
Mr Conway: So you took the law degree at the University of Windsor. Do you want to just very quickly summarize your work career up to the point of your election to the Legislature?
Ms S. Murdock: When I finished high school I worked for Bell Canada as a customer rep, and in a music store, and then as a skip tracer in a collection agency here in Toronto. Then I was asked to teach and qualified in the elementary school system, which I did for one year. Then I went to teacher's college in Ottawa, the next year. Then I came back to teach at the same school the following year. I went to Windsor to teach for one year, came back to Sudbury again and taught there until 1974, quit at the end of 1974 and came back down to Toronto. I sold group accident and health insurance for a period of time.
Then I applied with the Ministry of Education and taught in a one-room school for four and a half years, and in 1979 quit that and went to the commerce degree program, did intersession, summer school, fall, winter for two and a half years and was in my last semester for honours commerce when I got accepted into law school. Needless to say, there are so many applications and so few seats that I decided I could always pick up my honours commerce some other time and went to law school. Then I articled with the crown in Windsor, did my bar ads in London for the six months of hell that they are.
Then I started applying for jobs. I supply-taught in a high school while I was going on job interviews. What else did I do? Then in September I came back home to Sudbury and was going for interviews, predominantly in the labour law field, but I was not known and I did not know anybody in labour, unfortunately, and that helps. Then I ended up that I started applying with the crown, and had gone for a number of interviews when Elie called me. Elie is a friend of my parents. He called and asked if I was interested in being a constituency assistant. I did not know what a constituency assistant did, but I said, "Well, I'll try it for a year."
1700
Mr Conway: So you started with Mr Martel as a constituency assistant roughly in what year?
Ms S. Murdock: Eighty-six.
Mr Conway: In '86.
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Mr Conway: And carried on with Shelley when Shelley took over in '87, is that correct?
Ms S. Murdock: That is correct.
Mr Conway: And so you worked with Shelley Martel for a full --
Ms S. Murdock: Three years.
Mr Conway: -- three years, and then were yourself elected to the Legislature in 1990. I asked that question simply because I wanted to understand your background, and it is quite an impressive background, and you have experience as both a teacher and you are a graduate of a law school.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Mr Conway: And you worked for the crown.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Mr Conway: And you spent some time working for an old friend of mine, Elie Martel.
Ms S. Murdock: I met you at Elie's house, actually.
Mr Conway: That is right. I want to talk a little bit about that a little later in what I can assure you will be a very serious exchange, but I well remember that. You see, one of the questions for me as I try to understand what happened in this situation is, in what context is this taking place?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Mr Conway: And I think I understand; I understand keenly. I think there is only one person in the room who would have a better understanding, particularly of this kind of difficulty, and that is my friend the honourable member for Bruce. But I can well imagine what you were facing in Sudbury through October and November. I am talking about Health ministries that have gone through things like doctors' strikes.
Ms S. Murdock: Oh, okay.
Mr Conway: You know, those things there. Those things I have some reason to believe are memorable events in one's life. And so I can certainly appreciate how it must have been that you and your colleagues Shelley Martel and Floyd Laughren were functioning, particularly in November, when this thing just heats up, and as you have said, was almost pervasive throughout the community in November and December.
Then I asked myself, well, what would someone who had cut her teeth in politics, so to speak, with Elie Martel, how might she react? This may be a slightly unfair line of questioning, but you can stop me at any point. I am sitting there and I am listening very carefully to what you have said about the circumstances, and quite frankly I find myself very sympathetic to your situation. You are sitting there, the government has completed a major agreement, the framework agreement, and it is something about which I am sure the government is very proud. It is a significant development. And very shortly thereafter the agreement is under attack in a fairly large urban community in this province, Sudbury, where there happen to be three government members.
At least one of those government members, the one now before us, is sitting there and she has had experience at the leg/regs committee as early as October 1991 and she understands a fair bit about this epilation business. And as the controversy develops through October and November she can see how this is getting all mixed up, how Dr Donahue is inadvertently or otherwise confusing the de-listing of epilation with the threshold. I think that was more or less what you suggested in your earlier testimony, that from your point of view you felt that there was --
Ms S. Murdock: No. Just on that point, I would say that Ms Jackson implied that he was confused. I never ever implied that I believed Dr Donahue to be confused.
Mr Conway: Let me put it another way then, that from your vantage point, looking at the public's reaction to this growing controversy, you could see how the public was increasingly confused by Dr Donahue's presentation of his case, by Dr Donahue not separating out the issue of electrolysis from the issue of the threshold, and that it was getting all tangled up in a way that was confusing, to say the least.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Mr Conway: And as we head into November and early December, Dr Donahue is, by all accounts, turning up the heat. And I am sitting here thinking, now what would Elie Martel do in a case like that? I know precisely what Elie Martel would do. Elie would attack.
Ms S. Murdock: He would have taken Dr Donahue on publicly.
Mr Conway: Absolutely. He would not have wasted five seconds thinking about this kind of a file. He would have done --
Ms S. Murdock: Just a minute. What kind of a file?
Mr Conway: The broad Donahue file. The issue that was out there in the public domain in October and November.
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Mr Conway: My supposition: You do not have to agree, but I think you do.
Ms S. Murdock: That Elie would have done that?
Mr Conway: Mm-hmm.
Ms S. Murdock: Well, I think the role in opposition is very, very different than the role in government. Yes, he would have done that.
Mr Conway: The attack mentality. And boy, I have been lacerated by Mr Martel, often for very good reason.
Ms S. Murdock: Well, if it had anything to do with workers' health and safety or compensation, you are darn right, he was a bloody fighter.
Mr Conway: It generally did not, but I will tell you, he was a very formidable member of this Legislature.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes, I agree.
Mr Conway: And so I am just sitting here -- now, two of these key people, two of these Sudbury members, one is his daughter and the other is his former constituency assistant. And this fellow Donahue is on the attack, and he is really muddying the waters in a way that is not showing the government's policy with respect to the threshold agreement in a very favourable light. And I am just looking at all that is before me and I am thinking particularly of what your assistant, Mr Waddell, suggested this morning, and I think that I see something of a response, if not an attack strategy.
Ms S. Murdock: I am not disputing that it was a strategy. I know that Mr Harnick has focused in on the whole strategy issue. Well, of course, if you think -- I believed firmly in this threshold; I really believed in it. There was no way that with the issue, the way it was being presented in the paper, that I believed for a minute that it was not correct. I felt it was being misleading, and our fault that we had not explained how this threshold worked well enough so that people understood it, and that they would be able to ask the kinds of questions that needed to be asked of Dr Donahue or of any other doctor that was saying the threshold was going to make them close their doors, so yes, I think that is important.
Mr Conway: And I understand attack strategies, because when you are in this business of government particularly you take a position, you advance it, you know that there are going to be various interests that are going to be affected, many of them -- some of them -- in the negative. They are not going to take it lying down, they are going to mount a campaign in opposition, and it becomes the government's responsibility to vigorously state or restate its case.
Ms S. Murdock: No. I think what happened was, when the letters went out to all the doctors from Frances Lankin saying that there would be no exceptions -- I do not know when it was, but whenever that came -- that changed the whole complexion. So whatever date that letter came out, that changed the issue in Sudbury from the Dr Donahue issue to an underserviced or a specialist issue. That I think was our main focus. I mean it was not Dr Donahue. He started it, but it was not it.
Mr Conway: Well, I have to tell you, I am looking now -- granted perhaps not as dispassionate as other people on this committee -- but I am looking at the movement of this controversy through November 10 through to about December 5, and while he was not the exclusive focus for the charge against the government's threshold policy in Sudbury, Dr Donahue seemed to be the leader of the charge.
Ms S. Murdock: Oh, sure, he was the initiator, absolutely, there is no question. If it had not been for him I do not think he would have coalesced the other doctors to start being more vocal.
Mr Conway: And you were suggesting this morning that from your point of view, as you started to get involved in the situation in Sudbury through early mid-November and you were starting to do your calculations, it appeared to you, and I think you said this, that some of Dr Donahue's tactics were misleading and they might have even kind of gotten close to blackmail.
Ms S. Murdock: Well, I mean, he was certainly, if no one else, was doing it to the government, or threatening that to the government in terms of, "I am closing down my office," but I think to the patients too.
Mr Conway: So this Donahue guy is freely putting it to the government in a way which, if you knew anything about what it is the public had a right to know, if you knew anything about the difference between the electrolysis or epilation issue and the threshold issue and the underserviced area program, if you knew any of that, boy, would you be in a position to discount some of Dr Donahue's attack. Would you not agree?
Ms S. Murdock: I guess, yes.
1710
Mr Conway: I mean the temptation to strike back is almost irresistible, knowing what you know about what he is doing, what he is saying --
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Mr Conway: -- and what in fact are the facts of the case, as someone like you would have known from your time at leg/regs committee and talking to the Minister of Health and Drs MacMillan and LeBlanc. I mean, speaking as one politician to another, and speaking from my point of view to someone who worked for my old friend Elie, the temptation to strike back in that wonderful way that Elie might have struck back, is certainly there, is it not?
Ms S. Murdock: Well, I guess if you are of that personality, yes.
Mr Conway: Now I have to look at the legislative context. You are part of troika in Sudbury with Shelley and with Floyd, three very well-regarded people.
Ms S. Murdock: Your turn of phrase is wonderful.
Mr Conway: Well, it is. You are not three neophytes.
Ms S. Murdock: No. Well, I guess I am the rookie on the block. Right.
Mr Conway: I do not think on the basis of what you have told me about your educational background and your political involvement, that you are nearly as innocent to this business as perhaps some of your colleagues from the class of 1990, whom I shall not name. Having worked as a constituency assistant and gone to law school, I mean, you are not totally innocent to this business.
Ms S. Murdock: No. I actually never really got involved in politics until Elie --
Mr Conway: You said that your parents were friends of Elie and Gay Martel.
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Mr Conway: And that tells me that there was a family association that went back some time.
Ms S. Murdock: Oh, yes. I have not lived at home for a long time. I mean, yes, I knew who they were, but I really did not know them.
Mr Conway: I am just -- I am looking at context here, you see. Then I come back to Queen's Park and I have got this situation. We have all kinds of evidence that suggests that people like the Treasurer's executive assistant, Ms Notar, the Treasurer's constituency assistant, Nuala Doherty, I think is her name -- they are very interested, and I have said before, for very good reason. By, I think it is, November 10 or 11 they are communicating with the office of the Minister of Health saying, "Listen, we need some information on this Sudbury situation, and we need" -- I think the phrase was at one point -- "a political response," which I take to mean, "What do we say with this charge against the threshold policy?"
We know that Ms Martel has got the lead on this case for all kinds of reasons which you have indicated, and which I can understand. And nobody talks to anybody. To me it is really amazing that there is such a -- you have never, for example, beyond what you have told us today, you have had the odd chat with Ms Valentini, I think it is, about what you see on television, but you have never talked --
Ms S. Murdock: Yes, okay. Well, you are there, Sean, Mr Conway, so you know what our lives are like. I mean, there was three weeks in November I never saw Andrea at all at home, because it worked out that either I was not there or she was not there, so I never saw her for a three weekend period, number one. Number two, in regard to the ministers, Floyd -- and I have said this whenever I got first interviewed on the discovery process. I think I have talked -- and I do not mean where I have seen him in the House or had a discussion in regard to a particular issue, I mean where I have actually talked to Floyd -- maybe four times since we got elected. And Shelley is even worse in terms of that. So the only time we get to talk to one another is at caucus meetings or in the House, and at caucus meetings you are having a meeting, so you cannot have a social discussion. In the House, obviously she has some priorities so --
Mr Conway: But we have a paper trail, Ms Murdock, that suggests that very senior people in the offices of the Minister of Northern Development and the Minister of Health and the minister of finance are certainly talking to one another on a very regular basis by mid-November about this matter.
Ms S. Murdock: Well, I was not. I mean, Shelley was the lead as far as I was concerned, and I do not believe in make-work projects.
Mr Conway: Listen, I have to believe what you tell me.
Ms S. Murdock: For myself, I mean, I am not going to start calling and having the same information given two or three times.
Mr Conway: But in those encounters in the Legislature, which I know perfectly well, you and Floyd Laughren would just never, ever have talked about the Donahue matter through November and early December?
Ms S. Murdock: Well, no, I mean, I did not say that. I said that we would have little brief scrums just before question period if there was anything that came up, but it was always in relation to, yes, you know, that this issue is heating up, we are going to have a meeting with wherever, and Shelley was talking to Frances and some people at the ministry -- those kinds of things. You just sort of -- but it was not like lengthy conversations where we sat down and tore Dr Donahue apart or --
Mr Conway: No. But you see, I also know that by the 14th of November an extremely relevant e-mail has arrived in the office of the Minister of Health concerning the Sudbury situation. An extraordinarily relevant e-mail, exhibit 44, has arrived and has been seen by at least one of the assistants to the Minister of Health, assistants who are being badgered daily by people from Mr Laughren's office about, "What can you tell us about the Sudbury situation?"
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Mr Conway: And I just want to be clear: No one ever, ever mentioned any of that to you?
Ms S. Murdock: No, they did not. Why would ministers, and Treasurer alone, I mean, come up to me and say, "My staff are calling the Ministry of Health for information"?
Mr Conway: Because it seems to me you are all looking for the same kind of information. There is a very significant controversy in your community about a centrepiece of government policy.
Ms S. Murdock: They would come to me and say that they got the information; they would not be coming to me and saying, "My staff are phoning and trying to get the information." I mean, it is -- like, Shelley is so competent that if she was not coming to me to say, "We've got to have a little scrum here about the matter," then I knew that she had not gotten anything new on it. I did not have to go over and bug her to find out what was happening, and the same thing with Floyd. So I mean, you just never -- it never entered my head that there was any reason that other people were looking for information on this. And I never called, my staff did not call, because we figured we would be notified whenever it came around.
Mr Conway: I do not want to be difficult, but --
Ms S. Murdock: I know.
Mr Conway: Do you really want me to -- do you want to repeat --
Ms S. Murdock: Yes, I want you to believe that because it is true.
Mr Conway: Well, listen, you said it to be so, and I am an honourable person and I have to accept what you have told me. There is a certain incredulity in me as a result of the overall picture of this, because a few weeks, or at around the same time, you see, you are sitting in your office doing some calculations around what a certain doctor might be billing.
Ms S. Murdock: Right.
Mr Conway: Just on the basis of information that is generally available, or would be available, to the public.
Ms S. Murdock: It is available to the public if anybody wanted to sit down and figure it out, sure.
Mr Conway: And your staff -- I mean, you are a lawyer and you have dealt with the public in a variety of ways, and you have worked in a constituency office.
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Mr Conway: And does it not strike you as -- well, I mean, I find it absolutely astonishing that there are people in your constituency office who are telling people, "Well, you know, we've done some calculations here, and this guy may be billing upwards of a million and a half bucks." I mean, if I heard that from Elston's office or from Conway's office, I have got to tell you, I would sit up and pay attention. That would convey something to me, perhaps not as authoritative as I might imagine, but it is, you know, "The local MPP's office told me that" -- those people, particularly if they are connected with the government.
Ms S. Murdock: Well, okay. I mean, I see what you are saying. But if that was the case -- we will work on that "if" -- it was not said alone and in isolation. I mean, it would have been done with an entire explanation of the whole thing, so I do not think the impression that would have been left would have been what you are trying to say it would have been.
1720
Mr Conway: No. I think I would argue this, that -- and I guess I would ask you to comment on this -- I do not think at all it was done in isolation. I am sure Mr Waddell seemed to make a very good impression here this morning. He is a thoughtful, experienced fellow who seemed to know what he was about. I do not doubt at all that he would offer that information in some kind of a context. But I am sitting back looking at all of this now and I am trying to understand the broader context. There you are up in Sudbury, a member in the community that is being seized of this debate. Meanwhile, back at the Queen's Park ranch, from everything I can see, a lot of very senior political aides in at least three ministerial offices and some very high-powered bureaucrats are buzzing about what I would call the Sudbury file.
As it happens, they have access to some information that I would describe as significant and highly relevant. It just so happens that all these people who have a very real material and ongoing interest in this either have lapses of memory, they just were not there, they scanned this, they forgot that, they talked about the weather, they went to Costa Rica. I mean, it is just the most wonderful combination of inadvertence, stupidity, amnesia, and of course I have to believe what people are telling me.
All I know is that at the end of the day Ms Martel, in a heated debate in Thunder Bay with Mrs Evelyn Dodds, someone I know fairly well, said some very pointed and direct things that relate to what I will call the Sudbury situation --
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Mr Conway: -- and she just made it all up. She did not talk to anyone, apparently, who knew anything. The fact that there was this ongoing conversation with all kinds of people who knew some very important things, that connection apparently cannot be established.
Let me ask you this, because this really is, for me, a central question: We talked earlier about our meeting in --
Ms S. Murdock: Elie's retirement party.
Mr Conway: Right.
One of the terms of reference for this committee is to investigate the conduct of the Minister of Northern Development in Thunder Bay. I want to just talk a wee bit about that. One of the real difficulties I have with this case is that I know this Martel family. I have known some of them for a long time. I have fought with Elie but I have a great regard for Elie and his wife and their kids. I am deeply troubled by a line that has me to believe that Shelley Martel is a liar. The Shelley Martel I know, and have known for a considerable time, I do not believe to be a liar. If I am supposed to believe the official version of this, the bright, attractive, young woman that Elie and Gay raised is a liar. I am having a great deal of difficulty believing that.
You have known Shelley Martel for some time. You have worked with her. You have worked for her. Do you know, setting this experience aside, is there anything in her own or her family history that would suggest Shelley Martel has been a liar in the past?
Ms S. Murdock: No, there is nothing that would indicate that.
Mr Conway: I agree with you completely. I do not think I know anybody who --
Ms S. Murdock: A woman of great integrity, I would say, yes.
Mr Conway: Exactly, and I think as sort of integrity oriented as her parents.
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm. We agree.
Mr Conway: You can see my difficulty. My difficulty is that in the face of everything that is before me, all this evidence, some of it very hard and admittedly some of it circumstantial, I am asked to believe that in the heat of the battle in Thunder Bay this bright, articulate, experienced, admittedly combative political individual told a lie.
Ms S. Murdock: Well, I mean, file, to me -- I got caught on that already this year, which was in the paper in Sudbury. I was told -- questioned, called by a reporter and questioned, as to whether I had seen a file of a WCB claimant who had written a letter, and my file in my office was something that he had provided to me, albeit it was not the actual WCB file. So we end up getting into semantics here as to what a file is or which file it could possibly be. Are we talking Shelley Martel's file in her office, are we talking --
Mr Conway: For purposes of my question, Ms Murdock, just forget the file question entirely.
Ms S. Murdock: Okay.
Mr Conway: Think about what she said with respect to, "If you knew what I knew about -- "
Ms S. Murdock: I do not really know what was said there, so --
Mr Conway: We have got the evidence here and it is not contested.
Ms S. Murdock: Okay.
Mr Conway: If you look at the main points of that, where she said -- my words, not hers, and the exhibit can be drawn out -- "I've seen the file" -- and as I said, forget that. "This doctor is up to some things that aren't very acceptable. There may very well be charges. It's almost criminal" -- very specific, pointed references and my difficulty --
Mr Klippenstein: Mr Chairman, with respect, if the member is going to rely on some very important and specific wording, I suggest that it be put before the witness.
Mr Conway: We have the testimony of Ms Dodds and it is --
The Chair: Certainly we do have the exhibit, if you --
Mr Conway: I have not -- I cannot lay it --
The Chair: Just refer to the --
Ms Jackson: There are two places: One is where the question is put at the conference on December 6, and that is at tab 17; the other would be in Mrs Dodds's evidence.
Mr Conway: My point --
The Chair: If you could look at the exhibit, tab 17.
Ms Jackson: Exhibit 17, yes.
The Chair: Exhibit 17 will provide the reference point. Just before we continue, I seem to note a point of order by Mr Owen.
Mr Owens: Mr Owens, actually. My point, Mr Chair, is that we are relying only on the testimony of one witness, Mrs Dodds, at this point. Ms Martel has not testified as to what she did say in Thunder Bay that evening.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Owens. We are going to refer to exhibit 17 as the premise for the question. I take note of your objection.
Ms S. Murdock: This is Ms Colley's?
Mr Conway: This is exhibit 17. It is a transcript, actually, involving Ms Dodds and Dr MacMillan. I believe, counsel, that it derives from the Friday, December 6 conference.
Ms S. Murdock: I have Ms Colley.
Mr Conway: Exhibit number 17.
Ms S. Murdock: Exhibit 17, Ms Colley.
Ms Jackson: I think you are looking at transcripts.
Ms S. Murdock: Wrong book?
The Chair: You are looking at transcripts. There is a black binder of exhibits.
Ms S. Murdock: Okay, right, sorry.
The Chair: We will just give you a moment to find exhibit 17.
Ms S. Murdock: Thank you. Okay, got it.
The Chair: Is that the correct exhibit, counsel?
Mr Conway: I am looking at the middle of the first long paragraph. "She" -- meaning Martel -- "said to me" -- Dodds -- "`I have seen his records. You will lose sympathy when you see the charges that we lay against him,' and she used the word criminal."
Ms Martel is going to come and tell her story next week, but we know that within 36 hours, 48 hours, of her making those charges Ms Martel was on the phone to Mrs Dodds and others saying: "What I said was untrue. It was not based in fact and I apologize for what I've said."
My point is, and it is a character question, dealing with that part of the reference that I referred to: the conduct of the minister. You and I have an advantage that some members on this committee do not have. We have known Ms Martel for some time. I am going to conclude with this again, but my difficulty is that I have all this evidence, which you may or may not have seen -- you may have seen some of it on the televised portions that you may have watched this morning and otherwise.
But we as a committee have plumbed the depths of quite a few e-mails and other documents which make plain to me that some very relevant information was available to political staffers in the office of the Minister of Health at the time when a number of Sudbury area members were very anxious to get whatever they could to defend the government's case. We know as well that there was a growing political controversy in Sudbury around this matter and we know as well that on the night of December 5 in Thunder Bay, Ms Martel said some of the things that Ms Dodds stated she did, if only because Ms Martel was quick to apologize for them. Help me again with my problem.
Ms S. Murdock: Okay.
1730
Mr Conway: If I were to forget everything I have seen here, disregard all this information, and just simply deal with what Ms Martel apparently said at Thunder Bay and her reaction by letter and then in the House later on December 9 and following, I have to accept that this bright, articulate, honourable person lied, and nothing in my considerable experience with her or her family suggests that is a likely possibility.
Ms S. Murdock: To say that Shelley would not lie -- when she told me she said that in Thunder Bay, she said it. I believe that she did, and likewise I guess that the weekend that -- I mean, having apologized so quickly could be construed as evidence of that. But we did not see any files and I have no reason to doubt Shelley, based on my whole understanding of Shelley; I have no reason to doubt that, when she says she and I saw the same thing and attended the same meetings, with the exception of the December 5 and November 15 meeting, that she saw anything.
Mr Conway: But you agree with me that it is not your experience with Shelley Martel that she goes around making up things for her own convenience and lying?
Ms S. Murdock: In keeping with the personalities, it would depend on the circumstances in terms of how it was presented to one, I guess, in terms of the Martel family, I would think, in terms of getting angry or depending on how it was done, and my understanding from everything is that it was a very trying, argumentative kind of situation.
Mr Conway: That answer takes me back to something Ms Colley said at the end of the day to Mr Elston. I want to look very carefully at what you have actually said there, but I thought you agreed with me earlier that the Martel family you have known is a family that is characterized by honour and integrity, not people who go around slandering others and lying.
Ms S. Murdock: True; I agree with you.
Mr Conway: You see, my other difficulty is that I would submit that on the basis of everything I have seen, there is a case -- and I do not think just the case of a wilful oppositionist -- that Shelley Martel may have in fact told a truth at Thunder Bay, not because she saw a file, I might add, but that somehow, some way, in the midst of all this controversy involving all these people over the period of four, five or six weeks, she somehow accessed that which was there to be accessed.
Ms S. Murdock: I do not believe that.
Mr Conway: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr Elston.
Mr Elston: I have a couple of questions. I am interested in some of the documents and particularly in your calculation. You had used a couple of public reports, I think, from the Sudbury papers to help you with your calculation. Could you just identify those at the moment, please?
Ms S. Murdock: Sure. The Sudbury Star, November 12; November 15, the Sudbury Star again; November 16 -- well, November 22, November 27, the November 29 article, all of them in the Sudbury Star, at least I -- yes, put back.
Mr Elston: That is understandable. This is a Sudbury issue and Dr Donahue was --
Ms S. Murdock: Well, some of them could be Northern Life.
Mr Elston: Okay, but they were all northern Sudbury-issue stories.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes, local papers, that is right.
Mr Elston: It is understandable. Something that I do not understand quite as well, though, is how you could have used all of that information made public after the 12th of November to make your calculations on the 8th of November.
Ms S. Murdock: No. I already stated that in the testimony with Ms Jackson, because -- or, actually, with the government side. The only information I had at my meeting was the information that he was paying out of -- he had been on radio already in terms of stating that he was over threshold and that he was out of pocket for three months.
Mr Elston: Mm-hmm. That was prior to the 8th.
Ms S. Murdock: That was prior to the 8th, yes. And the thing was that that was pretty well known. When this article came out, that was on the 12th, yes. That is right; the Tuesday, the day after --
Mr Elston: So you had heard him on the radio before the 8th.
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Mr Elston: You had listened to that program?
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Mr Elston: And what was the date of that program?
Ms S. Murdock: It was that and MCTV. He had been on television.
Mr Elston: So, prior to the 8th, you had watched the MCTV report?
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Mr Elston: And he had revealed all of this information.
Ms S. Murdock: Well, "all of this information" was that he was over threshold. I mean, we had been advised by Dr de Blacam by that time, and Dr Corringham as well.
Mr Elston: You had had the letters from de Blacam about --
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Mr Elston: -- the end of October. Was that the date that he had --
Ms S. Murdock: Well, I do not know when I would have read it, though. I mean, you read your mail when you get into your constituency office on Friday. You know what that is like. So although I may have gotten it at a particular date, I would not have read it until the weekend.
Mr Elston: But early in November, in any event.
Ms S. Murdock: Right.
Mr Elston: But there was nothing in de Blacam's letter that would have indicated any detail of any description about Donahue's financial position?
Ms S. Murdock: Well, that he was over threshold and was going to close his office would be certainly indicated.
Mr Elston: But from de Blacam's letter, you would not be able to calculate or even imagine the calculation you would have to go through to describe what Donahue might bill OHIP. Is that not true? So your basis for information to help you calculate was only from MCTV and from the radio report?
Ms S. Murdock: My knowledge at that time was that he was out of pocket for the past three months and that he was over threshold. And then, given that I knew he was on the underserviced program, that meant that he had to be over threshold in a shorter period of time than from April 1. Do you know what I mean?
Mr Elston: And how was it that you knew he was on underserviced program again, please?
Ms S. Murdock: Shelley had told me.
Mr Elston: So Shelley had told you.
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Mr Elston: Shelley was the lead on this issue, which you have verified for us.
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Mr Elston: What I find difficult to understand is, then, why is it that Mr Waddell apparently is providing information out of your office, with your calculations, to Shelley's office? I would have thought if Shelley Martel's office was the lead on this, you would be using her resources.
Ms S. Murdock: Well, she was the lead on it, not necessarily her office was the lead on it.
Mr Elston: Okay, which indicates that maybe all things known were not being communicated by Ms Martel to her people in Sudbury.
Ms S. Murdock: That is right.
Mr Elston: But certainly there apparently must have been communications in the Toronto office between Ms Martel and that staff.
Ms S. Murdock: I have no idea what went on with that staff.
Mr Elston: Well, we do know that Ms Martel's office had been in contact with the Ministry of Health on several occasions to get information, for instance.
Ms S. Murdock: You see, okay -- I mean, I do not know that, so I presume --
Mr Elston: But as far as Sudbury goes --
Ms S. Murdock: Shelley is a very hands-on person.
Mr Elston: That is what I know.
Ms S. Murdock: Knowing her, I would think that she went and got it herself, is what I would think.
Mr Elston: That is what we would have thought as well. In fact, there are indications that she met, with green notepapers, with Mr Decter.
Ms S. Murdock: Now that is in keeping exactly with -- Shelley goes nowhere without taking notes.
Mr Elston: No place without being prepared. This woman is one of the most capable and marvellously prepared of the people here. In fact, she makes great speeches.
Ms S. Murdock: Well, now, are you trying to make that as a negative quality, Mr Elston?
Mr Elston: No, that is a positive quality, and it is what we know of her, and it is unlike her to be totally unprepared, flippant and manufacturing information. That is what we are getting at here.
Ms S. Murdock: Okay, I guess if you are looking at it in context, you are looking at the end of a --
Mr Elston: We know her to be quite a loyal person.
Ms S. Murdock: -- at the end of a four-day tour in the north, where she has been going from 6:30 in the morning until 11 o'clock at night. I agree, but your body can only hang in so long. I would say that she, standing at a cocktail party, would not and should not be expected to be standing there holding a pile of notes or preparatory briefings.
Mr Elston: But you know very well that she knows her brief inside and out.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes, she has an excellent memory.
Mr Elston: She does not have to have her notes. She had her notes there to help her ask a proper question maybe with respect to some technical issues, but this woman is a marvel when it comes to having a mind that grabs on to the essence of all of the items that would come for discussion, is she not?
Ms S. Murdock: She is very capable.
Mr Elston: No question. No question. I am interested to know --
The Chair: Two minutes, Mr Elston.
Mr Elston: I am interested to know in two minutes a lot of things. I am interested why it was that this person who was so well prepared left her Sudbury office so unprepared as to require Mr Waddell to take the lead in Sudbury, or at least provide information in Sudbury, and disseminate information about your calculation and his recalculation of Donahue's income.
Ms S. Murdock: Well, I think you are working on a supposition that her office staff would have repeated that information, and I do not think we can say that.
Mr Elston: But Waddell certainly gave it to --
Ms S. Murdock: Oh, yes. Well, if he said he did, I presume he did, but that does not go one step further to say that they repeated it.
Mr Elston: I was interested as well in the Sudbury checklist which was forwarded to --
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm. I never saw that, by the way.
Mr Elston: You did not see that.
Ms S. Murdock: Till Sunday.
Mr Elston: Mr Ernst -- is that right? -- was the person who had this?
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Mr Elston: It is interesting because I go down through this list and there is an item called "intelligence," about which Mr Harnick had questioned you before.
Ms S. Murdock: Mm-hmm.
Mr Elston: It is interesting because we have other issues asking about intelligence, Mr Laughren asking the MOH to provide "the actual position of Dr Donahue" and otherwise. I am interested by a notation that says "not avail to public," which I presume Mr Ernst has put on here as not available to the public, but by sort of extrapolation, it is available to other people. Can you tell me anything about that?
Ms S. Murdock: No, and what I will do is, in the undertaking that I have already agreed to do, I will ask him what that meant, because given the way these notes are written, I mean, it could have been in relation to anything, particularly since it is not attached to anything there.
Mr Elston: While you are going through his mind you might ask if there are materials available that he has which were not available to the public that would have been represented by this notation "not available to the public."
Ms S. Murdock: Sure.
Mr Elston: I presume they can be made available in a closed session, if that is necessary.
Ms S. Murdock: Well, I will -- right. I will have my counsel talk to your counsel.
The Chair: Mr Elston, you have time for one last question.
Mr Elston: One last question then: The notation --
Ms S. Murdock: The notation.
Mr Elston: -- which says "not avail to public" --
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Mr Elston: -- really clearly indicates that there were materials that the public was not being made privy to but that you -- not you, but let's say perhaps Mr Ernst, perhaps the deputy minister's office, probably the deputy minister's office since this is his trip and his minion's trip that we are checking on -- it is interesting to me, by the way, to have your political assistant checking on the deputy minister's trip checklist, but that is another issue. My real question is --
Ms S. Murdock: It was not -- no, no, it was a media package checklist before the Sudbury trip.
Mr Elston: Okay.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Mr Elston: It is pretty obvious by that notation that there are other materials for this media kit which are not being made available to the public.
Ms S. Murdock: I do not --
Mr Elston: It says here "not avail to public."
Ms S. Murdock: Yes, I realize. It is not attached to anything, though. I mean, all the other ones he has a little line out from the side --
Mr Elston: But it indicates that somebody has access to --
Ms S. Murdock: -- to it to indicate --
Mr Elston: -- some kind of other documentation, some special material that might be available that might clarify a whole group of other issues, is it not?
Ms S. Murdock: Well, I mean, would not -- I mean, you have been a minister. You know that there is other information in a ministry that --
Mr Elston: But Mr Ernst obviously was told about it because he says "not available to the public."
The Chair: Mr Elston, time has expired.
Mr Elston: My time has expired but the questions have not.
The Chair: I understand that. Thank you very much.
Ms S. Murdock: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Now, I would just like to inform members that we are going to have to move into an in camera session, but before that I understand that there has been an undertaking provided by Ms Murdock on two or three areas and I would like counsel for clarification on that area.
Ms Jackson: Could I just clarify one thing, Ms Murdock. In respect of the broadcasts that you just indicated to Mr Elston were available before November 8, will that be included in the media package you are giving us?
Ms S. Murdock: I did not have any written, any printed -- I just have the newspaper articles.
Ms Jackson: Do you know if you have transcripts available to you --
Ms S. Murdock: Never got them.
Ms Jackson: -- somewhere of those broadcasts?
Ms S. Murdock: I mean, I never saw any reason to get them.
Ms Jackson: Is that something you can get?
Ms S. Murdock: I can check and see if they have them.
Ms Jackson: Could you, and if you are able to get them, provide them to the committee, please?
Ms S. Murdock: Well, as long -- well, okay. Now, this sounds very chintzy and I do not mean it to, but in order to get any of that kind of thing, they ask to be paid.
Ms Jackson: We will pay for it.
Ms S. Murdock: My budget is not one that I can --
Ms Jackson: The committee will pay for it.
Ms S. Murdock: Okay. I am sorry, but I am not willing to put out any money on this issue, let me tell you.
The Chair: Thank you. I think you understand exactly what has been requested, and I thank you very much. We will be moving into an in camera session. We will have to take a recess for approximately five minutes so that that can be set up, so we will recess for five minutes.
The committee continued in closed session at 1745.