EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
While members appreciate that a statutory right of access exists under the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the standing committee encourages the chief public health officer to proactively disclose public inspection reports or ratings regarding inspected premises.
Clause 85 of Bill 14 has been amended to provide greater clarity to the regulation-making authority with respect to sewage, waste and water supply systems.
On this issue the standing committee notes that once the legislation is passed, new regulations such as the Public Drinking Water Regulations will be brought forward.
Providing safe drinking water is a fundamental responsibility of government.
It was also noted that three communities in Nunavut currently add the chemical fluoride to their water systems as a dental health promotion measure.
Members urge the government to closely monitor the risks and benefits of adding such chemicals as fluoride to community water supplies.
Finally, clause 94 of Bill 14 has been amended to clarify the definition of “food” under this part of the legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to take this opportunity to thank the minister and his staff for working collaboratively with the committee to make Bill 14 a stronger, more balanced piece of legislation today than it was when it was first introduced.
The standing committee recommends the passage of Bill 14, as amended and reprinted, to all members.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. T. Sammurtok.
I think maybe I would just like a little bit of feedback about enforcement of this legislation. There are a lot of areas where people are required to do certain things. For example, for communicable diseases and that, the chief medical officer has a big role.
I’m just wondering if you could give me some feedback on how you think the enforcement part of this law is going to be and how would you work it.
I know that there are certain fines if you don’t do certain things, but if somebody doesn’t have an income, how are you going to do that?
This Act does give the chief medical officer quite a bit of authority and autonomous authority where there wouldn’t be political or bureaucratic interference.
With regard to the specificity of the member’s question, a lot of those concerns would be dealt with within the creation of the regulations that actually outline how the enforcement policies would be created and adhered to.
I just have one other question. One of the things that seem to come up, and I think there’s some confusion in the public of who is really responsible for this, is the frustration over buying food that’s rotten.
You go home, you open up the package, and then you have rotten spare ribs and you have to go all the way back.
I think this happens quite a lot. I see there are references here to expiry dates, but sometimes things don’t have expiry dates or your product hasn’t reached the expiry date but you can’t eat them; they’re just too bad.
Who is responsible for ensuring that the stores are storing meat, for example, the way that they’re supposed to?
When they continue to sell food that I would even think are over the expiry date, who is monitoring this?
This piece of legislation does give a lot more clarity to that issue with regard to environmental health officers visiting retail outlets and even going so far as to, if there is contaminated country food in a community, where it gives them investigative authority to find the root of the outbreak or illness or whatever the food is creating and enforcement opportunities to be able to deal with that.
When we’re dealing with food that, in the member’s example, may not have reached the expiry date but is still tainted, it would be up to the store to return.
If the consumer has a concern, they are absolutely free to contact our environmental health officers for us to go in and do a spot inspection to make sure that the freezer and cooler temperature parameters are adhered to.
My other two questions would be, the first one is how many environmental officers do you currently employ, and when it comes to restaurants, if restaurants happen to serve food that maybe makes somebody sick, what involvement, if any, does your department have under this proposed Act to cover that problem?
To answer the first question, I don’t have the exact numbers of how many environmental health officers we have right now.
I didn’t anticipate that question to come up. I apologize. I can get it to the committee members after a period of time.
I see people on their devices soliciting that information now.
With regard to the example used of a restaurant, if there was some type of a food poisoning situation, that can happen, whether it be a public event or in a retail… .
It goes to, like I stated earlier, about having the investigative authority to be able to go in and do an investigation and take samples of the foods, and in cases, where necessary, to dispose of those foods that are creating the health hazard.
This piece of legislation basically brings public health into this century.
The legislation we’re working under is over 50 years old or 60 years old almost. A lot of the restrictions that were in there are dealt with in this legislation.
In regard to food, I have heard people wonder about this.
I’m going to ask you: would environmental health officers inspect restaurants? Do they have to give notice? Can they do spot inspections?
Do they only look at the kitchens and that?
I’m talking about food safety here and the safety of people. How far do they go when they make inspections?
They don’t just look at the kitchen. They’ve got the ability to look at the entire facility.
With regard to the member’s question, they don’t have to give notice; they can do spot inspections.
They do have a schedule that they’re trying to adhere to, to make sure that they’re getting to all facilities in a period of time.
That being said, if there is ever a concern or if anyone brings to raise an issue, it would be dealt with immediately.
What about the smaller communities?
It’s easy to do spot inspections here because, I think, you’re based here.
What about in Qikiqtarjuaq?
Maybe there’s a pizza place there. Who is looking after that?
In communities where there is not an environmental health officer located, they do visit regularly.
Now, if somebody were to know from the airport who that inspector is that is flying in, they might be able to give the establishment a 10-minute heads up that somebody is in town, but I don’t think a quick sponge bath of a place would fool any of our environmental health officers.
The other thing that comes to mind when we talk about food safety and public health is daycares.
We don’t have enough daycares, but we do have quite a few daycares across Nunavut and all of them serve food. Who is looking after that? Is it the same environmental inspectors looking after daycares, restaurants, and other areas?
I apologize for the delay; I was just having a little discussion here.
I’m not aware if there’s a mandatory regular check that they do at daycares.
Again, they do have the authority to go in or this legislation will give them the enforcement authority that they can go in and do spot checks if concerns are raised, especially to the point where I was talking about earlier if there’s an incident that a number of people are getting sick from the same type of food or the same establishment or a public function. The investigation goes back to find out what the source of that is.
They would have the authority to go in.
I’m not aware right now if there’s a mandatory regular check. Again, that’s something that we will take note of and we will have to return to the committee.
I apologize for not having that information.
Actually, why I think you have this Act is to try to stop people from getting sick.
I would think that you would want to go into daycares because we’re talking about little children, who are much more susceptible to this kind of illness, especially when it comes to food, that kind of ailment where they get sick, botulism or whatever, just food poisoning.
If they make a visit to a community, I think they should go to daycares, not that I’m targeting them, but just for the safety of children and it could be an educational thing too because just the storage of food and that and how it should be done might be a really good thing to talk about with them.
Is it possible to get a list from you?
I’m just curious about inspections and I would like to know how many times the community… .
You say they go there regularly, but it would be good to see, over the last year, how many communities have been visited and what kind of investigations they did.
Is that possible to get?
With regard to the first part of the member’s preamble about daycares, there are notes that have been taken and when we’re drafting the regulations, that’s something we will take into consideration.
With regard to the specific question of the regularity, we do have tracking information.
Again, as this legislation matures, it will give us more opportunities to streamline our reporting so that we can make sure that we’re reporting things in a way that still maintains the privacy conditions, somewhat the privacy commissioner brought to our attention to make sure that we are adhering to ATIPP legislation.
The department does track the number of visits.
Again, I don’t have that information with me today.
I can talk to the Chair or the committee or maybe we can discuss this after on what level of detail that you’re looking for.
Yes, I understand completely about the confidentiality.
I don’t think I’m looking for that kind of detail.
I’m looking for information how many times communities have been visited by the environmental protection officers, which place did they visit and in general what are the most common types of infractions, perhaps, that they have come across, just like that.
The environmental health officers, the goal is to go at least twice a year to each community.
With regard to the most common infractions, again I don’t have that information with me. I’m not sure.
One of the things that I think people need to realize that when these environmental health officers go into a facility, they’re not just looking for cleanliness. They talk to the staff about food handling practices.
They talk to the ownership to make sure that they’re training the staff properly on safe food handling procedures. It’s not just a visual inspection; there’s also an inspection of their practices.
It is quite encompassing.
I applaud the work they’re doing and we don’t hear that often of instances of people getting sick from restaurants in Nunavut, so obviously I think they’re doing a pretty darn good job.
I think that’s what I would like to see on paper.
I think they are doing a good job, but let’s see how many communities have been visited, which places they visit, and the most common infractions just to give us a sense of what kind work is being done.
I’m not looking for like, “Oh well, this person did this.”
I’m just looking for a general picture. If you can give me a general picture, that’s what I’m looking for.
I agree with you that’s why I brought up the fact about the daycares. It’s not just to go and say, “Okay, daycares, let me look at what you’re doing,” but also as an educational opportunity too.
The other thing and perhaps my last question, unless you answer in a way that makes me want to ask more questions, one of the things that everybody in this room experiences when we go to a store to buy cereal or some other kind of product, there’s sometimes a little contest and you can apply to be in the contest, but then you realize the cereal, for example, is like three years old and the best-before date was 2015 or 2014.
Who’s looking after that?
I don’t think it’s like an expiry; it’s a best-before date and there is a difference between the two.
Is there anything that protects us in that the person selling the product needs to tell us that the best-before date is way past?
The member is correct. There is a difference between a best-before date and an expiry date.
An expiry date has health implications whereas the best before, you may lose the flavour or maybe some of the nutritional value, but it doesn’t impact food safety.
The rules are very lax, I guess, around if you want to call selling foods past the best-before date.
That being said, it is up to the consumer to try to put fresh food products in front of us in the stores. Realistically you’re looking at raising concerns with the store itself. The labelling system that is on food products right now is overseen by the federal government.
If there are concerns of much outdated food products and we have them in Nunavut too, we have all experienced it. You order sealift and you get all nice fresh stuff and you go to the store and they should have just had their sealift, but it’s all expired. It is overseen by the federal government.
To me the recourse is through the retailer, through communication to the retailer of dissatisfaction or if you feel that it’s long overdue, there are federal agencies that can assist in that regard. I’m sure I can steer you down that path.
Thanks for your answer. I want to talk about food with my next question, but it might not fit under here.
I’m not too sure. One of the things that I have read that’s starting to… . I don’t know if it’s something that has gone on for a long time, but I just read about it.
In some provinces they force stores that sell food that best-before date things that they want to throw out like Wal-Mart, the food that they want to throw out in the past have always just gone into the garbage.
Now there’s a big push for that food that stores throw out that are still good, you could still eat them, but maybe they’re going to expire in a couple of days and they’re forced to be given to those in poverty.
I’m not too sure how it would fall under here, what kind of impact that would have under Bill 14, but has there been any kind of discussion about that?
When we’re talking about foods that are nearing their best-before date that stores want to give away, we do have the Donation of Food Act that allows for those provisions.
Instead of throwing it away, if it’s still consumable, retailers can donate it to food banks or daycares or schools or whatever the case may be.
That’s a separate piece of legislation than what we’re dealing with today.
Welcome to the minister and the officials.
My colleague was asking a number of questions, but at a different angle here.
When we’re looking at communicable diseases to better address, can you identify for the viewing audience what you’re looking at in that particular explanation?
Basically, when you’re dealing with communicable diseases, we want to be able to make sure that we have the authority to do a complete investigation. Whereas right now, even just the descriptions under the current legislation are so outdated that they haven’t kept up with the times.
When you’re dealing with different influenzas or potential pandemics or sexually transmitted diseases, there are different investigative powers that we can have so that we can find a source of it and increase mitigation measures and awareness campaigns.
I’m not sure how much more detail the member is looking for.
Looking at that particular paragraph on your page 3 of 4 on the first paragraph, the last sentence there, when you’re looking at health hazards as indicated and written in your opening document, are you looking specific infrastructure buildings within a community, for example, maybe more commonly to public infrastructure buildings?
It goes in further than just the actual infrastructure.
When you’re talking about health hazards, it takes anything that threatens or reasonably to be expected to threaten public health, so it goes a lot further than just an actual health facility. Within the health hazard, there could be something in the community that has been determined by the community as a health hazard where we would have some authority to go in and provide orders to remedy that.
When we look at these orders that the chief public health officer would warrant, would the order have a specified number of hours or days or weeks that it would be reflective of in considering a health hazard, for example, an arena or the school or some public infrastructure building where there are a lot of public people going in and out?
It’s a very broad concept.
It would strictly depend upon what that health hazard is that would determine how fast it would be determined to be fixed or remedied.
Again, when we’re talking the legislation, it gives us quite broad authority that we can narrow down and put more detail to as the regulations get created.
Once we get this legislation through and from what I understood from the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Legislation’s opening comments, the support is there to move this motion forward. We can get started on the regulations as soon as possible.
When we’re talking about this chief public health officer who will have authority to monitor health detriments and when we look at Nunavut, we have 25 or 26 communities within our territory, is that going to be a shared responsibility or is that one chief public health officer going to have other staff assisting with the responsibility to oversee the territory?
Although the chief medical officer has the ultimate authority, its reporting goes to that position and there’s also an assistant chief medical officer as well. Environmental health officers, members of the public, health staff, teachers, basically anyone has the authority to bring forward an issue or a concern that the chief medical officer can then determine whether an investigation needs to proceed to deal with that issue.
When we look at this authority obtained by the chief public health officer and when we look at this Bill 14 being getting caught up to date to this day and age, is your department satisfied with what is in the bill to try to ensure safety in the health aspect as a department?
That being said, I would like to acknowledge the communication with the committee on legislation and the amount of work that the committee put into putting forward motions, all of which myself and the department have agreed and concurred with.
I think, in the true sense of the consensus model of government that we practise under, I think this bill is a shining example of how a standing committee and a government department can work together to create legislation that encompasses all the needs of the territory.
I just had to say that to the long answer of my yes.
When we look at this Bill 14 and if you were to come across communicable diseases, for example, in a school environment and a communicable disease started to surface, would this bill override the Education Act considering that it would impact so many students and staff within the school environment?
Would the chief public health officer have the final authority when you’re dealing with two Acts and a vast majority of people?
It’s an interesting question that the member raises. There are two differing pieces of legislation and one wouldn’t supersede the other to the degree that health and safety is paramount in both pieces of legislation to the students.
It may put more pressure on the school calendar for the department to make sure that they’re meeting the educational requirements of the students if the school had to be closed for a period of time.
The chief medical officer of health has the authority to close a facility due to health and safety reasons.
There have been some days, even this year, with the whooping cough that school starts were delayed or cases dealt with.
I would just like to take this opportunity to keep my Minister of Health hat on for all members, when you go back to your community, to make sure that people are participating in the vaccination clinics that are available at the health offices.
Maybe this will be my one final question here.
When we’re looking at health hazards and when we look at our drinking water, does the chief public health officer or, as indicated earlier to responses that you provided to my colleague, from time to time… ?
I know it’s a vast territory.
Do the environmental health officers, from time to time, do inspections to the community pump houses to ensure that we have safe drinking water that does not have communicable diseases spreading at a fast pace?
When we’re talking about especially potable water and consumable water that we deal with, water is tested at the source before treatment and it is tested again after treatment to make sure that there are no contaminants or anything of issue.
If anything, this new legislation gives us even more mandatory testing and standards. When we start getting into the regulations, we can strengthen that, but it also gives the chief medical officer the… .
Currently when we do water advisories, boil water advisories, or in Sanikiluaq recently due to elevated sodium levels, with cooperation from other government departments, we have actually put filters into people’s homes to make sure that the potable water is safe for all residents.
That being said, there is very close monitoring on water safety, so I’m not sure how much more I can say that. It’s very serious.
Mr. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, I move a motion to report progress.
We will continue with the review of Bill 14 with Minister Hickes and his officials on Monday.
Your committee has been considering Bill 23 and Bill 14 and would like to report that Bill 23 is immediately ready for third reading.
Bill 23 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2016-2017 – Third Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Arviat South, that Bill 23, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2016-2017, be read for the third time.
Just a reminder of meetings for the Standing Committee on Legislation, first of all, the committee meets at half past one this afternoon and tomorrow, Saturday, time to be confirmed pending the results of this afternoon’s meeting, and the third meeting is on Monday at nine o’clock.
All meetings are in the Nanuq Boardroom.
Also for this afternoon for the MSB to stand by for a meeting that will take place in the Tuktu Room, time to be either three o’clock or four o’clock, so please stand by.
Orders of the Day for November 7:
Motion 37 – 4(3)
Motion 38 – 4(3)
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) This House stands adjourned until Monday, November 7, at 1:30 p.m.
Monday, November 7, 2016
Pages 2970 – 3048
Opening Prayer 2970
Ministers’ Statements 2970
Members’ Statements 2975
Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery 2983
Oral Questions 2984
Reports of Standing and Special Committees on Bills and Other Matters 3006
Tabling of Documents 3007
Motions 3008
First Reading of Bills 3009
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters 3010
Report of the Committee of the Whole 3047
Third Reading of Bills 3047
Orders of the Day 3048
Monday, November 7, 2016 2970
218 – 4(3): Public Accounts (Peterson) 2970
219 – 4(3): New Federal Funding for Housing (Kuksuk) 2971
220 – 4(3): Government of Nunavut’s Creation of Climate Change Secretariat (Savikataaq) 2972
221 – 4(3): New Power Plant for Taloyoak (Mike) 2973
222 – 4(3): Winnipeg Art Gallery: Inuit Art Marketing Pilot Project (Ell-Kanayuk) 2973
223 – 4(3): 2016 Nunavut Food Price Survey (Taptuna) 2974
395 – 4(3): Appreciation of Support in the Time of Need (Okalik) 2975
396 – 4(3): Nunavut Health Care Cards (Mikkungwak) 2975
397 – 4(3): Celebration of International Inuit Day (Sammurtok, T) 2976
398 – 4(3): Inuit in the Public Service (Shooyook) 2976
399 – 4(3): Young Artists from Cape Dorset Paint Mural in Montreal (Joanasie) 2978
400 – 4(3): Happy Birthday Wishes to Brother Joseph Mapsalak (Mapsalak) 2979
401 – 4(3): Remembering International Inuit Day and Nunavut (Keyootak) 2979
402 – 4(3): Tribute to Daisy Dialla (Mike) 2980
403 – 4(3): Congratulations to Daniel Quassa (Quassa) 2981
404 – 4(3): High Arctic Apparel (Enook) 2982
405 – 4(3): Celebrate International Inuit Day (Taptuna) 2982
406 – 4(3): Happy Birthday Wishes to Grandson, Sebastian (Qirngnuq) 2983
547 – 4(3): Using Nunavut Health Cards as IDs (Mikkungwak) 2984
548 – 4(3): Client Travel Policy (Mapsalak) 2986