The Citizen's Committee This excerpt from the book "Uppers and Downers" explains how important citizen support was for advancing the cause of the Independent Denturist in Ontario. U.S. visitors to this site wishing to give support to U.S. Denturists can contact this site: www.usdenturist.com.

Mr. Frank S. Miller
Minister of Health, 1974

"It is significant, Mr. Miller, your new Bill 70 (Denture Therapy Act-1974), introduced May 16, permits denture technicians (sometimes referred to as denture therapists, denturists and the like) to function without supervision of dentists under certain conditions.

Whether this freedom of action can be attributed to dictates of the public, or a more enlightened position of Government, or both, is of little consequence at the moment. What is important is the policy or principle. Stated differently, this Bill provides for qualified denture technicians to sell their goods and services directly to the public under appropriate conditions. For this prospect, you, as Minister of Health, and your associates, are to be commended. However, we firmly believe Bill 70 should not be limited to full dentures. Also, other features of the new Bill are even more restrictive than the present Bill 246, which by your own admission, stated or implied, is impractical. Similarly, the Government/Dentist Low Cost Denture Plan was doomed to failure from its inception; merely an abortive attempt to meet competition from denturists.

It is the considered opinion of the executive of our Committee that the Government should go back to the drawing board, so to speak, rather than wrestle with a warmed up version of Bill 246. In other words, proceed along the lines of the original Bill 203, which was circumvented by an admitted dentist lobby of last summer. You will recall Bill 203 made technicians completely responsible to the Government, or agency, rather than beholden to the dentists. It is reasonable to assume the dental profession would be amply represented under these conditions. We repeat, Bill 246 is bankrupt. It is incapable of any modification and any attempts to make it operative will merely prolong the struggle at the risk of confrontation.

Bill 246 is wrong in principle. Mr. J. Trebilcock, Professor of Law, University of Toronto, in his article earlier this year entitled, "Making Professions Accountable to the Public", states:

"No self-governing profession should have statutory control
over others who are not members of that profession -
dentists over denturists, lawyers over law clerks,
pharmacists over pharmacy technicians."

Bill 246 is wrong in practice. It is discriminatory, leading to exploitation and abuses within the industry. It fails to deliver complete denture services to the public at prices people can afford.

These elements combined to explode, and a new industry was created. The traditional master/servant relationship tends to discourage initiative of the worker, reduces production, and inhibits development of skills. This results in highly paid professionals doing routine work which might otherwise be performed at lower cost to the consumer. Stated in a positive manner, the best prospect of combating spiraling fees in all professions - dentistry, medicine and law in particular - is by judiciously utilizing and developing auxiliary workers such as technicians, nurses, clerks and the like to their optimum potential. It is safe to state self-governing professions are operating as virtual monopolies, and by their very nature do not feel the necessity or urgency of adopting these progressive measures, in contrast to modern commercial or industrial business. It is the role of Government to facilitate these changes in the interests of the public rather than encourage reactionary tactics and self indulgence by the privileged few.

Bill 246 is morally wrong. It has resulted in police raids, invasion of privacy, withdrawal of health services and other extremes so repulsive to our Canadian way of life. Unwittingly, these repressive measures have done more to arouse public interest and make the people aware of the real issues than the collective efforts of the denturists and their supporters.

May we comment on your statement of introduction to Bill 70, dated May 16, which reads:

"Mr. Speaker, I cannot conclude without paying tribute to the dentists of Ontario.
More than 600 dentists - right across the Province - agreed to participate
in the low cost denture program with little prospect of gain.
I consider it unfair that their motives be questioned."

Admittedly, one is on delicate ground when one attempts to attribute motives to an individual or group. However, I would remind you the 600 dentists reputed to have subscribed to the plan represent only 17% of the 3500 members of the Ontario Dental Association. What are the facts quantitatively for comparative purposes, Mr. Miller? May we remind you, slightly more than 100 members of the Denturist's Society of Ontario delivered 7700 low cost dentures, full and partial, in the past three years, believed to be 10 times the contribution of the much wanted Government/Dentist program. No, the Denturists don't need your plaudits. Growing public acceptance and results are their own reward. However, such remarks about self-sacrificing dentists, whose average incomes are among the highest of any vocation, leaves you open to ridicule in some quarters.

In respect to geographic coverage by the Denturists, you can be sure they would expand the facilities to match the need if a more favourable climate were created by the authorities. Instead of spending their energies and money fighting the establishment, they could then devote full time to the specialized work for which they are admirably qualified.

Bill 70, Section 23 (J) even threatens the very name of the Denturists, or their Government chartered organization, the Denturist Society of Ontario. Hardly a welcome idea to contemplate for the body which has been in the vanguard of making essential services available to many who might otherwise be denied.

In conclusion, Honourable Minister, we feel it is high time our Province launched out in new waters rather than adopting token legislation in the wake of other parts of Canada. Briefly, our Committee will be satisfied with nothing less than legislation similar to that adopted without undue resistance or political fanfare in Quebec a year or two ago.

We are not unmindful of the progress referred to in the opening paragraph. This should give thrust to a complete and comprehensive Government program, designed to serve the public, rather than a privileged professional group or large foreign owned denture clinics. In this direction, you can be assured of our support, which undoubtedly reflects the convictions of many more thousands of citizens throughout the Province.

James Hawkins
President, Citizen's Committee

P.S. We are taking the liberty of circulating this letter to members of the Ontario Legislature."

The Citizen's Committee played a very important part in bringing the plight of Denturists to the public.

John Ireland was another disciple of denturism. He was a businessman from Toronto who also took the cause to the road. A large meeting was held at the Pyranon Ballroom in Chatham, Ontario on June 4, 1973. Mr. Ireland was fortunate to have Gordon Smith, and Dentist Dr. Peterson, a firm advocate of Denturists having a fair crack of the whip in regard to dental prosthetics. The intent of the meeting was to encourage people to write to Queen's Park in an attempt to obtain the repeal of Bill 246, a Bill that was intent on keeping Denturists under dental supervision. Gordon Smith urged those present to write Queen's Park. He also mentioned it was reported within the last few days that the Provincial Health Minister may toss the Bill out. "But he's changed his mind before, and I urge you to write letters," he said.

It was a time of great expectations. The rising tide of public support, excellent press coverage, and the political curtain was beginning to open to reveal a more receptive attitude to the Denturists' needs.

Read more articles on Denturism in Ontario.