Hon. Brent Cotter moved third reading of Bill C-235, An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies.

He said: Honourable senators, perhaps it is the season, perhaps the sense of honour I have in serving in this place, perhaps the honour of sponsoring this bill. In any event, I am filled with a sense of joy today and, as a result, I’m going to deviate from my normally dour, humourless, serious speaking style in my remarks.

My grandfather was a good, devout, God-fearing, churchgoing man. He never used bad language in his life. One day, a friend came to him and said, “Bill, I’d like to learn a bit more about your religion.” My grandfather was always on the lookout for a convert and took the man along to the church service on Sunday. As the church service began and something occurred at the front of the church, the friend would lean over and say to my grandfather, “What does that mean,” and my grandfather would patiently explain. A little later, the friend would lean over again and say, “What does that mean,” and my grandfather would patiently explain.

About halfway through the church service, the priest went over to a lectern very much like this one, carefully removed his wristwatch and placed it on the lectern, as I am doing now. The friend leaned over to my grandfather and asked “What does that mean,” and my grandfather shook his head and replied sadly, “Not a damn thing.”

So, Your Honour, when my two hours is up — I think I get two hours — somebody should give me a signal.

In the same vein, but a little more connected to this bill, yesterday afternoon, Senator Gagné came over to chat with me briefly and confidentially. Now, Senator Gagné does not do this very often, so I had fairly high hopes. Perhaps she was coming to tell me that the Prime Minister wants to give me some kind of honour for sponsoring this bill, perhaps there is a vacancy in the Supreme Court of Canada or they need an ambassador to Ireland. So if I may riff off of some earlier remarks, visions of sugar plums danced in my head briefly.

I am revealing a confidence here, but what Senator Gagné came to ask me was how short could I keep my remarks on this bill? I apologize for revealing a confidence, senator. The answer is six minutes, at least from now.

Let me begin by thanking the leadership of the Senate for developing a pathway so that Bill C-235 could be considered in a timely and highly expeditious way — I know all too expeditious for some.

I want to express a second message of appreciation to the leaders of the groups in the Senate. I serve on the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, ably chaired by Senator Black and very well supported by Ferda Simpson and her team. We work away conscientiously and it’s a delightful collegial committee to serve on. But we do this work in relative obscurity compared to many of the other higher-profile committees of the Senate.

My brother brought this point home to me recently. He called to tell me that he and his wife were watching the deliberations of the Agriculture Committee on CPAC. He indicated that, rather than our normal situation of being on the SenVu channel, being on CPAC created national viewership, and that with he and his wife watching, the viewership had probably gone up from five to seven people. My brother is retired, but he seems to have a part‑time job making sure I don’t get too full of myself, and he’s pretty good at it.

However, this week we were blessed at the Agriculture Committee with the regular attendance of the government leader in the Senate, Senator Gold; the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Plett; and the presence of the leaders of the other three groups — Senator Saint-Germain, Senator Cordy and Senator Tannas. They took an active interest in the matters before the committee related to Bill C-235. Senators Gold and Plett particularly and constructively engaged with the committee and the dialogue with witnesses, and I want to express my appreciation to them. The Agriculture Committee is not always blessed with Senate royalty in this way.

As well, I want to extend my thanks to Senator Black and Ferda Simpson and her team for the very good work they did in making the consideration of Bill C-235 and its reaching third reading a reality today; and also to the witnesses who, on short notice, appeared before the committee earlier this week, particularly the Attorney General and Minister of Justice from my province, the Honourable Bronwyn Eyre, who made herself available on short notice for a full two hours of the Senate’s considerations earlier this week.

This is a private member’s bill, sponsored in the other place by MP Jim Carr, as you know. Mr. Carr would be delighted that the bill has reached this stage in this place today. Indeed, when I spoke with him last week, he told me that only 3% of private members’ bills from the other place make it across the finish line.

I had hoped to tell him today — subject to your judgment shortly — that due to his good work, that percentage had gone up a little bit. Alas, I will never get that opportunity. I also wanted to tell him that I was honoured to have sponsored this bill.

As I mentioned at second reading, the main focus of the bill is in two parts that address greater coordination among a group of key federal departments and ministries with respect to the Prairie economy. The second part of the bill relates to greater coordination and cooperation regarding the implementation of federal programs associated with a green sustainable Prairie economy, such coordination and cooperation to take place with a range of interest holders and stakeholders in the Prairie region, most notably provinces, municipalities, Indigenous leadership, employers, worker associations and the like.

I should add, as Senator Gold highlighted in the committee’s deliberations yesterday, that the bill also contains a paragraph 5 that deals with a meaningful accountability framework that requires regular reporting by the lead minister federally to both houses of Parliament and the opportunity for periodic parliamentary scrutiny of the success of the initiative.

Although we did not have extensive discussions, my sense of Mr. Carr’s objectives for the bill were that it would generate greater internal coordination of development programs in this area — and this was needed — and greater dialogue with the interests and communities affected by these initiatives, particularly the partnerships with provinces, and this would be critical to the adoption, adjustment and ultimately the success of the federally adopted plans.

In this respect, the bill carries in that way a modest implicit critique of the government practice to date in rolling out sustainability initiatives on the prairies.

With respect to the bill itself, we did hear mixed reactions. One concern in particular was that there was not sufficient consultation with respect to the bill. I think that’s a legitimate observation, but here I would like to come to at least a small degree of defence of Mr. Carr. It will be remembered that this was a private member’s bill — not a government bill. Given the low predictability of success of private members’ bills, it’s a little bit unfair to have expected the government itself to roll up its sleeves and conduct a wide range of consultations regarding this bill.

Although Mr. Carr, even though his health was failing, spoke with many people across the Prairies about the bill, he was, after all, only one member of Parliament with limited resources — and it seems a little unfair to suggest that he should have conducted the equivalent of government consultations while the bill was under consideration, or even before presenting it.

If I may return for a moment, and finally, to the gentle, implicit critique embedded in Mr. Carr’s bill regarding the need for the government to do better on both fronts — within itself, and in engagement with the communities for whom this set of initiatives will matter — and also, as Senator Gold noted, to be accountable, there is, I think, a second message from Mr. Carr in this bill: It is the belief that the government can do better and, with this legislative directive, will do better. I am also hopeful.

Indeed, you will be familiar with the phrase, which I think is also implicit here, that Mr. Carr seeks to “fix the problem, not the blame.” Another way of saying it is that, with this bill, Mr. Carr is encouraging us to light a candle, rather than curse the darkness. That seems, to me, to be a good and apt metaphor for both this bill and, perhaps, for Mr. Carr’s life. If lighting the candle doesn’t work, there will be plenty of time to curse the darkness. But in these days and in honour of Mr. Carr — a very fine parliamentarian and human being — it strikes me that we should pursue the more optimistic road.

Thank you for your attention. I hope that you will support the bill when it comes to a vote.

Hon. Brent Cotter: Honourable senators, I rise to speak in support of Bill C-31. I will speak only to the component related to the dental benefit for children.

I want to thank Senator Yussuff and, before him, Senator Lankin for their leadership on this bill. I also want to thank Senator Loffreda for his detailed, thoughtful and comprehensive comments about the bill. I will speak in a somewhat more environmental way about dentistry and this bill.

At second reading of this bill in early November, I heard one of the most remarkable things I have ever heard in the Senate. Speaking about her acquisition of dental benefits, Senator Simons said:

As soon as I was hired on by the Edmonton Journal, I rushed to the dentist to make up for all those years when I had no cleaning or checkups. . . .

I am 72 years old. This is the first time in my life I have heard anyone express breathless enthusiasm about “rushing to see the dentist.” Senator Simons, with that one sentence, you could become the poster person for all the dentists and dental hygienists in the country.

When it comes to dentistry — and I say this sort of humbly — I know whereof I speak. I come from a family inundated with dental professionals. My sister is qualified as a dental nurse and dental hygienist. She studied with Senator McCallum many years ago in Regina. For years, my sister was president of the Saskatchewan Dental Hygienists’ Association. My brother-in-law is a dentist. My nieces are a dental hygienist and dental therapist, respectively. My daughter-in-law is a dentist in Germany, and my father was a dentist and professor of dentistry. They are everywhere.

Some of you have watched the “Ted Lasso” series. There is a little chant about somebody named Roy Kent in it. I’m going to leave out a word that I think we are not allowed to say here, but the phrase is: “Roy Kent! He’s here, he’s there, he’s [everywhere].” Well, the dentists in my life are everywhere.

My father was the finest person I have known in my life, with this one exception: When I was a kid, every now and then on a Saturday morning — when I wanted to be almost anywhere else — he would drag me off to his dental office for some painful treatment.

Working on your own children is probably not allowed anymore, but this was a long time ago — I believe shortly after dentistry had been invented. He used interesting — and now antiquated — pain-management techniques. One I recall is that he used to tug sharply on my cheek, so painfully that I didn’t notice the freezing needle going in. It was an interesting technique — to cause pain to distract from pain. I feel that I come by my aversion to dentistry and the dental profession honestly.

To moderate these somewhat uncharitable perspectives, I will add this comment and one story. Every dentistry professional I know has been deeply committed to their work and loved their work, knowing they were making things better for their patients. This is true for many occupations and professions — not just dentistry but carpenters, counsellors, painters, plumbers — the greatness of doing something honourable to help your customer, client or patient.

I want to share with you one example of this — a dentistry story. It is a bit gruesome, but also beautiful.

Late in his career, my father acquired a specialty in prosthodontics and maxillofacial surgery. They are big words, but the first one basically means false teeth, and the other is jaw and facial reconstruction. At the time, he was perhaps the only specialist in that area in Saskatchewan.

He was asked on one occasion to help a patient who had experienced a severe facial cancer and had to have part of his jaw and all of his nose removed to defeat the cancer. My dad was asked to do the jaw and nose reconstruction, which he did. What remained was both to rebuild the jaw and then to build the patient a new nose. It sounds gruesome, I admit.

He created that nose out of material, shaped it, firmed it up by whatever techniques, and got it in the right shape and skin tone for the patient, corresponding with the patient’s original nose. He noted in the picture he had of the patient that it wasn’t quite right.

I started laughing when I wrote this out. I apologize.

The man, it seemed, had a close relationship with alcohol and had had a very veiny nose. My father went to the art store and bought paint and a paintbrush with only one bristle and brought them home. At the kitchen table, with this man’s new nose on the table, he carefully painted veins onto the new nose. Then, to get it just right — I’m sorry to be sharing this — he pulled nose hairs from his own nose and glued them, one by one, to the man’s new nose.

That surgery saved the man’s life, but this reconstruction — nose and all — gave him back his life. It is pretty gruesome, but also pretty great.

Returning to my main point: Whether I wanted to go to the dentist or not, I got dental care — as did Senator Simons eventually, as do all of us here and our families, and as do millions of Canadians across the country, as Senator Loffreda pointed out. However, many do not.

As Senator Yussuff noted in his second-reading speech, perhaps 25% of our population does not have access to dental care. There are consequences to that lack of care. We all know what it is like to have a toothache and how pain of this sort, in such a small part of our bodies, can overwhelm us and be debilitating. But there is more to it than that. Longer term health care for all of us is closely tied to dental care.

Let me give you an example. I was visiting my dentist recently — not enthusiastically — and he started to tell me about the importance of the health of my gums and that, if you don’t take good care of them, it can lead to heart disease and death. This sounded a bit extreme, kind of like a car salesman telling you that you have to buy the most expensive car on the lot or you will die in a car accident. So I looked it up and, sure enough, my dentist was right. Good dental care is fundamentally important to overall health.

Then the question is posed: Why are dental services not available to more Canadians? Access is an issue in rural and remote parts of the country, as Senator Loffreda and others have pointed out. However, the largest reason is because dental services are expensive. They are expensive to provide. For dentists, at least, the education is long, arduous and expensive. At the University of Saskatchewan, the tuition for the dentistry college is among the highest of any university program in Canada. Dentistry professionals, to be fair, earn a good living. Indeed, my father, when he was teaching dentistry, probably inadvertently contributed to this. When he was helping students in the clinic make false teeth — upper and lower sets of dentures — he used to think he was giving advice to them in terms of how to be a dentist in practice. What he used to say to them was, “After you have made the dentures, the patient is sure to ask, ‘So doc, how much?’” And he would continue, “What you say then is ‘$700,’ and then you pause, and if there is no reaction, you would say, ‘for the uppers.’”

The reality is that even now the demand for dental professionals is overwhelming. Most dentistry services operate at full capacity, and dentists can hardly find dental hygienists to support full-service dental practices. So market forces alone will not solve the problem of access. Into this context comes this bill. It’s the beginning of a regime of dental coverage that will make meaningful differences in dental care for some millions of lower- and modest-income Canadians who, mostly due to cost, are simply unable to access basic dental services. Too many families, whether in these somewhat more inflationary times or otherwise, have to choose to use their limited resources on food, rent, clothing or other needs for their families, and children’s needed dental care goes wanting. The dental insurance program, of which this bill is a start, will address the beginnings of that gap in services.

This bill is focused on dental care for children only — more coverage will follow, as we’ve heard — but for kids’ dental health and to address the cost burdens for lower- and modest-‑income Canadians, it’s a good start. All of this is great, and I support the initiative. However, as Senator Loffreda noted, there’s more to be done, and I want to highlight one aspect of it.

I would call this a knock-on consequence of the program that is unfolding, beginning with this bill. As leaders of the profession and particularly dental educators have told the finance committee, the program will require a significant increase in the supply of dental professionals in order to ensure that caregivers are available at affordable prices to meet a significant increase in demand for dental services. Indeed, that’s what we hope. At committee, Dr. Siqueira, the Dean of the College of Dentistry at the University of Saskatchewan, noted this and the way in which, for example, the University of Saskatchewan is well positioned to take on this challenge, having brought a full range of dental professionals’ education — dentists, dentistry specialists, dental hygienists and dental therapists — under one umbrella within his faculty. But it should be noted — and this is, I think, an important future point — that nearly all the educational programs that will be looked to in order to meet the needed and significant increase of dental professionals fall within provincial jurisdiction over education. It will be critical for the Government of Canada in the coming years to have a plan to work with the provinces and territories in partnered, respectful and potentially financially supportive ways to get us to that goal of affordable, good-quality dental health for all Canadians.

In the spirit of cooperative federalism that has been the way forward for most of the life of our country, I’m hopeful that such partnerships will develop and prosper and Canadians will benefit. Thank you.