This petition is directed to the Premier of the Province of Ontario, the Honourable Kathleen Wynne MPP, and respectfully requests that she investigate serious issues raised in a September 29, 2013 online newspaper article published by The London Free Press. These issues pertain to Minister Deborah Matthews and her mandate to act in the "public interest".

In the newspaper article, the registrar of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario is quoted as saying that government legislation requiring him to investigate complaints made by patients against dentists is "crap" and that the legislation "sucks". Registrar Irwin Fefergrad also admitted that he influences the hearings of some complaints in a fashion that could only favour the dentist members of his college.

Dentists so favoured belong to a college that pays Fefergrad an estimated $500,000 annually and supplies him with an estimated 1.2 million dollar severance package. The true amounts are not known because Fefergrad and the College Council refuse to divulge exact figures.   

Minister Matthews is fully aware of this newspaper article and in it she claimed her "staff" would "research" Fefergrad's comments. Five months later there is no evidence of the promised review.

Her responsibility, as Minister of Health and Long Term Care, is to use the powers invested in your government by the Regulated Health Professions Act (RHPA) to serve the public interest which includes protecting the public by monitoring health profession colleges and enforcing the Act so that the public is "treated with sensitivity and respect in their dealings with health  professionals, the Colleges and the Board." The preceding quote is part of section 3 of the Act.

For the protection of the "public interest", these duties include ensuring (a) fair and impartial  hearings for patient complaints against health care providers, (b) that the health profession colleges are adequately monitored on behalf of the government by government appointed public members, (c) that neither the college nor the government appointed public members "breach the public trust", (d) that your government passes any  legislation it deems necessary for the public interest, which includes seeking Royal Assent for that legislation and (e) honest and transparent fiscal dealings by the health professions colleges.

Most of the above concerns were raised in the newspaper article and some were even verified by Jonathan Sher's interviews with two ethics experts. The link to that article is as follows: 

 

 London Free Press Article - Its dual role as both a regulator and insurer of dentists is almost unheard of in Canada

 

In regard to concern (a) "fair and impartial hearings". The newspaper article quotes the Registrar of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario (RCDSO) as saying that the RHPA's requirement for him to investigate every complaint is "crap" and it "sucks". Registrar Fefergrad is quoted as saying that he advises the complaints committee as to whether or not a complaint against a dentist is "provable".

Fefergrad's words and actions are a shameful "abuse of process" that calls into question the independence and impartiality of the RCDSO complaints process. Fefergrad is not a member of the complaints tribunal which by legislation must be composed of two dentists and one public member. Fefergrad is neither and his admitted contempt for the process and meddling with the process clearly raises the issue of tribunal "disrepute". It raises the legal issues of "breach of trust" on his part and "apprehension of bias" on the part of the tribunal. The government must investigate and redress any abuses to patients who have had their complaints unfairly dismissed by the unjustified meddling of Fefergrad in tribunal deliberations.

In regard to concern (b) "monitoring of the College by government appointed public members". The obvious fact appears to be that Minister Matthews has no clue what her public members are doing while sitting on RCDSO committees. That they would, while sitting on a complaints tribunal, tolerate and participate in the denial of a fair and impartial hearing for a patient's complaint is beyond outrageous. It requires investigation.

In regard to concern (c) "breach of trust by College and public members". This is an issue that arose after the publishing of the newspaper article. It illustrates how the College and the public members have both engaged in an action that could reasonably be categorized as a "breach of trust". This action concerns threatening letters sent to the three dentists interviewed for the newspaper article. These bullying letters were not grounded in law or based on facts. They were meant to silence any future comments by these three dentists.

These three dentists were acting within their Charter rights (Article 2, "Fundamental Freedoms") when they gave their fact based opinions to The London Free Press. Experts on ethics agreed with them on their concerns about a "conflict of interest" between the RCDSO and their wholly owned Professional Liability Program (PLP).

Since the publishing of the newspaper article, five months ago, the RCDSO has not presented any counter argument to rebut the opinions of the ethics experts Professor Margaret Somerville and Greg Levine.

In regard to concern (d) "necessary legislation for public interest". As noted in the newspaper article, there is a puzzling lack of interest by Minister Matthews when it comes to having RHPA 1991, c. 18, Sched. 2, s. 13. read into law (receive Royal Assent). Despite having received third reading, s. 13 which is a 2009 amendment to the Act that precludes the RCDSO from owning and operating a profitable liability insurance company, there has not been any attempt by Matthews to have the Lieutenant Governor proclaim s.13 into law. 

This is particularly interesting because the only health professions college adversely affected by an s. 13 amendment proclamation would be the RCDSO. Contrast this with the fact that the amendment sought by the RCDSO (and only the RCDSO), to the zero tolerance for sexual abuse legislation was fast tracked by Matthews. It was read into law within days of the third reading. It did not languish for 5 years in proclamation limbo. Why does this government pander to the wishes of the RCDSO when so many of its actions, as documented, appear to be contrary to the public interest?

In regard to concern (e) "honest and transparent fiscal dealings". It is clear from Fefergrad's remarks made in the infamous May 8, 2012 "crap" and "sucks" meeting held in Toronto, that even Fefergrad doesn't believe the RCDSO and PLP partnership is completely legitimate. Some of his outrageous comments such as "If we are ever called an insurance company, we’re going to have huge problems", made it into Jonathan Sher's newspaper article. Fefergrad was talking about the PLP paying its fair share of taxes. Not all of Fefergrad's controversial comments made it into Sher's article.

Minister Matthews and Minister Sousa have both had a transcript and recording of the "crap" and "sucks" meeting since the summer of 2013. Neither minister appears to be concerned about Fefergrads comments or what those comments imply.

If you care about the "public interest" more than Matthews and Fefergrad, please sign the attached petition and encourage others to also sign it.

 

Concerned Dental Patients