Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

INQUIRY RE MINISTRY OF HEALTH INFORMATION
ROBERT MCBRIDE

CONTENTS

Wednesday 12 February 1992

Inquiry re Ministry of Health information

Robert McBride

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):

Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND) for Ms S. Murdock

McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L) for Mr Scott

Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND) for Mr Bisson

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

MacMillan, Robert, Ministry of Health

Page, S. John, Cassels, Brock and Blackwell

Clerk / Greffier: Arnott,Douglas

Staff / Personnel:

Jackson, Patricia, Committee Counsel

McNaught, Andrew, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met in closed session at 1011 in room 228 and recessed at 1223.

The committee resumed in closed session at 1411.

INQUIRY RE MINISTRY OF HEALTH INFORMATION
ROBERT MCBRIDE

The committee resumed in closed session at 1411.

The Chair: We will call this meeting to order, the afternoon session of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. We have before us Mr Robert McBride, who is the acting director of the provider services branch for the Ministry of Health. Welcome, Mr McBride. I understand, as an opening, that you have been sworn on oath?

Mr McBride: No.

The Chair: Okay, you are just ready to be sworn under oath. I understand to your right is Mary Fleming and to your left is S. John Page, the counsel. Before commencing with the oath, the clerk would just like to indicate, Mr McBride, that in the event that you are asked a question which you cannot properly answer without divulging confidential information, if you could please advise the committee, and if there is not a way to disclose that information without divulging such confidential information, then the matter may be addressed in camera. Having said that, if the clerk could just administer the oath, then we will have opening questioning by counsel Patricia Jackson.

Robert McBride, sworn.

Ms Jackson: Mr McBride, I understand, sir, that your permanent title is manager of policy development, planning and research in the provider services branch of the health insurance division, a title that you have held since July 1991?

Mr McBride: That is correct.

Ms Jackson: You are, as the Chairman has indicated, currently the acting director of the provider services branch?

Mr McBride: That is also correct.

Ms Jackson: You have held that position since November 8, 1991, when the then director went on a medical leave?

Mr McBride: That is right.

Ms Jackson: Mr McBride, you have provided to me, and I would ask the clerk to distribute to members of the committee, a copy of your curriculum vitae, please.

The Chair: That will be marked as exhibit 25.

Ms Jackson: Mr McBride, while that is being distributed, perhaps I could review with you some of the salient features that you undoubtedly remember. You have, as I understand it, sir, been with the Ministry of Health prior to July 1991 and specifically were under contract to the ministry from the period of February 1991 to July?

Mr McBride: That is right.

Ms Jackson: In that connection, you worked in the provider services branch, assisting in the implementation of certain computer systems and such?

Mr McBride: That is correct.

Ms Jackson: Now, as manager of policy development, planning and research you assist the director in assessing the payments for providers and do things like forecast trends in billings, review the policies for repayments and generally provide management information to the provider services branch?

Mr McBride: That is right.

Ms Jackson: As acting director of the provider services branch, the position you took on in November, you are responsible for policy development, implementation, monitoring and control of all fee-for-service payments in the health insurance division?

Mr McBride: That is correct.

Ms Jackson: That includes responsibility for the analysis and investigation of individual doctors?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Ms Jackson: Let me, sir, while we are just on that point, deal with one significant but quick issue. At the time of the events in issue, in relation to the e-mail, which you know I am going to ask you about -- namely, early November 1991 -- did you by virtue of the position you then held or otherwise have any knowledge as to whether or not Dr Donahue had ever had his billings analysed or been referred to the MRC for review?

Mr McBride: I had no knowledge of that until December 10.

Ms Jackson: Now, I am not asking you what your knowledge became, Mr McBride, when you did inquire about that. It is, as you know, confidential information which you would not, I am sure, to disclose in public. Now, we have heard a certain amount already in evidence about a process called priority briefings for ministers, and you would be familiar with that process.

Mr McBride: Yes.

Ms Jackson: We have marked already as an exhibit the guidelines that were in place for that kind of process in November 1991. Mr McBride, you might wish to have in front of you for reference those guidelines. They are contained in exhibit 6. Mr McBride, you have provided to me, and I would ask the clerk to distribute to the committee, a diagrammatic configuration of that process as it existed in November 1991. Could I ask that that be distributed and ask you to identify that? Mr Chairman, could that be the next exhibit?

The Chair: That would be marked as exhibit 26.

Ms Jackson: Could you briefly, Mr McBride, take the committee through the process, as you understood it at that time, using this chart as a guideline? I am particularly asking you to focus on the time frame within which this process unfolds.

Mr McBride: Okay. My understanding is that each morning there is a group that forms that is called the contentious issue unit. The executive assistants to the ADMs in the Ministry of Health attend a meeting with that group each morning at 8:30. My understanding is that there are some communications people involved in that meeting. My understanding as well is that they review the material in terms of any news article, clippings. They review whether or not there are any contentious issues that they feel need to be dealt with.

Ms Jackson: That is the box that is at the top of this chart?

Mr McBride: At the top of the chart, that is right. Once they have identified the various issues that they feel are contentious, they then have the executive assistants communicate to the program areas, which are in the next box, by 9 o'clock. The program areas have a briefing coordinator at that end and are given instructions in terms of what the issues are. They may be faxed a copy of the news article, if there is one. They are given an explanation in terms of what the issue is about. The person in that program area, the coordinator, then has to find someone within the branch to respond to the briefing. The material is put together --

1500

Ms Jackson: Stopping there for a minute, Mr McBride, when we speak of program areas, is the provider services branch such a program area?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Ms Jackson: Who is the briefing coordinator in provider services?

Mr McBride: I will backstep one there. In the health insurance division we have Mary Fleming, who is the programming coordinator and the executive assistant to Bob MacMillan. Mary, once she identifies a branch such as the provider services branch, would typically go through the director of the branch. The director then would assign -- in our situation we had two people, myself as the manager of policy development and a backup fellow by the name of Ahsan Sadiq, who would be responsible to coordinate and ensure that whoever was going to make the response made it in an appropriate time frame.

Ms Jackson: In the absence of Ms Fleming what happens?

Mr McBride: I am not aware of any procedures as outlined in the document. My assumption, mainly because of experience I did have with the briefings, is that it would go directly to the individual or the branch they believe is responsible for preparing the actual briefing.

Ms Jackson: Then what happens? Let's continue this chart on the assumption that the request has come in to the health insurance division and indeed been directed to the provider services branch. What is the next step?

Mr McBride: The next step is the one person identified in the branch, whether it be the manager or another person to coordinate it, would determine who the best individual is to respond to the briefing and then request that individual to put together an appropriate response in the required format that is outlined in the briefing document. The material would then be written by that individual and it would filter up through the ranks to the director, then to the briefing coordinator in Bob MacMillan's office, being Mary Fleming.

Ms Jackson: The director in the first instance being the director of the provider services branch.

Mr McBride: That is correct.

Ms Jackson: Then to Mary Fleming.

Mr McBride: Then to Mary Fleming and then to Bob MacMillan for approval at the program level. My understanding is that once they have approved that document it is then forwarded back to the executive assistants of the ADM's office, and it is supposed to be back by 10:30 that morning.

Ms Jackson: So under the process, as you understood it, from request to answer is an hour and a half.

Mr McBride: That is right.

Ms Jackson: Do you have any experience or understanding of procedures when information is requested other than in the context of a priority briefing?

Mr McBride: No. There are no guidelines I am aware of that have procedures that are for briefings of other nature.

Ms Jackson: As a matter of practice have you experienced such requests?

Mr McBride: As a matter of practice the people tend to go through -- if it is to the health insurance division, it would go through Bob MacMillan/Mary Fleming to a branch like our provider services branch director and down. That process was not always followed. Sometimes they would go directly to the individual they thought had the appropriate response or could give the appropriate response.

Ms Jackson: And the answer would go back through what route?

Mr McBride: If the request came directly from an ADM to the individual specifically in the branch and the ADM requested that the information come back to him directly and as quickly as possible, that would take place.

Ms Jackson: So when the request is other than in a priority briefing context it is your understanding that it is up to individuals to assess how best to deal with the request and to respond to it.

Mr McBride: Yes. The typical policy is to take it properly through the ranks. However, there may be pressure from the ADMs to respond directly.

Ms Jackson: Whose decision is it whether a direct request for information and a direct response for information is appropriate?

Mr McBride: In my situation, which I can speak of, if the ADM requested from me a response right then and there, I would give the response.

Ms Jackson: So it is the decision of the ADM?

Mr McBride: That would be my understanding.

Ms Jackson: All right. Now, let me take you, Mr McBride, to the morning of November 13 when you had been acting director of the provider services branch for five days. At that point, sir, had you had any involvement in priority briefing requests to the provider services branch in your capacity as acting director?

Mr McBride: I do not recall any priority briefings in those five days. I cannot be 100% sure of that.

Ms Jackson: Was there a request for information on the morning of November 13?

Mr McBride: My understanding was that there was a request for information on November 13 for a priority briefing.

Ms Jackson: All right, let me be more specific. Did you receive a request for information on the morning of November 13?

Mr McBride: Yes, I did receive a request on that morning.

Ms Jackson: From whom?

Mr McBride: I received three phone calls that morning from three separate individuals, one being Diane McArthur.

Ms Jackson: Who is she?

Mr McBride: She is the executive assistant of Eugene LeBlanc's office.

Ms Jackson: You knew that at that time?

Mr McBride: Yes I did. Diane McArthur and Eugene LeBlanc's office worked closely with our branch on various issues relating to implementation of the OMA agreement.

Ms Jackson: You said, sir, you had three telephone calls?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Ms Jackson: Who was the other telephone call? Sorry, let me stop and say, do you remember the order in which you received these telephone calls?

Mr McBride: I do not recall 100% the order that I received the three calls. I believe the first call was from Diane McArthur.

Ms Jackson: All right. Who were the other calls from?

Mr McBride: I received calls from Denise Allen and Maurice Jones.

Ms Jackson: Who is Denise Allen?

Mr McBride: Denise Allen is an individual who works in the communications branch.

Ms Jackson: Did you know her at that time?

Mr McBride: I know Denise Allen simply as an individual who works in the communications branch only and, from the guidelines that I have, as one of the people on the distribution list for priority briefings.

Ms Jackson: When you say the guidelines that you have, you are referring, sir, are you, to the Priority Briefings, which is exhibit 6?

Mr McBride: That is correct.

Ms Jackson: You say you know that Denise Allen is on that list. You are speaking of the list at the back of the Priority Briefings entitled Briefing Coordinators' Distribution List?

Mr McBride: That is right.

Ms Jackson: What is the significance to you on the morning of November 13 -- what is the significance of her being on this list?

Mr McBride: Simply that she is a person who can be expected to be involved in the priority briefing process.

Ms Jackson: All right. And Maurice Jones, who is Maurice Jones?

Mr McBride: Maurice Jones, as far as I understand, is also a member of the communications branch.

Ms Jackson: Is he also on this list?

Mr McBride: Yes, he is.

Ms Jackson: All right. Are you able to recall what Diane McArthur asked you to do?

Mr McBride: I recall Diane McArthur asking myself, the branch, for input to be used in the preparation of priority briefing to respond to two radio broadcasts that had taken place by a physician, one one week earlier on an issue of deinsuring electrolysis and one that was about to be aired or was in the process of being aired, I cannot recall exactly, to deal with the issue of thresholds.

Ms Jackson: Now you said she wanted that information for a priority briefing. Are those the words she used, do you recall?

Mr McBride: I do not recall her actually saying "priority briefing"; I certainly recall "briefing."

Ms Jackson: Did you make any assumption as to what it was for?

Mr McBride: I made no distinction between whether it was a priority briefing or a briefing.

Ms Jackson: All right.

Mr McBride: To me a briefing is a priority briefing.

Ms Jackson: What did Denise Allen ask you to do?

Mr McBride: I do not have a good recollection. I do know that the request again implied a priority briefing, that we needed information as soon as possible to prepare a briefing. I do recall her saying that she was not going to be in the process all the way through, that Maurice Jones would complete the process, that she was assisting and he was assisting in the briefing.

Ms Jackson: Let me go back for a minute. With respect to Diane McArthur, did she tell you what was to be done with the information you were being asked to provide?

Mr McBride: She had simply asked that, once we had put the information together, to e-mail her the information.

Ms Jackson: Did she tell you what was going to be done with it?

Mr McBride: No.

Ms Jackson: Did she tell you what kind of information she wanted?

Mr McBride: Could I clarify that last point, to say what was to be done with it -- other than the fact that it was to be used as input for the preparation of a briefing.

Ms Jackson: For whom?

Mr McBride: My understanding is that it was for the minister.

Ms Jackson: Did she tell you what kind of information she wanted?

1510

Mr McBride: The discussion -- I asked her what kind of information was needed. She was vague in terms of the details of the statements made by the physician in question, because she indicated there was no transcript in her hands. Based on the fact that we were talking about electrolysis and thresholds, I suggested to her that the best thing we could do was simply to provide a profile of the physician, so that questions as to whether or not this was a threshold issue versus an electrolysis issue or an issue of a physician requesting exemption from thresholds could be answered with a profile of that physician.

Ms Jackson: Could be answered by the minister?

Mr McBride: Could be answered in terms of the input; could be answered in terms of what they wanted to put in the briefing material that could be provided for the minister.

Ms Jackson: Did you explain to her what you meant by the word -- did you use the word "profile"?

Mr McBride: I believe that is the word I used.

Ms Jackson: Did you explain to her what you meant by the word "profile"?

Mr McBride: I explained to her that a profile would certainly give her an indication of whether or not a large portion of the billings related to electrolysis, would certainly give an indication of whether or not he was over the threshold limit and would give an indication of whether or not he had requested exemption or was exempt, and that by getting that information then one could either confirm what was being said or one could determine whether or not it was truly a threshold issue versus some other issue.

Ms Jackson: And what did she say?

Mr McBride: I do not recall her exact words. I do believe she said, "Okay, please send it as soon as possible," which were the same kinds of words I got echoed, in terms of the other two, to get the information there as soon as it could be done.

Ms Jackson: When Denise Allen called, did you understand that was a separate request for information, or part of the first request for information, or did you know?

Mr McBride: I was given the impression that it was all in assistance to the preparation of the same briefing.

Ms Jackson: What gave you that impression?

Mr McBride: It was in response to the same physician concerning the same radio broadcast. I assume that it was all the same briefing request.

Ms Jackson: And then you said you had a telephone -- was there anything else? When you spoke to Denise Allen, did she indicate what kind of information she wanted?

Mr McBride: She was looking for any kind of information that could be used as input. I called myself and told her what we could do was to provide a profile of the physician in order to determine what the appropriate issue was.

Ms Jackson: So you told her the same sort of thing you had already told Diane McArthur?

Mr McBride: To the best of my recollection, talking to all three, I cannot be precise, who was giving what words and what words I was coming back with, but in general all three, I believe I relayed the same thing.

Ms Jackson: Did Denise Allen say anything to you to indicate that she was working with Diane McArthur on this or was it just your assumption?

Mr McBride: I do not recall her saying anything specific about her working with Diane McArthur on this.

Ms Jackson: Then when Maurice Jones phoned, what did he say?

Mr McBride: Again, I think Maurice Jones was looking for information as soon as possible, and I asked each one of them, Maurice Jones included, "Can you give me any more details about what the transcript or what the discussion was in terms of thresholds so that I could provide you the best information possible to support a briefing?"

Ms Jackson: And was Maurice Jones able to tell you any more than you had already learned?

Mr McBride: No, basically I got the same response and that was, "We're aware that there was a radio broadcast one week earlier dealing with the issue of electrolysis and that there was another broadcast coming up that day, or was in the process of being broadcast, concerning thresholds."

Ms Jackson: All right. Did you have any further discussion with Maurice Jones about the kind of information you would provide in answer to that inquiry than you had already had with Denise Allen or Diane McArthur?

Mr McBride: I do not recall too much further discussion in that area.

Ms Jackson: What did you then do?

Mr McBride: Following those phone calls, or possibly in between those phone calls, I went to Bill Teatero, who at that time was working on the implementation of thresholds. I asked Bill to provide a profile of the physician in question. I believe I indicated to Bill that it had to be done as soon as possible, that it was in response to a priority briefing. I indicated to Bill that I thought it was important to answer at least the question of whether or not the physician was over threshold, whether or not there was an exemption request or whether or not the physician was exempt from threshold. I wanted to know at least what portion of the billings had to do with electrolysis. That was important to me because electrolysis was excluded from the capping totals, thus that would give an indication of whether or not it was truly a threshold issue versus an electrolysis issue.

Ms Jackson: Did you give Mr Teatero any other instructions?

Mr McBride: I may have, and I do not recall precisely on this -- Bill to go to Simon or --

Ms Jackson: I am sorry, I did not hear what you just said.

Mr McBride: I either asked Bill to initiate a request to Peter Quinn or Simon to get the detailed profile in order to provide a summary profile, or I indicated to him that I would go to those individuals to get that information.

Ms Jackson: Simon is Simon Kovacs?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Ms Jackson: Why would you direct him to deal with Peter Quinn or Simon Kovacs on getting the information?

Mr McBride: That is the area you have to go through in our unit in order to get a detailed profile of a physician. In order for Bill to provide a summary profile of the information I was asking for, one would need a detailed copy.

Ms Jackson: All right. Why did you go to Mr Teatero?

Mr McBride: Bill was, from our end, the project leader with respect to the implementation of the threshold -- the OMA-Ministry of Health agreement. Bill, being the fee-for-service policy adviser, was well aware of the topic of thresholds and was also well aware of the electrolysis issues, and we were dealing with a fee-for-service physician, which was his area of responsibility.

Ms Jackson: He was usually responsible for policy in that area?

Mr McBride: That is correct.

Ms Jackson: But the information you were asking for was not of a policy nature?

Mr McBride: Most priority briefings that I have been affiliated with, we go to the person who can best respond to the priority. We have nobody who is specifically designated as an individual to respond to a priority briefing. It is the person who would have the best knowledge to make a response, and Bill was that person.

Ms Jackson: Who is the person in the branch who has the most experience in providing profiles and summaries of them?

Mr McBride: Certainly Simon Kovacs would be the person most experienced with profiles.

Ms Jackson: Was Dr Kovacs in the office that day?

Mr McBride: I do not recall.

Ms Jackson: Do you remember why you did not go to Dr Kovacs with this request?

Mr McBride: Dr Kovacs I would not go to request to put together a priority briefing. Simon would be used in terms of a medical consultant to give information as to what the billings would mean. I would rather go to and typically went to an analyst to actually do the writing of a briefing.

Ms Jackson: Mr McBride, could you please open exhibit 6 to page 18 under the heading "Confidentiality." Under the heading "Personal Information," there is a description of what is in essence personal information and protected under the freedom of information act. Sir, it is clear, is it not, that what you were being asked to provide about the doctor was personal information?

Mr McBride: Unquestionably.

Ms Jackson: And you know that when you do that, you have to meet the test that is set forth below the first paragraph?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Ms Jackson: Did you address on the morning of November 13 whether that test was met in order to justify passing this information on to any of the three people you had been speaking to?

Mr McBride: I felt I did. It was clear to me that the individuals I was dealing with were Ministry of Health employees. In my understanding, there was a need for the information in order to clarify the issue that was brought forward.

Mr Kormos: Sorry, I did not hear. "My understanding is that there was a -- "

1520

Ms Jackson: Could you repeat it, Mr McBride?

Mr McBride: Sorry, okay. The three calls I received, Maurice Jones, Denise Allen and Diane McArthur, to me were all Ministry of Health employees, which was one of the conditions in terms of disclosure of information within a ministry.

The other issue is this needed information to carry out the duties that they have to carry out I thought was needed. I recognize that these were people as part of a party briefing process, and my understanding was that this kind of information could be made available.

Ms Jackson: So in terms of the second part of the test, that the people be performing a proper function within the ministry, I think I hear from you that you understand that was a proper function because each of those three people was part of the priority briefing process. Is that right?

Mr McBride: That is what I certainly believe.

Ms Jackson: And that is why you thought the test was met?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Ms Jackson: Was there any question in your mind about that, sir?

Mr McBride: No question, no.

Ms Jackson: Now, you have given the request to Mr Teatero. Do you remember -- I am sorry, one thing I regret I have not asked you, do you remember when the telephone calls came in?

Mr McBride: I do not remember the exact times. I just know that it was that morning and I can only confirm to you that it was prior to the 11:41 e-mail that went out.

Ms Jackson: Can you be any more specific, sir, about the timing?

Mr McBride: I am afraid I cannot. I would say close to 9 o'clock would have been about the right time.

Ms Jackson: And within what period of time, did the three telephone calls reach you?

Mr McBride: I recall them being rather close, within a matter of minutes apart. When I say "minutes apart," I would say all within a half-hour at least.

Ms Jackson: After you had given the directions that you indicated you did to Mr Teatero, what happened next?

Mr McBride: At one point, and again, I could not tell you the time, Bill came to me with a copy of the memo to review the material. At that point in time we were addressing various other issues within the branch. I felt pressure to sit down and quickly go through the memo to get it back to the sources that had requested the information. I took a quick glance at the memo. I asked myself whether or not it addressed the questions that I thought I had asked Bill to be able to respond to. I felt that those questions were answered and then I asked Bill to send the e-mail to Denise Allen, Maurice Jones and Diane McArthur.

Ms Jackson: Mr McBride, there has been reference in these proceedings to an e-mail that Mr Teatero in fact sent to Diane McArthur at 11:41 that morning. You have had an opportunity to review that e-mail, sir?

Mr McBride: That is correct.

Ms Jackson: And is the e-mail that Mr Teatero brought to you that morning the same as the one he sent at 11:41?

Mr McBride: I believe so.

Ms Jackson: So there were no changes made as a result of your review?

Mr McBride: I could not confirm that, but I believe not.

Ms Jackson: And after you reviewed it, what did you tell Mr Teatero to do?

Mr McBride: I asked Bill to send the e-mail as quickly as possible to Diane McArthur, Denise Allen and Maurice Jones.

Ms Jackson: Do you recall any discussion as to whether it was appropriate to send the e-mail to all those three people?

Mr McBride: Not at that point in time.

Ms Jackson: Was there any discussion as to whether it was appropriate to send the e-mail out without a review by Dr MacMillan or his executive assistant or anyone else?

Mr McBride: I do not recall any questioning of that.

Ms Jackson: You told us, in the context of the priority briefing procedure, that before a response went back it would ordinarily go through Ms Fleming and Dr MacMillan.

Mr McBride: Yes, it would.

Ms Jackson: Why then did you not endeavour to respond through either of them?

Mr McBride: On that particular day Bob MacMillan was in Toronto attending a joint management committee, and Mary Fleming was not present at that time.

Ms Jackson: Did you consider whether it was appropriate to attempt to locate them and get their approval before sending it?

Mr McBride: No, I did not. I felt there was a pressure to get the response back as soon as possible, and in this particular situation, at least in my eyes, the briefing coordinator was Diane McArthur, who was the executive assistant to Eugene.

Ms Jackson: You say there was a pressure to get the answer back as quickly as possible. What was the pressure?

Mr McBride: The pressure was the knowledge of the priority briefing process in terms of the timing to get a response back, knowing that typically you had to have it back by 10:30. We certainly were not on target from 10:30; at that point in time it was later than 10:30. Also, it was my understanding that we were simply supplying input for the preparation of the priority briefing, which meant that the party at the other end would actually have to write the briefing note, which would mean additional time would be required. So I felt it was important to get the information in the hands of certainly Diane McArthur and the other two as quickly as possible.

Ms Jackson: Was there any other pressure?

Mr McBride: Other pressures in terms of operational functions that were taking place in the branch to react to those, outside of that briefing.

Ms Jackson: Was there any other pressure?

Mr McBride: There was no other pressure from other individuals to get that information out to those three.

Ms Jackson: When Mr Teatero brought the e-mail to you to review, that was a hard copy?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Ms Jackson: Did he leave a hard copy with you?

Mr McBride: I believe he took the hard copy back with him.

Ms Jackson: What then next happened in this process, after you gave Mr Teatero the instructions you said you did to send it to Ms Allen, Mr Jones and Ms McArthur?

Mr McBride: A certain amount of time had passed by. I was back on to the computer system checking my e-mail system and had not seen a copy of the e-mail, which I expected to get a copy of. I was concerned the e-mail had not gone out and I went back to Bill and said, "Did you get the e-mail sent out?" Bill said he had sent it out and I said I did not get a copy. He went to the e-mail to check to see whether or not I was copied and it was only copied to Diane McArthur and not to myself. I asked Bill to send me a copy and to make sure that Maurice Jones and Denise Allen got a copy because I had indicated I would send that information out as quickly as possible.

Ms Jackson: Do you recall when you had that conversation with Mr Teatero?

Mr McBride: I believe that was somewhere in the time frame of just after lunch.

Ms Jackson: Between your first conversation with Mr Teatero, in which you gave him instructions to send the e-mail, and your second conversation where you reiterated those instructions, had you had any further contact from anyone in Toronto?

Mr McBride: No, I had no contact at all with anyone.

Ms Jackson: What next happened?

Mr McBride: I continued with the normal day activity of everything else that was taking place. In the latter part of the day, I checked my e-mail and found that the copy had been sent out and after that, as far as I was concerned, the situation was closed.

Ms Jackson: Mr McBride, there has been reference in these proceedings to an e-mail that was sent at 2:48 from Mr Teatero to Mr Jones and Ms Allen, copied to yourself, which forwarded the earlier e-mail of 11:41. Is that the e-mail that appeared on your machine later on November 13?

Mr McBride: Yes. Two of them would have been there and I read both of them at that time.

Ms Jackson: Now, Mr McBride, in the meantime, at 2:20, a short supplementary e-mail to the 11:41 e-mail was sent from Mr Teatero to Ms McArthur and apparently copied to you. Did you receive a copy of that?

Mr McBride: Yes, I did.

Ms Jackson: Did you discuss that with Mr Teatero?

Mr McBride: No, I did not.

Ms Jackson: Did you know in advance of his sending it that he planned to send the supplementary e-mail?

Mr McBride: No, I did not.

Ms Jackson: Did anything further happen with respect to the e-mail or its contents on that day?

Mr McBride: I do not recall anything else happening on that.

1530

Ms Jackson: Did anything happen with respect to the e-mail or its contents on November 14?

Mr McBride: I got a phone call on November 14, in the morning, from Bob MacMillan. Bob had given me a call and had indicated he saw a copy of the e-mail that was sent out from our unit. Bob first of all had indicated to me that he felt the memo was too detailed in nature. He cautioned me about sending out information with that level of detail. He indicated that he had a lot of experience in the ministry and that it was too sensitive to go out. He told me that he had collected, or he had attempted to ensure that he collected, all the copies that he found down in Toronto. My understanding was that he was in Eugene LeBlanc's office at that time.

He asked me who were all the parties who would have received a copy of that e-mail. I checked the e-mail to determine who everyone was who was copied from our end, going out from Bill Teatero, and had indicated to him that the only people that I was aware of who had gotten a copy through the e-mail transmission were Denise Allen, Maurice Jones, Diane McArthur and myself. Bob said to make sure that no one else got a copy. That was the end of the discussion concerning that e-mail that day.

Ms Jackson: Did he, in that conversation -- you say that he said he collected all the copies in Toronto. Did he tell you who had received copies in Toronto?

Mr McBride: No, he did not, other than the people he collected from whom I had mentioned.

Ms Jackson: Were you asked to erase your e-mail?

Mr McBride: No, I was not asked to erase it.

Ms Jackson: Were you asked to ask those who had received the e-mail to erase it?

Mr McBride: I do not believe so.

Ms Jackson: Were you asked to collect the e-mails?

Mr McBride: From the Kingston end, you are referring to?

Ms Jackson: Yes.

Mr McBride: I do not recall his saying, "Collect the e-mail." I just recall his saying that -- I am telling him that myself and Bill had a copy and he requested us not to send out copies to anybody else.

Ms Jackson: Now you earlier said that he said to make sure that no one else got a copy. Did you take steps to determine that no one else got a copy?

Mr McBride: I took steps simply to look at the e-mails to see who got a copy, and in terms of whether or not anybody else got a copy, it was simply a case of indicating to Bill not to send out any further copies to anyone.

Ms Jackson: That is all you did towards that end?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Ms Jackson: Now I will caution you on this, Mr McBride, that the committee and the public hearing are aware of the timing of the e-mail, the fact that it was sent, who it was sent to, that it concerned Dr Donahue, that it relates to his financial information and had comments on that and that there is a copy of it with a note from Mr Quinn to Dr Kovacs and that is all that is, at this point, legitimately in the public record. With that in mind, sir, can I ask you if you subsequently have become aware of how Mr Quinn or Dr -- when Mr Quinn and Dr Kovacs became aware of the e-mail?

Mr McBride: I have not become aware of how they had a copy of that e-mail. If I had, it would not seem unusual to me that it would be in their hands either, since they are the source of profile information to start with. But I do not recall how they would have gotten that.

Ms Jackson: All right. What happened next with respect to the e-mail or its contents?

Mr McBride: After the morning of the 14th, in discussions with Bob MacMillan, no further discussions that I am aware of took place on the e-mail until December 10. On December 10, Bob MacMillan had requested that I come to his office. There were to be some phone calls with respect to reporters asking questions.

Bob had myself there, I believe Laurel Montrose, and I am not too sure if anybody else attended that particular meeting at the time that a phone call was made from the Toronto newspaper, and I believe it was the Toronto Sun. Bob took the phone call and after the phone call had indicated to us that he had talked to a reporter who seemed to have an understanding, one, that the memo existed and seemed to have some sort of understanding of the content of the memo. In that context, Bob had also asked myself to -- myself or he went directly to Bill or somebody to request we get a copy of the e-mail to take a close look at it to try to determine whether or not the reporter actually had a copy of it or had a good verbal account of it, as well as for ourselves to get some sense of feeling in a detailed level what was in the e-mail that could potentially be in someone else's hands.

Ms Jackson: Mr McBride, were you called in -- it was not clear to me from your answer whether you were called in as a result of the telephone call or before the telephone call or to participate in the telephone call.

Mr McBride: I do not accurately recall. I am constantly going into Bob MacMillan's office for a number of issues, so I do not know whether or not we were dealing with one issue and then the call came in or whether specifically the issue was to be there when the call came in.

Ms Jackson: But you were there when the call came in?

Mr McBride: I was there when the call came in.

Ms Jackson: What do you remember of what Dr MacMillan said while he was on the telephone?

Mr McBride: All I can remember is Bob acknowledging at one point in the conversation that the ministry did indeed have a memo that was prepared. I recall Bob saying that he felt there was no impropriety as a result of that memo being used to support a priority briefing, that he felt there was nothing legal -- illegal about it.

Ms Jackson: These are all things he said on the phone?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Ms Jackson: Anything else?

Mr McBride: I do not recall too much -- any other parts of the conversation.

Ms Jackson: Now, when you said he said that the ministry had a memo, is that your best recollection of the words he used or your best recollection of the subject he covered?

Mr McBride: Best recollection of the subject he covered.

Ms Jackson: What is your best recollection of what he actually said?

Mr McBride: My best recollection is that we issued a memo in support of a priority briefing to the minister.

Ms Jackson: Was there any discussion that you heard of the details of that memo?

Mr McBride: Sorry?

Ms Jackson: Did he say anything about the details of what was in that memo?

Mr McBride: No. Bob did not disclose any details of what was in that memo, definitely not when he was on the phone, and after the phone conversation he relayed back what the reporter had indicated was in the memo.

Ms Jackson: Did the reporter mention specific dollar numbers in connection with Dr Donahue's billings?

Mr McBride: I do not recall whether or not a specific number was mentioned. I recall Bob saying that the reporter was aware that a memo had been sent from Kingston to Toronto, that the reporter had indicated to Bob that he excitedly went around collecting the memo. That is about all I recall.

1540

Ms Jackson: Do you recall whether Dr MacMillan reported that the reporter had known the name of the physician who was the subject of the memo?

Mr McBride: I think I vaguely recall that, yes.

Ms Jackson: She did?

Mr McBride: I was not aware it was a she.

Ms Jackson: All right. The reporter did know -- he reported that the reporter did know the name?

Mr McBride: I believe so, to the best of my recollection on that.

Ms Jackson: Did he say whether the reporter knew the specifics of any of the comments in the memo?

Mr McBride: The only specific I recall, outside of generalities of the memo, was the fact that the reporter had indicated the memo was sent on November 14 rather than November 13, which led us to believe the reporter did not necessarily have the memo in his hands, because the memo from our area was sent on the 13th. So our best feeling was that he probably had a good verbal account of what it contained.

Ms Jackson: Was that a conclusion you came to as soon as the telephone conversation was over, or after you had obtained, as you say you did, copies of the e-mail?

Mr McBride: After we got copies of the e-mail.

Ms Jackson: Was that the end then of that discussion of the e-mail?

Mr McBride: That was the end of the discussion as far as I recall it. There were other parties that got involved in the discussion of the e-mail at that time.

Ms Jackson: While you were there?

Mr McBride: While I was there for a brief period, yes.

Ms Jackson: Who?

Mr McBride: I believe Mary Fleming was there and I believe Pat Malcolmson at some point was there.

Ms Jackson: Was that a discussion of the specific contents of the e-mail?

Mr McBride: I honestly do not recall.

Ms Jackson: Do you recall anything other than the specific contents of the e-mail being discussed?

Mr McBride: No I do not. I cannot -- let me backtrack. I can recall at least the fact that the discussion was that the reporter had called and that he appeared to have knowledge of the content of the memo being discussed. That is about all I recall on that.

Ms Jackson: Apart from the conversations you have already -- sorry, then what happened next with respect to the e-mail and its contents?

Mr McBride: I do not recall anything further that day. The following day, which would have been December 11, Bob had indicated that he was requested to go down and see the deputy minister to relay information concerning what took place in the development of the memo and who it was sent out to and everything that took place in Kingston on November 13. Bob asked me to put together what I thought took place and I prepared for him my recollection of what took place on November 13.

Ms Jackson: Mr McBride, I am going to ask the clerk to put in front of you four pages of notes and distribute those to the committee members. I will ask you to direct your attention to the last two pages of that bundle.

The Chair: They will be marked as exhibit 27.

Mr McBride: I have a copy in front of me.

Ms Jackson: The notes -- can you turn to the last two pages of that exhibit 27, Mr McBride. That second last page starts with a heading, "Chronological Events Prior to November 13th."

Mr McBride: Yes.

Ms Jackson: Did you prepare those notes?

Mr McBride: I prepared the content of the first page and I believe Bob MacMillan prepared the content of the second page.

Ms Jackson: So that page that is headed "Chronological Events" was prepared by you on December 11.

Mr McBride: That is right. They were prepared by me and I gave them to Bob. Bob had indicated he would review that page and then add his notes in terms of what happened from the 14th and onward.

Ms Jackson: Then what happened next with respect to the e-mail or its contents?

Mr McBride: After that, Bob took the information I provided and went to the deputy minister. The next thing that I was informed of, anything in relation to this, was on December 11 a request came from the freedom of information office from Andrew Parr, who had indicated on behalf of the deputy minister requesting all individuals who had the e-mail itself on electronic file to make sure that none of those things were deleted, to change our passwords to ensure that nobody else might have known your password and gotten on the system, and gave us some instructions in terms of not to touch anything that had been prepared.

Ms Jackson: Did you change the password on your e-mail?

Mr McBride: Yes, I did.

Ms Jackson: It was still on your system, was it?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Ms Jackson: Did you at that time have any hard copies of the e-mail?

Mr McBride: Yes, I did.

Ms Jackson: Was that as a result of your meeting in Dr MacMillan's office or was it otherwise, the meeting that you mentioned you had on December 10?

Mr McBride: I would not be able to recall what specific copy I had. I always kept in a personal file at least one copy up to that point. Any additional copies I would have would have gone into the shredding machine.

Ms Jackson: What did you do with the one hard copy you still had?

Mr McBride: The memo from the freedom of information office had requested that the information be put in a confidential envelope with my name on it and sent to -- to be sent, I believe, back to the freedom of information office. I followed whatever the instructions --

Ms Jackson: The direction from the privacy commissioner has been marked as exhibit 20. Mr McBride, perhaps you would like to refresh your recollection as to what you were asked to do.

Mr McBride: What I ended up doing was I put the copies in the confidential envelope and took it to Mary Fleming and a sealed envelope to Bob MacMillan. I gave it directly to, actually, Mary Fleming, the envelope.

Ms Jackson: What happened next with respect to the e-mail or its contents that involved you?

Mr McBride: After that nothing else was touched in terms of that e-mail, nothing else that I can recall that had any involvement with respect to it.

Ms Jackson: The first two pages of exhibit 27 are entitled "Briefing Request, Chronological Events, R. J. McBride," and there is a note in the upper right-hand corner, "Prepared December 18, 1991." Are those your notes?

Mr McBride: Yes, they are. Following the briefing that Bob had with respect to the deputy minister, the request for a legislative committee, an investigation, I understand was requested. Bob sent an e-mail to individuals that were part of the process, indicated that in his experience it was a good idea for us to, at this point in time, relay to the best of our recollection the events that took place in preparation for an investigation that may take place months later. At that time I prepared the two pages that you see in the exhibit there.

Ms Jackson: Apart from the conversations you have described, Mr McBride, have you ever spoken to anyone inside the ministry concerning the e-mail or its contents?

Mr McBride: Only the parties we have discussed today, Bill Teatero and -- I have only had dealings with the people, Teatero, Diane McArthur and Denise Allen, the ones who got the copies.

Ms Jackson: We know you have discussed it to the extent you have already told us with certain people, and we know what you have said. Have you talked with anyone else inside the ministry, apart from the conversations you have already described, about the e-mail?

Mr McBride: No, I have not.

Ms Jackson: Have you ever shown the e-mail to anyone inside the ministry, apart from those people you have already identified?

Mr McBride: No, I have not.

Ms Jackson: Have you ever spoken with anyone -- have you ever spoken with a reporter concerning the e-mail?

Mr McBride: No, I have not.

Ms Jackson: When I say "the e-mail" I mean the three e-mails, you understand that?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Ms Jackson: Have you ever shown the three e-mails or any one of them to a reporter?

Mr McBride: No.

1550

Ms Jackson: Have you ever spoken with anyone outside the ministry concerning the e-mails?

Mr McBride: No.

Ms Jackson: Have you ever shown a copy of the e-mails to anyone outside of the ministry?

Mr McBride: No, I have not.

Ms Jackson: Do you have any information that anyone in the provider services branch has ever discussed the e-mail or its contents with anyone outside the ministry, apart from the conversation that you have related concerning Dr MacMillan?

Mr McBride: No.

Ms Jackson: Do you have any information that anyone in the provider services branch has ever shown a copy of any of the e-mails to anyone outside of the ministry?

Mr McBride: No.

Ms Jackson: Have you ever been asked on any other occasion to prepare any information concerning Dr Donahue?

Mr McBride: Yes, I have.

Ms Jackson: When?

Mr McBride: The exact timing I am not sure of. We have been requested through Bob MacMillan to produce profiles on a number of physicians who Bob was either going to meet with to discuss the threshold issue or dealing with exemptions. One of those profiles was a profile on Mr Donahue.

Ms Jackson: Dr Donahue?

Mr McBride: Dr Donahue.

Ms Jackson: Without revealing the specific information concerning his practice, can you describe the kind of profile you prepared?

Mr McBride: The profile would have been a computer-printed, detailed profile that identifies all the services billed and compared to other physicians. It is a standard practice profile that we get out of Simon Kovacs's area. In the preparation of the material for Bob, I believe Peter Quinn would do a one-page summary synopsis that went with each one of those.

Ms Jackson: Was that the information -- was Dr MacMillan provided with the one-page piece of information or the other profile or both?

Mr McBride: I believe he was provided with both.

Ms Jackson: Have you ever been asked on any other occasion to prepare information or to provide information concerning Dr Donahue?

Mr McBride: No.

Ms Jackson: Do you have any information that suggests the e-mail or its contents were provided to Shelley Martel?

Mr McBride: I have no evidence of such.

Ms Jackson: I beg your pardon?

Mr McBride: I have no evidence.

Ms Jackson: Do you have any information as to how the e-mail or its contents were provided to the Sun reporter to whom Dr MacMillan spoke on December 10?

Mr McBride: No, I do not.

Ms Jackson: Thank you, Mr McBride. Those are my questions.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Jackson. We will open up to questions from government members -- Mr Kormos. I would like to remind members that we will limit questions at this point to 20 minutes per caucus.

Mr Kormos: What is interesting is that you were shown this memo before it was sent out by e-mail.

Mr McBride: Yes.

Mr Kormos: And you found nothing about the memo that was objectionable?

Mr McBride: I looked at the memo; I focused on whether or not it was answering the questions that I thought had to be answered. At that time, I did not detect anything straight and objectionable because I was not looking for it.

Mr Kormos: You had only been there, in that capacity, five days?

Mr McBride: That is right.

Mr Kormos: But you did not draft the memo?

Mr McBride: No.

Mr Kormos: You did not write it?

Mr McBride: No.

Mr Kormos: You did not -- well, maybe you did provide any instructions as to the content?

Mr McBride: I did provide instructions as to the content in the sense that I asked that a physician profile, a summary, be created. I asked that at least the profile should indicate the portion of billings that had to do with electrolysis, certainly to indicate dollar figures to determine whether or not the physician may have been over thresholds, and at least to indicate information with respect to whether or not the physician was exempt from thresholds.

Mr Kormos: So you gave those instructions to Mr Teatero?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Mr Kormos: And you were pleased with the results?

Mr McBride: In terms of what I saw on the memo at the time, where I was focusing on, yes.

Mr Kormos: He had complied with the instructions you gave him?

Mr McBride: Yes, he had.

Mr Kormos: He listened clearly -- clearly or obviously he listened to what you had to say and he did what you asked him?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Mr Kormos: And Mr Teatero certainly, he had been doing this in so far as you are aware for some time, at this point, writing these profiles?

Mr McBride: Sorry?

Mr Kormos: Writing profiles. Mr Teatero -- do you know whether or not he had done that before?

Mr McBride: Mr Teatero would not typically write profiles of physicians, no.

Mr Kormos: He is just involved with, what, responses to requests for ministerial briefings?

Mr McBride: He responded to my request for him to provide a summary of that physician.

Mr Kormos: Do you know whether or not he had been involved in preparing ministerial brief papers before?

Mr McBride: Bill himself had -- I do not recall, at least when I was there, whether or not he had provided or prepared any ministerial briefings.

Mr Kormos: Or, if not the briefing notes, the input, providing information to the ministry that was used by ministry people to prepare those briefings?

Mr McBride: He would certainly have provided input on other briefings in the ministry.

Mr Kormos: I am unclear about this. Was this a briefing note or was it the data which the ministry could utilize in the case they wanted to prepare a briefing note?

Mr McBride: What Bill was producing was not the briefing note. The briefing note that would be produced would be a standard issue -- background, current status. That was not the format this was in. This was simply input to be used in the preparation of the briefing notes.

Mr Kormos: So in so far as you are concerned, the people who received this, the people who have requested it, could use all or part or none of it, as they wished, to draft a briefing note for the minister or other responsible persons in the ministry?

Mr McBride: My understanding was that they could take that note and determine what they felt was appropriate to go into the briefing.

Mr Kormos: And in so far as distribution of that bit of e-mail, that memorandum, insofar as the distribution is concerned, was there anything untoward in the distribution of it?

Mr McBride: Was there any which?

Mr Kormos: Untoward. Was there anything untoward in the distribution of that memo?

Mr McBride: I do not understand the terminology "untoward."

Mr Kormos: Was it distributed in a way that you were pleased with?

Mr McBride: It was e-mailed to the people I asked Bill to e-mail it to.

Mr Kormos: So there was nothing peculiar or unusual or unsettling about the distribution of that memorandum in so far as you are concerned?

Mr McBride: That is correct, as far as I am concerned, yes.

Mr Kormos: Again, protocol was used in the distribution of it?

Mr McBride: Bill did carry out what I asked him, yes.

Mr Kormos: Yes. Now, Dr MacMillan became aware of this memo very promptly. We are talking not weeks but days. One day?

Mr McBride: The day after, the morning after, yes.

Mr Kormos: And he had clearly had some feelings about the memorandum?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Mr Kormos: Feelings that you had not had when you first reviewed it prior to its being shipped out?

Mr McBride: That is right.

Mr Kormos: He told you that the memo was too detailed?

Mr McBride: He said it was too detailed in nature. He felt it was too much confidential information, that it was information that would be very sensitive in a political environment.

Mr Kormos: And he asked of you, "Who are all the people receiving this?"

Mr McBride: That is right.

Mr Kormos: Did you make any inquiries at that point to determine who had indeed received it?

Mr McBride: I checked with Bill, because the e-mail was sent from his account, to look at the e-mail and determine who was copied in. That way we knew everybody who got a copy that was sent from Kingston.

Mr Kormos: Are you satisfied that that determination was complete at that point in time? We are talking about the day after.

Mr McBride: Yes, I am satisfied that those were the only people who got a copy.

Mr Kormos: And subsequently, any information, any stuff you have picked up since then, you are still comfortable with that?

Mr McBride: Yes.

1600

Mr Kormos: Okay. So even as of today, you are confident that the people you reported to Dr MacMillan on the day after the e-mail was sent out are indeed the people who received the e-mail?

Mr McBride: That is right.

Mr Kormos: Perhaps you told us this and maybe I just was not paying attention, but what process was used to get the e-mail back?

Mr McBride: At our end there was no process to get the e-mail back.

Mr Kormos: What process was performed to make sure the e-mail was, I do not know, erased, eradicated?

Mr McBride: There was no process in terms of on my account or Bill's e-mail account, to erase that particular memo. The only process I am aware of eliminating e-mail or collection of documents was what Bob MacMillan related to me on the phone that he had done at the other end in Toronto.

Mr Kormos: Okay, but what did he tell you he did?

Mr McBride: He told me that he went around collecting all copies that he could find of the e-mail and specifically asking whom we had sent the e-mail to so that he could ensure that he had collected copies from those people.

Mr Kormos: Because e-mail -- and once again, I am not really good on the stuff -- the e-mail appears on the computer screen.

Mr McBride: Yes.

Mr Kormos: And that is the e-mail, but you can also make a printout of it.

Mr McBride: You could print out at any time you want.

Mr Kormos: Was there any effort to determine whether or not people had printed it out that you are aware of, or did anybody ask so far as you are aware?

Mr McBride: In Kingston?

Mr Kormos: Out at Kingston, in Toronto, anywhere.

Mr McBride: I simply know what happened in Kingston. The only people I was aware of who could potentially have that e-mail would have been Bill, myself and possibly Simon or Peter.

Mr Kormos: Were you a little bit surprised when Dr MacMillan told you in the calm environment of the day following the transmission of the e-mail that this stuff was too confidential, too detailed, to have been sent out? Were you surprised at his response?

Mr McBride: Partly, yes. Surprised in the sense that I felt there was a need for the information and I supplied it, or requested Bill to send it out. Partly not, in the sense that we are always concerned about confidentiality and we take it seriously. And that, yes, maybe there was a possibility, after he had talked to me about it, particularly when he explained to me that, even though you are dealing with people in the ministry carrying out those kinds of functions, he explained that you have to try to protect people from inadvertently disclosing information. That is why you are better not to give it.

Mr Kormos: Information that is protected by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Mr Kormos: Which could be so innocuous as, let's say, the year which somebody was born in.

Mr McBride: Yes.

Mr Kormos: Or the school that somebody graduated from. For example, that would be the sort of thing that freedom of information would prohibit you from disclosing.

Mr McBride: Yes.

Mr Kormos: Or, of course, perhaps a little more intimate stuff. If a communique had the gross billings of a doctor on it, that would be stuff that the freedom of information act would protect?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Mr Kormos: That is the sort of data that OHIP has as a matter of course, is it not?

Mr McBride: That is correct.

Mr Kormos: And it is public moneys, mind you, that are paying -- well, public or some taxpayers are paying -- the money that is paying any number of those 20,000 doctors that OHIP is taking care of? Tax dollars are paying the OHIP funds for any one of those 20,000 doctors that your files have on the doctors, but the public cannot know how much a respective doctor is being paid under OHIP?

Mr McBride: That is right.

Mr Kormos: So the date of birth of someone, the year and school from which he graduated, that doctor's gross billings, the sort of distribution of his practice, how much of it was spent, how much of his practice was spent delivering babies and how much of it was spent doing particular types of surgery, that would be prohibited as well?

Mr McBride: That is right.

Mr Kormos: And that is the sort of data, as I say, that OHIP keeps, is it not?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Mr Kormos: And it is that sort of data that you would utilize in the preparation of a profile of a doctor that we just spoke of, is it not?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Mr Kormos: That is somewhat, I am sorry, but to me somewhat innocuous sort of stuff? Nothing sexy or exciting in OHIP files?

Mr McBride: Not in our area. We deal with confidential information every day.

Mr Kormos: You deal with hard data, you deal with papers coming in and moneys flowing out?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Mr Kormos: Boom, that is it, right?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Mr Kormos: I am not saying your job is not interesting, but that is about as exciting as it gets. Sorry, Mr McBride, I get carried away. Now it is not till December 10 that attention is brought to this e-mail?

Mr McBride: That is right.

Mr Kormos: As of November 14, everybody up at Kingston, you and -- well, maybe not everybody -- but you and Dr MacMillan are sort of feeling, okay, a little problem solved?

Mr McBride: That is right.

Mr Kormos: The fourth estate rears its head again. The press call, right?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Mr Kormos: You were called upon to prepare a summary of events, to prepare a history of chronological events starting with November 30 and going up to this time in December, right?

Mr McBride: November 13.

Mr Kormos: November 13, that is right, November 13 to December 10?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Mr Kormos: And you were asked to do that, obviously, in December?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Mr Kormos: Do you know why you were not asked to prepare some sort of chronology of events on November 14, when Dr MacMillan expressed -- is "concern" the right word? -- about the memo that had gone out?

Mr McBride: There was no issue or any concern of the fact following the 14th.

Mr Kormos: There was no issue on the 14th?

Mr McBride: As far as we were concerned in Kingston, nothing had gone outside, and as far as in Toronto, Bob felt he had collected all the information and nobody had any access to it.

Mr Kormos: Did you say earlier that from Bob's point of view there was nothing illegal about the memo?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Mr Kormos: And your conversations with Mary Fleming and Pat -- what was her last name?

Mr McBride: Malcolmson.

Mr Kormos: That was after the telephone conversation that you were sort of eavesdropping on one side of it? You were there in the room with Dr MacMillan while he was talking to what is obviously a reporter?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Mr Kormos: You called "he" here today and "she" in your summary.

Mr McBride: At some point after the conversation --

Mr Kormos: You read the byline.

Mr McBride: -- different people came in. Pat Malcolmson and Mary Fleming were the other parties who came into that room.

Mr Kormos: Was there concern at that point?

Mr McBride: Concern of the potential of having the memo outside?

Mr Kormos: Was there concern about the fact that a newspaper reporter had called Dr MacMillan about the memo?

Mr McBride: Oh yes, definitely some concern.

Mr Kormos: What was that?

Mr McBride: The concern was, first, the obvious one that a memo had somehow gotten outside of the ministry that contained confidential information. That was of great concern to us.

Mr Kormos: The fact that a memo designed for a ministerial briefing would be leaked to a reporter caused concern?

Mr McBride: Definitely.

Mr Kormos: Was it the matter of the leak? My impression is that it was the matter of the leak that was of greater concern than what may or may not have been in the memo. Notwithstanding that nobody --

Mr McBride: Yes. It was more a concern of the leak. As far as the content of the memo or the purpose of the memo in terms of feeding into a party briefing process, we did not have a major concern with that.

Mr Kormos: The memo is pretty stale and again inoffensive stuff?

1610

Mr McBride: The memo certainly is something that we felt there was nothing illegal about it in terms of providing confidential information that was to be used for the preparation of a briefing. At least my understanding is that we can legally, under the Health Insurance Act, provide that information if we feel it is necessary for someone to carry out their duties.

Mr Kormos: And that memo certainly did not reflect -- I mean, if I looked at, not that I ever would, a doctor's file at OHIP, I would see a heck of a lot more and a heck of a lot more detailed stuff than was in the memo, would I not?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Mr Kormos: I mean, I would see a real distillation.

Mr McBride: You would see right down to every service and the number of times each service was performed and the dollar amount.

Mr Kormos: And I would be looking at more than one and a half pages --

Mr McBride: Oh, yes.

Mr Kormos: -- of 10-point type.

Mr McBride: That is correct.

Mr Kormos: I would be looking at pages and pages and pages and pages and pages, reams.

Mr McBride: Several pages.

Interjection.

Mr Kormos: That is not reams, Mr Mills, it is only several pages.

Mr McBride: Obviously the standard practice profile would be something that would be 50 pages, 60 pages kind of thing. But we also dealt with individual, item-for-item remittance advice, in which you would have hundreds of pages just for one month's worth of services.

Mr Kormos: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Kormos. We have Mr Owens on the list. I would ask you to be mindful of the time period.

Mr Owens: Just a couple of quick questions. Mr McBride, you testified that you were surprised that Dr MacMillan would request the withdrawal of the memo. Why were you surprised?

Mr McBride: I am not -- I do not know if "surprised" at the withdrawal of the memo, from the point of view of that I had sent out something that I should not have sent out. My feeling was that the information was needed and required. Thus the guts of the memo in terms of being able to address the issues that I hoped that it was going to help, in terms of the briefing, I thought would have gone into a confidential section for the minister. I was surprised in the sense that Bob had indicated that none of that information should go into the content of the briefing.

Mr Owens: Reflecting on the content of the memo, was this a briefing note that is standard in its content?

Mr McBride: The information we sent was not the briefing note. The information we sent was simply input to be used for the briefing note. The briefing note itself has a standard format that is used. We were not preparing the briefing note. That was being prepared in Toronto.

Mr Owens: You mentioned that you felt that you were being pressured. Was it simply time pressure that you were feeling?

Mr McBride: I was feeling pressure in three different ways. One was knowing that in the briefing process they want a response back by 10:30. The second pressure was the fact that I got three calls from people requesting the information, saying, "We need it as soon as possible." The third pressure was to deal with the day-to-day issues that we were dealing with in the provider services branch other than the memo itself.

Mr Owens: So there was absolutely no indication that there was any kind of political pressure for you to produce a briefing or a note of that nature.

Mr McBride: No political pressure at all; simply the pressure to get information in the proper hands in a timely fashion so that, if needed be, the minister could have it if they had to answer questions in the House.

Mr Owens: Thank you, Mr Chairman, for your patience.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Owens. Mr Conway, just prior to the commencement of your questioning, I have just been informed that there seems to be somewhat of a logjam in Hansard and we would have to wait two minutes.

We have now come on stream, as they say.

Mr Conway: Back from the monastery, Mr Chairman. I would like to pick up where my friend from Scarborough just concluded. Mr McBride, you indicated earlier in testimony that you had had a good working relationship with Dr MacMillan. You were, I think you said, in and out of his office routinely.

Mr McBride: That is correct. I was in and out of his office on various issues every day.

Mr Conway: Having regard to what you just said to Mr Owens, and keeping in mind an apparent urgency that attached to the specific request that involves the e-mails, I would like to read to you some testimony from yesterday morning. Dr MacMillan, in talking about the circumstances, including the urgency of the matter at hand -- I am quoting Dr MacMillan from yesterday morning responding to my colleague Mr McGuinty: "I was led to believe that the Treasurer also wanted details of the matter, and that is why in part apparently there was a degree of urgency felt by staff in getting the information and preparing it." Having regard to the fact that you and Dr MacMillan's office were in close contact apparently, did you have any knowledge that the Treasurer had an interest in this matter?

Mr McBride: I had no knowledge of the Treasurer having an interest in the matter at all.

Mr Conway: Did you have any knowledge of any other elected government official having an interest in this matter?

Mr McBride: No, I had no idea that anybody else had any interest in the matter at all.

Mr Conway: So Dr MacMillan's awareness that the Treasurer wanted the details apparently on an urgent basis that led to his expediting of the request was completely unknown to you?

Mr McBride: Completely unknown.

Mr Conway: I want to ask you about the chronology very briefly. As I understood your testimony earlier when committee counsel was taking you through this process, the request came, you were new to the position by just a few days, as I recall --

Mr McBride: Five days.

Mr Conway: Five days, but you had had quite a lot of experience in government.

Mr McBride: I have not had a lot of experience in government.

Mr Conway: I have before me something that somebody kindly provided. I think it may be exhibit 25. Is this the right document? It is your résumé. It is quite a good résumé; quite an impressive one. I was struck by some phrases, some words, in the third paragraph, the front page of that: "Dear sir/madam: Please accept this letter as application for manager of the policy development, planning and research unit of the provider services branch," file such and such.

Later on the first page you say, talking about your experience with the Ontario government, which had been something in the neighbourhood of 10 years, that experience involved duties which -- I am quoting the sentence directly -- "The duties carried out required a high level of analytical, problem-solving, administrative, management and leadership skills, as well as excellent interpersonal and communication skills." So by your own admission you had pretty good experience dealing with government operations.

You come to your new job. You are asked to prepare some information, I will add parenthetically in a department where just a few months before the minister of the day had to resign because of some difficulties around the release of confidential medical information. I add that for my own benefit, if not for anyone else's, because I would suspect that the so-called Gigantes affair, involving as it did the inappropriate release of highly sensitive medical information, had had and was having some effect on the culture within at least the executive levels of the Ontario Ministry of Health. Would that be an unreasonable supposition for me to make?

Mr McBride: Yes, that is unreasonable. I have had extensive experience in computer systems' design and implementation with the government over the last 10 years. I have not had any, or very little, I should say, experience in terms of any political savvy or understanding of how politics works in the sensitivity of information. I am basically a systems consultant and computer analyst.

Mr Conway: I believe that. No, I think that is obviously your great strength. I can appreciate exactly how you would feel. That is why then I want to quickly go through what happened, because you are asked to prepare this information, and as I understood, you direct Mr Teatero to prepare the information. If I understood what you said to me or to the committee in responding to counsel, at some point a draft of what I will call the e-mail, the first e-mail, was brought to you to assure you that the issues that had been requested to be addressed were in fact addressed. You satisfied yourself that in fact the e-mail that had been prepared did that, to the best of your knowledge, and Mr Teatero went back and essentially then shot that through the electronic mail to Toronto and you did not see the final version until later that afternoon of November 13, when you saw the second e-mail at the same time. Is that roughly correct?

1620

Mr McBride: My understanding was, when I looked at the e-mail that Bill Teatero showed me, that that was the final version to be sent and not a draft. The actual receipt of that e-mail into my electronic system, if you want to call it, did not occur till later that day.

Mr Conway: But later that day, you saw that e-mail, and I take it that it was, to the best of your recollection, the same e-mail that you had seen earlier in the day.

Mr McBride: That would have been to the best of my recollection; that is true.

Mr Conway: And that there was another e-mail with it?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Mr Conway: Later the same day?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Mr Conway: Now, when again did you first talk to Dr Robert MacMillan about these e-mails?

Mr McBride: The morning of the 14th.

Mr Conway: And you called him or he called you?

Mr McBride: He called me.

Mr Conway: What time of the morning did he call you?

Mr McBride: I would think it would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of around 9 o'clock.

Mr Conway: I did not hear that.

Mr McBride: Around 9 o'clock.

Mr Conway: So, early in the morning he called you. How would you characterize his interest in the subject? Was he routine? Did he seem to be interested to an unusual degree in what had transpired the day before?

Mr McBride: He seemed more upset than, I guess, using the word "interested," in terms that the information had gone out through the unit, and I clarified for him that we felt it was needed for a priority briefing that was in process. I thought that information was needed, and then Bob had indicated to me that it was very sensitive material and I should be very cautious about sending out that kind of material.

Mr Conway: Now he was upset, and he was upset for the reasons that you mentioned. And having regard that you were not aware apparently of the recent history, where the department had gotten itself into difficulty because highly sensitive, inappropriate, confidential medical information had gotten out and had occasioned the resignation of the minister, he is the none the less upset that highly sensitive, confidential information has gotten outside of a fairly tight circle that, among other things, I gather, is required by law.

Mr McBride: He appeared to me to be more upset with the fact that that kind of information could have gone into the confidential section of a party briefing, and that it could potentially lead to the minister accidentally or inadvertently mentioning information that is in the confidential section.

Mr Conway: Again, just help me understand that conversation again that you had with Dr MacMillan at his call early the next morning. He calls you and he says, "Bob, I'm really concerned, I'm upset."

Mr McBride: To the best of my recollection, when he called, he said, "I understand that a memo went out from your office from Bill Teatero to Diane McArthur." I said, "Yes, it did." He said, "The kind of information that was sent out was too detailed, too sensitive in nature and is not a level of detail that's necessary to go into a brief," as I indicated it was required for. He related to me experiences that he had had in the past where such information -- though we can give that out, people could potentially and accidentally give that information outside the ministry in conversation, and that to protect those individuals, we are better not to give that information.

Mr Conway: And he had indicated to you, as I understand it, that at some point after the e-mail had gone from your branch, at some point after that and before you chatted on the phone, Dr MacMillan had seen copies of the memoranda circulating in places like Eugene LeBlanc's office, and he had either seen or heard of it circulating in other places that caused him some concern?

Mr McBride: He simply indicated to me that he had seen it in Eugene's office and he had seen it on a couple of the other desks in the office. I do not know who the individuals were. He collected and retrieved those copies and then he asked me who got a copy of the e-mail so that he could ensure that he collected a copy from those individuals.

Mr Conway: Did he more specifically indicate where those other places and who those other people were? I will ask you to think about the following before you answer that question, because we now know that that e-mail, those memoranda, found their way quite directly to the communications branch of the Ministry of Health and found their way very directly to political staff in the office of the Minister of Health. Did he give any indication in his conversations with you, that morning or later, that part of his concern was that he had either seen or heard of those memoranda being in the hands specifically of either or both the communications branch of the Ministry of Health or political staff working for the Minister of Health?

Mr McBride: I do not recall him giving me any indication of that.

Mr Conway: You have no recollection in this conversation where he was upset about what had happened and what might happen as to where these had gone that they ought not to have gone?

Mr McBride: The context of the discussion with Bob was more focused on the fact that the information was sent, and then the specific request, who had got copies, so that he could retrieve those.

Mr Conway: Had the communications branch of the Ministry of Health made a direct request for the information that quickly came into their hands, would it have been your view that they were entitled to that?

Mr McBride: I would have questioned it if it was simply a communications person making the request, and being the only person to make a request, knowing that the briefing guidelines seemed to indicate that the executive assistants of the ADMs were typically the people to make that request.

Mr Conway: Again, I just want to be clear. You, as the acting director of the branch -- I am to understand that you personally were not aware of -- you were or were not aware of the urgency of the matter?

Mr McBride: I was informed that the information was needed as soon as possible.

Mr Conway: Who informed you again?

Mr McBride: I believe I got the same message from all three people whom I talked to.

Mr Conway: Who were those three people again?

Mr McBride: Denise Allen, Maurice Jones and Diane McArthur.

Mr Conway: Is it not kind of interesting that two of those three people were communications officials within the Ministry of Health?

Mr McBride: I did not find it unusual that a communications person was requesting the information as soon as possible. I was led to believe they were assisting in the preparation of the priority briefing. In the discussions with Denise Allen, my impression was that she started out to be participating in the role and then it was being turned over to Maurice Jones.

Mr Conway: I am trying to understand your situation. You are a very competent, dare I say it, technocrat with great computer skills and background. You find yourself now in an acting position. You have got a close working relationship with Dr MacMillan. You have been around government a number of years. You are working in a department where there has been a big public issue around the release of confidential medical information, which release caused the resignation of the minister just months before, and now you get three people requesting information that, within 18 hours, is being described by someone that you know well and have worked closely with as being very sensitive and -- I do not know what else Dr MacMillan said; I am not going to quote him -- very personal.

I mean, I am just trying to figure out your situation, and I really am having difficulty that you worked so closely with Dr MacMillan and that you would have had such differing perspectives on the same request with the same kind of information.

1630

Mr McBride: In terms of closely working with Dr MacMillan, my close relationship in working with him was only something that started once I became acting director. That, at that point in time, was five days' worth. In terms of the people that I was dealing with and got the calls from, basically what I had in my hands were guidelines to priority briefings. I would not say they are extremely detailed, but basically it indicates that here is a list of people who are involved in the priority briefing process. It indicates the communications branch was involved in the priority briefing process, and these were the people who were involved.

Mr Conway: Thank you very much.

Mr Scott: I just have two questions that you will be happy to hear are based on the very small bit of your evidence I heard. But when you received a call from Diane and subsequently from Denise and Maurice asking for this briefing, it was pretty plain to you by the time those requests had been made that the minister's office wanted this information, right?

Mr McBride: It was clear to me only that they were to prepare a briefing and required the information to --

Mr Scott: Look, if someone had asked you, "Who wants the information?" you would not have said, "Diane, Denise and Maurice." You would have surely said, "The minister's office wants this stuff pronto." Right?

Mr McBride: I was not of the understanding that the minister was making this specific request.

Mr Scott: Who do you think was making the request -- Diane, Maurice and Denise? People you had never even heard of, two of them. Who do you think was making the request? Surely you knew it was the minister's office. That is why, as someone said earlier, you had to hustle.

Mr McBride: My feeling was that the contentious issue in it that initiates the request for briefings was the people who felt the information was needed.

Mr Scott: So you had not the faintest idea where this was going, this information?

Mr McBride: I have no idea what happens at the other end.

Mr Scott: Well, that is the way to run life. Now let me ask you one other question that I hope you can answer, though maybe you cannot, in light of this. You did tell us that you knew the information was requested because some doctor in Sudbury, whose name you were given, had gone on the radio. Is that right?

Mr McBride: That is right.

Mr Scott: And he had been very critical of the government, right?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Mr Scott: And he had slammed the government policy on caps and perhaps slammed the government policy on the withdrawal of OHIP payments for that hair removal business, right?

Mr McBride: No. I would simply relate that the discussion revolved around the deinsuring of electrolysis the week prior and that the discussion that was on the radio broadcast that took place had to deal with threshold implication, and they were not clear as to what even the content of the radio broadcast was at that point.

Mr Scott: I ask you, in light of that, just to assume this. Let's assume, though you may not have known it, that this request came from the minister's office and that it came, as you said, because some doctor had gone on the radio and given the government a good, sharp poke for its health policy.

What I want to know is, did it cause you any surprise that the first thing that happened as far as you knew is the government dove for the doctor's personal records? I mean, you know, I have this horrible feeling that under this regime, if I got up and made a criticism of the amount judges are paid in Ontario, some minister would be sending a bureaucrat to draw my personal file to see if there was any stuff on me. Did you have the sense that that was happening at all?

Mr McBride: I had no sense of that.

Mr Scott: You had no sense of that. Well, God bless you.

Mr Eves: Mr McBride, pardon me, but I came in partway through. You had already started your remarks, and I believe Mr Kormos was asking you questions as I came in. Did I understand you to say in response to Mr Kormos's questioning that you thought the subject matter and the contents of the e-mail were appropriate and that you did not see anything wrong with it?

Mr McBride: I do not recall saying that the content was appropriate, in the sense of at the time of the e-mail that I reviewed I had focused on whether or not it addressed the questions that I thought had to be answered. It had addressed those questions, in my feeling.

Mr Eves: Okay. Would you think that the content of the e-mail was appropriate to be sent to individuals outside of OHIP, in particular individuals in the communications staff of the minister's office?

Mr McBride: The content of the e-mail was certainly not appropriate to be sent outside the ministry. Whether it was appropriate to be sent inside the ministry, in terms of what I focused on, it had the content, what I was looking for to be sent to the people preparing the briefing.

Mr Eves: But that is not what I asked. I did not ask whether it was appropriate to be sent outside the ministry. I asked you whether it was appropriate to be sent outside of OHIP, because Dr MacMillan has a real concern about information of this type being sent outside OHIP and he differentiates, at least in his mind, between sending it outside OHIP and that tight circle and sending it to communications staff in a minister's office.

Mr McBride: In my experience in the ministry, it seemed appropriate to me there was a need for that information to be able to prepare the briefing and, thus, I requested it to be sent.

Mr Eves: Do you think it would be fair to say that Dr MacMillan was upset to learn that information of the nature that was in the e-mail --

Mr Hope: Mr Chairman, on a point of order: On the questioning that was just raised, he said to the minister's communications. It is not the minister's communications; it is the ministry communications. In his comments, that he referred to, just in the question, he said who the information was sent to.

The Chair: And your point?

Mr Hope: My point is it was not the minister's staff.

The Chair: Well, Mr Hope, it is Mr Eves who is posing the question and the witness is responding, and let us just work that line --

Mr Hope: Well, it is a matter of factual information. It has been presented already.

Mr Scott: Except, Mr Chairman, we already know, in evidence that came out in yesterday's hearing, that information got outside the ministry into the minister's office.

The Chair: I would like to thank everybody for their points, but Mr Eves has the floor. Mr Eves, you might continue questioning.

Mr Eves: Thank you, Mr Chairman. We are on to another question in any event. Do you think it is fair to say that Dr MacMillan was upset --

Mr McBride: Yes.

Mr Eves: -- to learn that the sensitive content of the e-mail was sent to individuals outside of this OHIP circle?

Mr McBride: It is fair to say that MacMillan was upset that the e-mail had left the provider services branch and gone to the parties that we sent, Diane McArthur, Maurice Jones and Denise Allen.

Mr Eves: Were you aware that there was a change in the policy with respect to preparing briefing notes for the minister after, pursuant to the previous minister having had to resign because of the fact that she released confidential information in the House and that, in fact, the policy for how that information was prepared went back to what it previously had been under the previous government because of that previous minister's having had to resign?

Mr McBride: I was aware that previous briefings had mixed confidential information in with background information in the format and that they moved away from that to putting information at the back of the priority briefing on a separate confidential page. My understanding was that they had asterisks and things to designate confidential information before. I was aware that there was a situation where confidential information that was mixed in with the background information had been relayed.

1640

Mr Eves: You made a comment, I believe, in response to a question by Mr Owens that there was information in this e-mail so that the briefing note could be prepared, so that the minister, if necessary, could answer questions in the House. Is that correct? Am I paraphrasing you correctly?

Mr McBride: Let me phrase it this way: My understanding is, any priority briefing has the potential to end up in the minister's hands to deal with a particular issue.

Mr Eves: Would you think the subject matter or the contents of this e-mail would be appropriate for the minister to release in the House?

Mr McBride: Certainly not in the form and format and the way it was sent out. I fully expected it to be edited at the other end, to be put in a separate confidential section in terms of what was relevant.

Mr Eves: Are you satisfied that the e-mail in question never left the ministry?

Mr McBride: I am satisfied that the e-mail that was sent out from Kingston -- certainly within the ministry it has never gone any further than Kingston. I do not know if I was that clear.

Mr Eves: I do not really know whether you answered my question or not. Are you --

Mr McBride: I am satisfied no information within the provider services branch was put outside the ministry by any individual in that branch.

Mr Eves: By any individual in that branch?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Mr Eves: Can you say for certain that no information of the document itself has ever left the ministry?

Mr McBride: I cannot say that for certain, no.

Mr Eves: Thank you.

Mr Harnick: Just a couple of questions. I am left a little confused after your dialogue with Mr Scott, when you would not acknowledge that the information was for the minister. When Ms Jackson was asking you questions, my note quite distinctly says, "It was my understanding that it was for the minister." Now which is it?

Mr McBride: My understanding is all priority briefings are for the minister, whether or not they go to the minister.

Mr Harnick: Well, if they are for the minister, would they not go to the minister? Why bother doing the briefing?

Mr McBride: My understanding is that the contentious issue branch, when the staff see an issue, they prepare these briefings, and the intent is to take them to the ministers. Whether or not they do, I cannot tell you that.

Mr Harnick: All right. So when you were doing this, you had to assume that it was for the minister?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Mr Harnick: All right. And you told Mr Eves that it was your impression that there was a need for the information, so you requested that it be sent. Now why did you feel that this particular information was needed?

Mr McBride: My understanding was that the priority briefing that was being prepared was in response to the radio broadcasts on Dr Donahue. My understanding was that one had to do with deinsuring of electrolysis and the other one had to do with the threshold issue. What I thought the information would do would provide the minister -- if it should have gone to the minister -- confirmation of what the physician was saying was correct. There seemed to be a discrepancy in the terms of an electrolysis issue versus a threshold issue, since electrolysis services were excluded from thresholds. So what I had hoped to do was identify what the issue really was.

Mr Harnick: You saw that e-mail, did you not?

Mr McBride: Yes, I did.

Mr Harnick: I do not want you to tell me about the contents of that e-mail, but would you agree with me that that e-mail did not define the issue as being either electrolysis or threshold?

Mr McBride: The e-mail gave the information to determine the answer to those questions. The e-mail contained information relating to electrolysis and it contained financial information as well, so from the information in that e-mail, they could answer those questions.

Mr Harnick: How did you expect that this information was going to be used?

Mr McBride: I expected that questions I thought needed to be answered would be contained in a confidential section of a priority briefing note.

Mr Harnick: You have totally lost me. Let's talk for a minute about your chart, which is exhibit 26. As I look at this chart, you were preparing this priority briefing and at some stage that priority briefing was sent to an assistant deputy minister. Is that correct?

Mr McBride: I was preparing, or our branch was preparing input to be used in the preparation of a priority briefing, not the priority briefing itself. My understanding was that the priority briefing would end up in the hands of an ADM.

Mr Harnick: You were the program area, I gather. Is that correct?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Mr Harnick: On your little chart it goes from the program area to the assistant deputy minister.

Mr McBride: Yes.

Mr Harnick: You were the man in charge that day.

Mr McBride: I was the person in charge of the provider services branch that day.

Mr Harnick: Would you not have been the person who would send it from the program area to the assistant deputy minister?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Mr Harnick: Of course you would. Which assistant deputy minister did you send it to?

Mr McBride: The information was sent directly to Diane McArthur, who is the executive assistant of Eugene LeBlanc.

Mr Harnick: But Eugene LeBlanc is not an assistant deputy minister, is he?

Mr McBride: No, he is not.

Mr Harnick: Who is the assistant deputy minister whom it went to according to this chart?

Mr McBride: My understanding is that Eugene LeBlanc reported directly to the deputy minister.

Mr Harnick: So you are telling me that this information you prepared went from your area to Mr LeBlanc's area to the deputy minister himself.

Mr McBride: I could not tell you that. All I know is that the party who requested the information is whom it would be sent back to. That was the executive assistant of Eugene.

Mr Harnick: Because you see, what concerns me is that the little arrow goes to the assistant deputy minister's little box here. At the very bottom, the information, after it is vetted by the assistant deputy minister, ends up in the minister's office. Is that correct?

Mr McBride: According to that chart, yes.

Mr Harnick: What you are telling me is that it went from the little box where you sit straight to the deputy minister, which is included in the little box where it says "Minister's office." This went from your office right to the minister's office.

Mr McBride: I could not tell you that.

Mr Harnick: Surely after all this went on you have made some investigations or been privy to investigations as to the path that electronic mail took. Is that correct?

Mr McBride: That is not correct. The information I was asked was simply, "Where did the electronic mail go to." I see this as the guideline. I cannot tell you whether or not the person who took it at the next box moved it on to the next one.

Mr Harnick: Do you know who Larry Corea is?

Mr McBride: Yes.

Mr Harnick: Who is Larry Corea?

Mr McBride: He is a person who works in the minister's office.

Mr Harnick: Is he a political person or is he a civil servant?

Mr McBride: I assume he is a civil servant.

Mr Scott: The dividing line is becoming more difficult to know.

Mr Harnick: He is a civil servant. Can you tell me who sent this material from your office to Corea's office?

Mr McBride: I could not tell you that.

Mr Harnick: Did you ever find out that it went to Corea's office?

Mr McBride: No, I did not.

Mr Harnick: So to this day you are coming here and you are telling me that you have never heard that it went to Corea's office.

Mr McBride: I have only heard through the papers that it --

Mr Harnick: You heard through the papers. Is that correct?

Mr McBride: Through the papers, yes.

Mr Harnick: Did you ever go back to the place you worked to say, "How did that ever happen?"

Mr McBride: No, I did not.

Mr Harnick: You were not interested?

Mr McBride: No.

Mr Harnick: Okay.

Mr Conway: Charlie, we know what was supposed to have happened is entirely academic.

Mr Harnick: You are absolutely right. I give up.

Mr Conway: We also know why what happened, happened.

The Chair: Mr Harnick, have you completed your questioning?

Mr Harnick: I have given up.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr Scott: We have come to the coverup stage.

The Chair: Members of the committee, that concludes today and we will adjourn at this time. Just to remind members of the subcommittee, we have a short meeting afterwards.

The committee adjourned at 1651.