Public Accounts Committee — Department of Government Services and Lands and the Department of Health — 7 February 2000

2000-02-07

Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees

February 7, 2000

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

COMMITTEE

The Committee met at 9:30 a.m. in room 5083.

CHAIR (Mr. J. Byrne): Order, please!

I would like to bring the hearing to order. My name is

Jack Byrne. I am the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I am also the

Member for Cape St. Francis. To my right is Tom Lush, the Member for Terra Nova,

and he is the Vice-Chairman.

I would like to thank everyone for coming out today.

Welcome. I would like to have the Committee introduce themselves, starting to my

far right.

MR. MERCER: Bob Mercer, MHA for the District of

Humber East.

MR. FITZGERALD: Roger Fitzgerald, MHA for the

District of Bonavista South.

MS M. HODDER: Mary Hodder, MHA for the District of

Burin-Placentia West.

CHAIR: Paul Shelley could not make it today. Mr.

Joyce is not here yet but I believe he is on his way.

When you speak, could you turn on the mike in front of

you? I think we can handle up to five or six at a time. When you are finished,

if you could turn them off it would be appreciated.

Also we have, to my left, the Auditor General, Ms

Marshall. Could you introduce your staff, please, and yourself?

MS MARSHALL: I am Elizabeth Marshall, Auditor

General. To my right is Mr. John Noseworthy. John is Deputy Auditor General. To

my left is Mr. Wayne Loveys. Wayne is the Audit Manager for this audit.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Also, we have people here from the Department of

Government Services and Lands and the Department of Health. Could you introduce

yourselves, please?

MS KNIGHT: Barbara Knight; I am the Deputy

Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. MOORES: Weldon Moores, Senior Director,

Regional & Support Services.

MR. JOHNSON: I am Darrell Johnson, an

environmental health analyst with the Department of Health and Community

Services.

MR. COATES: My name is Reg Coates. I am the

Director of Legislative & Regulatory Affairs with the Department of Health and

Community Services.

CHAIR: Thank you.

I think we have a couple of people in the back from

the department; is that right?

MR. CALLAHAN: Yes, I am Rick Callahan, Director of

Communications for Government Services and Lands.

MR. McCARTHY: Philip McCarthy, ADM, Government

Services.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Could we have the witnesses sworn in, please?

Swearing of Witnesses

Wayne Loveys

Darrell Johnson

Weldon Moores

Barbara Knight

Reg Coates

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Public Accounts Committee, as you are well aware,

I would imagine, is a Standing Committee of the House of Assembly. Basically,

our job is to try and hold government, I suppose, to task for any issues that

may be forthcoming from the Committee itself or through the Auditor General's

report each year.

This year, with respect to the food inspection

division, we decided that we would follow up on the Auditor General's report,

and that is what we are doing here now. The witnesses are here to give their

views and opinions to any questions that may be asked and/or concerns that would

be brought forth by ourselves. We will get right into it. I do not know how long

the hearing will last, to be honest with you. We have a number of concerns and

questions, and that will be determined as the questions are asked and the

answers are given.

I would like to ask the Auditor General if she has any

opening comments to make.

MS MARSHALL: I do not have any opening comments as

it relates to the details of the audit, just to bring to the attention of the

Committee that this is a different type of audit for us. It was in compliance

with legislation and regulations rather than an audit of expenditures, which is

the usual type of audit that we do.

CHAIR: Thank you.

I would ask any of the witnesses if they would like to

have any opening comments.

Ms Knight.

MS KNIGHT: Thank you.

Yes, I would like to make a few opening comments if I

may. I would like to thank you for this opportunity to appear before your

Committee concerning the Auditor General's report on the Food Premises

Inspection and Licensing Program of the department. As a department, we value

the review and the comments of the Auditor General and recognize their value in

achieving improvements to the process.

I believe it is important that I point out that

although the focus of the Auditor General's comments appears to be directed

towards the Department of Government Services and Lands, as evidenced by the

reference to this department in the title of the report, the responsibilities in

this area are shared between the two departments and the regional health boards.

The Department of Health and Community Services has

ownership of the legislation which covers matters of food premises inspections

and licensing, and has responsibility for the setting and development of policy

and standards. The Department of Community Services and Lands has been delegated

the responsibility for a wide variety of inspection investigation programs, one

of which is Food Premises Inspection and Licensing by the Department of Health

and Community Services in support of programs and services provided by regional

health boards. The details of this partnership are described in a Memorandum of

Understanding between the two departments, the Health and Community Services

boards, Health Labrador Corporation and the Grenfell Regional Health Services.

The nature of this shared responsibility is further borne out by the structure

of the Auditor General's report which directs specific comments towards each of

the departments and the regional boards. In this regard, colleagues from the

Department of Health and Community Services, as you have already noted, are here

with me this morning.

I note that the period of the review for the Auditor

General's report is from April 1, 1995, to November 30, 1997. The Government

Service Centre was initially created on April 1, 1995. As such, a number of the

deficiencies of operating procedures and the need for recommendations of the

nature provided by the Auditor General were also recognized by both departments

and continue to be acted upon.

There is an excellent working relationship between our

two departments who, in conjunction with the regional board, have strived to

improve our approach to the various program areas under the scope of health

legislation. It is difficult to fully appreciate the significance of some of the

improvements which have been made by focusing upon the single aspect of food

premises within the broader health program area. Nevertheless, I would like to

highlight a few.

In response to the Auditor General's report, we

indicated that the introduction of a computerized application management system

would provide a solution to many of the deficiencies noted. I am pleased to say

that we are currently in the process of implementing this system with a go-live

date of March, 2000.

Although only twenty-four of our inspection staff are

specifically trained as environmental health officers for purposes of the health

program, the Government Service Centre has a total of approximately seventy

field inspection staff. During the course of carrying out their specific duties,

other officers, such as electrical inspectors or liquor establishment

inspectors, have occasion to visit licensed food inspection premises in the

course of their duties. We use these visits to our advantage to do a quick check

on specific items or to receive input on items that should be referred to the

attention of our health inspection personnel.

The broader range of inspection expertise available

within the GSC has permitted consolidation of aspects of the licensing

inspection process. Plans are reviewed within the Government Service Centre for

licensing requirements, in addition to food premises licensing. Consequently,

through the consolidated one-stop shopping approach, clients need file fewer

copies of plans, as was the case previously when these services were offered

independently, and the review process is therefore expedited.

Besides improvements in customer services, the

Government Service Centre has realized a steady improvement in productivity with

respect to carrying out food premises inspections. This is evident through the

provincial average of inspections per officer for food premises inspections,

which has increased from 252 inspections per officer in 1995-1996 to 278

inspections per officer in 1998-1999. This represents an efficiency improvement

of approximately 10 per cent.

I would like to introduce Weldon Moores, who is the

Director of Support Services with the Government Service Centre. Mr. Moores is

the liaison person from our department with the Department of Health and

Community Services for this program. He is familiar with the day to day

operations of the program and I am sure he will be able to answer any questions

that you may have.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you. Yes?

MR. COATES: Yes, if I may, on behalf of the

Department of Health and Community Services -

CHAIR: Excuse me. Could you introduce yourself

each time you speak for recording purposes, please?

MR. COATES: I'm sorry. My name is Reg Coates. I am

with the Department of Health and Community Services. I also would like to thank

the Committee for the opportunity to address them and respond to any issues or

questions you may have with respect to the role of my department in terms of the

food safety inspection program, and in particular the Auditor General's report.

In her opening remarks the Deputy Minister of the

Department of Government Services and Lands has indicated that the

responsibility for the food safety inspection program is shared between both our

departments. This is not only true for the Environmental Inspection Program, it

is also true for a variety of other areas of jointly shared responsibility.

The Department of Health and Community Services has

the responsibility for the food safety mandate under the authority of the food

and drug act and regulations. We establish the standards and other guidance

documents used by the Department of Government Services and Lands in

implementation and delivery to ensure that both the then-Department of Health

and the Government Service Centre, as well as community health boards back in

1995-1996, fully understood their respective roles and accountabilities. A

Memorandum of Understanding was developed and ratified in1995 between both

departments and our regional boards. This MOU was drafted as a living document

with the intent for regular review and refinement based on lessons learned in

our relationship. I think the MOU has been referenced in the Auditor General's

report.

Many changes have occurred since 1995 affecting all

partners in this arrangement. Most notably, at least on our part, is the

creation of the Department of Health and Community Services and the health and

community services boards, with an expanded role in areas of child welfare,

child care services, youth corrections, et cetera. The relationship between our

two departments and regional boards was also expanded to include evaluation

assessment of a number of facilities and issues captured by these structural

changes. As well, ongoing evaluation on the 1995 MOU identified areas requiring

update, additional clarity or correction. This facilitated the formation of an

interagency committee in the fall of 1997 to review and revise the 1995 MOU.

The Auditor General's report of 1998 further

underscored the need to review the MOU as identified in the recommendation on

page 135 of the report. I am pleased to advise the Committee and the Auditor

General that a new MOU was ratified in the fall of 1999 and we believe addresses

all the issues identified, at least by our committee. I believe a copy of this

MOU has been circulated to your Committee.

The Auditor General's report in 1998 also contained a

number of recommendations pertaining to standards, policies and procedures in

risk management. Many of the issues identified were not new to officials within

my department and efforts were underway to update food safety standards and

guidelines. I might note at this point that since 1996 or before we have been

working with a national committee to harmonize food safety standards across the

country. Part of that national initiative is being tiered down to the way we

look at provincial standards because we are learning a lot of lessons from our

partners across the country. We are also having the added benefit of the risk

assessment advice from the federal government, particularly the Canadian Food

Inspection Agency and Health Canada. However, the review of the Auditor

General's office was immensely beneficial in assisting the Department of Health

and Community Services with identified work priorities in respect to the food

safety inspection program.

Specifically in response to the Auditor General's

report, the Department of Health and Community Services and health and community

services boards, with input from colleagues in the Department of Forest

Resources and Agrifoods and the Department of Government Services and Lands,

developed a work plan for 1999-2000 and beyond to specifically address issues

following the report's recommendations. I believe you too have also been

provided a copy of that work plan.

I am happy to report we are on target for all items,

with an exception, number three, dealing with risk management frameworks. With

respect to a risk management framework for the food safety inspection program,

we have completed a cross-country scan and a literature review and we compiled

all the available information. A preliminary review of the information and

drafting of the framework document has commenced. We expect that the first draft

will be sent out for consultation within the next two months. A delay in moving

this project forward is directly related to the vacancy in the environmental

health position which occurred in the summer of last year. We had difficulties

in recruiting a person with the specialized qualifications required. However,

this delay incurred as a result of the vacancy does not translate into a

corresponding delay with respect to our work plan. We hope to be on track within

a couple of months into the new year.

In all of this, the most important question in this

exercise and in the work that is carried on between our two departments in terms

of food safety inspection is this: Is the safety of our food supply in

Newfoundland safe or is it less safe than it was before the report or in years

past? We do not believe so. In fact, we believe our food supply is as safe now

as it ever was and perhaps getting safer all the time with the combined efforts,

not only of the Government Service Centre, but the work that we do, and the work

that our federal counterparts do in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

It is important to remember that the food inspection

system is only one component of our efforts to insure a safe food supply. Our

public health laboratories are a center of excellence in Canada. They are world

renowned in terms of their publications and their efforts. Our health units are

involved both in the coordination and development of health promotional

activities, and are designed to insure a safe food supply. Our disease

surveillance system in terms of enterics is second to none, and this was never

more evident - if you recall a salmonella enteritis outbreak a couple of years

ago, a lot of children were infected. It had to do with a food product that is

produced on the mainland; it was a Schneider's lunch meat. The combined effort

of the forces in Newfoundland - the Government Service Centre inspectors, our

public health laboratories, the hospital laboratories, our health and community

services region in St. John's - meant that within ten days we had solved the

riddle of what was causing our problem with our children because a lot of

children were infected with that. We led the country and we received accolades

across the country for our combined efforts, and it shows that we are working

together well and I think we will work together well all the time.

Thank you very much. If you have any questions I would

be happy to answer them.

CHAIR: Thank you.

I think I might be correct in saying that what

yourself and Ms Knight just did was like a pre-emptive strike. It covers some of

the issues I am sure will be brought up here today.

In one of your comments you mentioned the food safety

standards nationally and the cooperation between the provinces. I believe before

Christmas - it just popped into my head when you referred to that - didn't the

federal Auditor General have some concerns with respect to the national

standards that were being followed after some outbreak of some salmonella

poisoning? Wasn't that a big issue there in the fall? Can anybody remember that?

There is one other point you made there. When the

Department of Government Services and Lands took the responsibility for food

premises inspections - I know I remember asking questions to the minister in the

House before Christmas on this - the year they took over there was a

significantly lower amount of inspections done than had been done previously by

the Department of Health. Does anybody want to comment on that?

MR. MOORES: I think if you look at the number of

inspections done, you might need to look at it on a per officer basis. When the

Department of Health was the Department of Health, there were thirty-three field

positions. On creation with the Government Service Centre, in recognition that

part of the efforts of the former field inspectors was promotion - and, well,

other things associated with it, not strictly food premises inspections - four

positions were moved to the Regional Health and Community Services Boards. The

Government Service Centre ended up with twenty-nine positions, so we had four

less inspectors in the field to do food inspections and that would have resulted

in the corresponding drop.

CHAIR: Was there some concern, too, with respect

to the type of inspections? It was mentioned - but I'm not sure by which

individual - with respect to liquor inspections and licensing, that those same

individuals were doing food inspections and that was a cutback on the process

also with respect to the numbers that could be done?

MR. MOORES: I do not think so. Yes, that was said,

but you have to look at the broader picture. There are a number of liquor

inspectors that came from the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation to the Government

Service Centre. While some of the health inspectors did things with respect to

liquor inspections, that is counterbalanced because we also are responsible for

doing tobacco inspections, and they formerly would be done totally by the health

inspectors. For the large part they are now done by the liquor inspectors. If

you look at the total manpower dealing back and forth across the board, that

should make a difference.

If you look on a per officer basis, in 1995-1996 we

were doing 252 food premises per officer. Currently we are up to 278 per

officer. I believe, when it was with the Department of Health and Community

Services, the average was around 244.

CHAIR: Where I am leading with this is that you

also just mentioned tobacco inspectors. We have liquor inspectors and we have

the food premises inspectors. Do all these people have the same training to be

qualified to do one inspection or the other, that type of thing?

MR. MOORES: No.

CHAIR: Because to me, I think a food premises

inspection would be quite different than, say, tobacco.

MR. MOORES: To begin with, the person who does

food premises is what we call an Environmental Health Officer III. They have

training and are accredited as a - what? Go ahead.

MR. JOHNSON: A Certified Public Health Inspector

in Canada. It is a national designation that each Environmental Health Officer

III is required to have before he or she does a food premises inspection.

MR. MOORES: Leading up to that, to become a health

inspector you would have an undergraduate degree in the sciences as well as an

additional training. There are three locations in Canada where you can get it.

Either at Ryerson in Ontario, the University of British Columbia, or more

recently you can also get it in the University College of Cape Breton.

The health inspectors, as such, have a much

significant higher degree of training academically than the liquor inspectors.

The health inspectors do not strictly do food inspections. Besides food

inspections they are doing inspections in a number of other areas as per the

health program that was turned over to us. What we have done - there is no such

thing a super inspector that can do it all - we have tried to focus the skills

of the health inspector to the more technical requirements in the areas that

they need more expertise. By moving the tobacco inspection to the liquor

inspectors that has helped that.

As far as doing the liquor inspections with the health

inspectors, there was really not much to that liquor inspection. There were

three things the health inspector would have to check when he was at the same

premises. If the corner store held a brewer's agent license - they were not

doing all liquor inspections, bars and things like that, it was just retail

brewers' agents at the retail stores. It was to make sure that the price list

for the liquor products was on the wall, make sure there was no evidence that

they were selling loose bottles - sell them by the case - and thirdly to make

sure that the liquor license was posted. The time it would take to do the liquor

inspection was minimal.

CHAIR: Basically, what you are saying then is that

people or inspectors, the health inspectors that would do food premises

inspections, could do inspections for liquor inspections but conversely the

liquor inspectors would not do any inspections with respect to food premises. Is

that right?

MR. MOORES: No, they are not qualified. The only

thing a liquor inspector might do with respect to food premises is if they went

in and saw something that did not look right to them they would refer it to the

health inspector to go back and do a proper inspection.

CHAIR: Would the Auditor General like to comment

on that?

MS MARSHALL: No. I guess I can make one brief

comment. We looked at the certificate that the professional staff were supposed

to have in order to do the food inspections and we did not have any problem in

that area. That is covered, in fact, on the bottom of page 8 in the material

that was handed out to the Committee members.

CHAIR: Thank you.

I am going to pass it off to my far right. Mr. Mercer,

would you like to start off with any questions?

MR. MERCER: Yes. As the A.G. has indicated, this

is kind of a different type of an audit. It is a compliance audit as opposed to

a value for dollars spent or how monies might be spent. I have just a few

opening comments and a question.

As I was reading through the first number of pages, I

was getting the impression that nothing was being done and what was being done

was being done irregularly, slipshod, so on and so forth. Nowhere did I get a

sense in the report, Ms Auditor General, of whether or not what was not being

done was super critically important or on the very low end of importance. I

guess you can argue that everything dealing with food and food premises is in

the same category. I guess the reality of it is that when you are dealing with

inspection there are different classes of inspection.

I guess it was not until I got to page 133, or page 8

in your white book, that there was a breakdown of different classes. I note, for

argument's sake, that in Class 1 there was forty-eight samples Province-wide in

1996-1997. Of those forty-eight only one, in 1996-1997, was not inspected in

accordance with the frequency specified in the MOU. In category 1 - I do not

know what that means, category 1 - it seems to be there was a very high degree

of compliance

whereas when you get into categories 2, 3 and 4, your compliance

kind of falls off the table. Could you explain to me what these categories mean

and what process you have gone through to arrive at a higher degree of

concentration in one category versus the other? Could you take me through that a

little bit?

MR. MOORES: The class structure is given to us by

the Department of Health and Community Services. It is, I guess, one that has

been used for a fair number of years. Class 1 is food retailing, and that would

be, by way of an example, a corner store that sold just pre-packaged foods.

Class 2 is facilities involved with food preparation. That is a broader class.

It could be your corner store that has a deli, slices ham and meat, like that,

or it could be a restaurant in a major hotel. It may help to do this. By way of

numbers, in the Province - I will use 1998-1999 figures - there are 2,329 Class

1 food premises; there are 3,876 Class 2 food premises.

Class 3 is food production. That would be where you

get into where the food is actually produced on a site. An example of that would

be a dairy farm. There are 107 of those. Class 4 is food manufacturing. That is

where, in addition to just producing the food on site, you take it through some

manufacturing process. An example of that would be a facility that manufactures

ice cream. There are 308 of them.

Once we created the Government Service Centre, the

first thing we had to do was go back and check on the nature of the way things

were being reported. Health, as is the Government Service Centre, was set up on

a regional basis. That being said, not everything was done exactly consistently.

On first take you would say that if a facility had a Class 1 food establishment

that would be it, but you could have a facility which has two or three of these

classes depending on what it is doing. In other words, if you had a facility

that was manufacturing ice cream that also had - I'm not saying one of these

exists, but just by way of example - a retail store in the same building, that

particular location would have a Class 4 and possibly a Class 2 or a Class 1

license associated with it as well.

I think the second part of the question was how we

determine the frequency of inspections. Health had a frequency inspection

document which, at the time of creation of the Government Service Centre, was

revised to say that basically we should do inspections at the same rate at which

Health did.

From memory, rather than looking it up, food retailing

is once a year and the other classes were being done, roughly, two inspections

per year as a target. I did this before the creation of the Government Service

Centre, because the request that was made initially was that we would inspect in

accordance with the inspection frequency document. I said: That is okay. How

well is that being carried out right now? In effect, about 50 per cent of the

inspections that would be required, if you adhered totally to the inspection

frequency document, was being done. Given that we carried over the same staff as

did Health, minus four positions, we basically continued to inspect at the same

frequency rate as did Health previously.

So you use these frequency tools as a guide. If you

run the numbers you will find that, say, for a Class 2 food premise provincially

we are probably getting one and one-half inspections per facility as opposed to

the target which was two. In that case, officers will use their experience and

discretion to focus; the ones they get to the second time will be the ones that

are, in their opinion, more risk or facilities they have had problems with in

the past.

CHAIR: Mr. Mercer.

MR. MERCER: From a layman's perspective I would

have thought that those facilities involved with food preparation, food

production and food manufacturing would possibly be at a greater risk than a

retail food outlet selling pre-packaged food. Therefore, by my logic, I would

have expected to see a greater number of inspections on Classes 2, 3 and 4 and

possibly less on Class 1. It seems as though the numbers appear just the

opposite.

MR. MOORES: As I said, the target is one

inspection per year for Class 1 and two for the Classes 2, 3 and 4. While there

is a difference and you are correct to say that the rate of inspections is

higher, the target that we are aiming for is not that considerably higher.

The other issue to look at is besides food premises

inspections, if you take a dairy as an example - which would be a food

production facility - in addition to the inspections that are done as a food

premise by a health inspector, there would also be inspections done by others,

for instance who are in the area of agricultural inspections. To focus strictly

on the inspections that are done on that facility by a health inspector, well,

they are probably not all the inspections that are being done at that premise.

MR. MERCER: Just one last question at this time on

the whole issue of risk, and you have mentioned that before. I think in your

preamble one of the areas you had not addressed in terms of the Auditor

General's report was the whole issue of risk. Where are we going with that and

when can we expect some information on this whole notion of risk management?

MR. COATES: In terms of risk management, here is a

little brief expos of what it means. We are developing a framework and we hope

to within a couple of months have that framework ready for consultation. What

the framework will do is establish sort of the broad criteria in terms of what

is a risky premise. It was mentioned by Mr. Moores about a Class 2 premise. We

are talking about anything from, let's say, a hotel restaurant to a personal

care home serving facility to a facility like a Marie's Mini Mart which may have

a side delicatessen to it.

In themselves you can make some relatively quick

judgments to say where you might think would be the highest risk or what some of

the criteria may be. One would think that a high volume restaurant might have

some elevated risk because of the nature and scope of its practice. You might

think there may be some risk characteristics with a personal care home because

of its population in terms of the senior citizens. Indeed, you may look at the

mini mart because of its lack of a sanitation program in terms of in-house,

where as some other facilities, such as McDonald's as an example, or other food

chain, would have an in-house sanitation program that is nationally accredited.

So the first part of the framework exercise is to take

all these generic criteria based on the research we have done across the country

- and I might add, there are only four jurisdictions in the country currently

that are even (inaudible); one has it in place and three others are attempting

to implement a risk management framework, so we are not far behind - to identify

those broad areas or broad criteria.

The catcher in the rye with the risk management

framework then is to link in with the data systems that are under development

within the Government Service Center. Because until you can truly get real

evidence to determine what your priorities are in terms of inspection the

framework is just a framework, it is just a broad guide. For example, I just

gave you the example of a hotel restaurant, of a personal care home, and a

retail store with a delicatessen assigned to it. If the evidence that is

documented and we develop the criteria based on the regulatory regime, and we

get some data from Government Service Center that we are starting to see

different violations - say, temperature abuse violations in particular premises

- it may be that some presumption that the violations we are seeing in the mini

mart scenario are so significant that that places that premise at a

significantly higher risk. We can categorically then look at repeat inspection

or other activity to try and eliminate or reduce that risk,

whereas currently we

do not have that kind of advantage.

The frequency document that Mr. Moores referred to was

an arbitrary bunch of people sitting around and deciding that this makes sense -

one here, two there - based on some premonition of risk, but it is not a good

tool. It was only used as guidance and was never meant to be arbitrarily,

fundamentally, you must do. I think it is important for the Committee to

understand that.

We believe that the inspection system is safe and

doing a good job. We believe it because the evidence in terms of when we have an

emergency such as the Schneider's outbreak, as I mentioned, our response times

are great. They are better than anywhere in the country. So, I am not concerned

about the notion of the old frequency document and why we do not have one here

and why we do not have two there. I am concerned about the future, and I

congratulate the Auditor General's report because it has really put a lot of

things into focus for us; and the risk management framework, and time with

AMANDA, I think we are going to have a world-class inspection system within the

foreseeable future.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Mr. Fitzgerald, any questions?

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, just a couple of questions.

If I were opening a restaurant today and I do not

comply with the rules and regulations as it pertains to the identified needs put

forward by the Department of Government Services and Lands, and the Department

of Health and Community Services, what is the procedure? Do I not be allowed to

open, or do you people issue a directive that I am not to serve? If I do not

comply, what happens?

MR. MOORES: If you set out to open a new

restaurant, you would have to come to the Government Service Centre for a number

of permits, one of which is a food premises licence. Another might be the

electrical permit. If you were dispensing liquor, you would also need a liquor

licence.

If the facility, upon inspection, was not up to

scratch, did not meet what was required in the first instance, you would not get

the licence. Now, some people may still continue to operate without the licence,

in which case the officer has the authority under the legislation to issue a

stop order against that premise. People, being people, will sometimes ignore

that as well, in which case the only recourse is through the courts, but the

legislation again allows for that.

As far as how frequently does that happen, to do with

food premises, since the Government Service Centre has been created, we have

never taken anybody to court and there have been no stop-work orders against a

food establishment listed. Once you are up and operating, if we go in and find a

deficiency, then you have to look at the nature of the deficiency, whether it is

cause to hold your licence or to revoke the licence. By and large, the nature of

the deficiencies are such that the officers can say: Look, this is not quite

right; can you correct it? It is not a significant issue that is going to impact

upon the food. It might be as simple as a light out in the freezer.

MR. FITZGERALD: In the Auditor General's report,

it was noted that nine of fifty-one food premises operated for a period of time

without a valid licence, while another five operated the entire year without a

valid licence in 1996-1997. For 1997-1998, twelve of eighty-six premises

operated without a valid licence. Do those premises continue to operate? And,

while the rules and regulations are there, the enforcement is not?

MR. MOORES: I guess at the time of the Auditor

General's report, the only answer is yes, that was correct. The issue that I

guess we found when we followed up on what the Auditor General was saying is: as

you go across the Province, each officer inspected a particular area and was

responsible for facilities within that area, and it was more or less left to

that officer to carry out the inspections of the facilities in that area. The

degree of checking, supervision by management and supervisors, was not what it

should be. If somebody was off sick for a period of time, they got behind, and

while they were inspected some time during the year, which was the goal - not

necessarily within the licensing period - some got missed.

When you are relying on an individual and a number of

individuals reporting back to somebody through a manual system, we found a lot

of holes in the system. In the short term we brought in a daily inspection

policy which indicated what had to be reported on an inspection form, what

format it had to be, what coding had to be used. So, in the first instance, with

just manual records more or less, we standardized the reporting. We put all the

food premises on a Lotus software. At least then we could keep an accurate

account of who had a licence and who did not.

What was happening in some cases, our files continued

to show food premises as existing because nobody simply took the old facility

off the record. In other words, if you had a food premise in your name, it was

on our database. If you then sold the premise to me and I called it Weldon's

Takeout, it was on our database as Weldon's Takeout. Our officer knew we didn't

have to inspect your premise because it didn't exist anymore, but somebody

looking at our list would not necessarily know that your facility was no longer

in business.

Even working with the Lotus software, that is fairly

restrictive. All that is, is an electronic spreadsheet. It doesn't really lend

itself to analysis and automatic reports by exceptions. So we searched across

the country as to what are other provinces, other large municipalities, were

using in this area, not only for food premises. Many other things that we

inspect would need the same type of software. It would be an advantage to more

than just food. What we came up with is - and Reg referred to the word AMANDA.

That is the product name on software that is sold by a (inaudible) Ontario. We

are now in the process - we started in the fall - of putting that software in.

We will put all our food premises locations into that database. Then, as a

facility comes up for renewal, it will electronically forward a work list to the

inspector in the appropriate area. As the inspector does that inspection in the

field, fills out the standard report form, that will go in and log it off as an

outstanding report; so the officer has an up-to-date guide as to where he is

with respect to his workload. Also, that workload can be electronically

monitored by his supervisor or anybody in the organization who would have the

security rights to the system.

While we are better than we were at the time of the

Auditor General's report, we are not quite to where we want to be; but, during

the coming fiscal year, that AMANDA system will be operational and then we will

have plugged the holes that the Auditor General pointed out.

MR. FITZGERALD: How many businesses do you think

would be operating today without a valid licence from your department?

MR. MOORES: Today I don't think there are any;

because, what we did is, we took the Auditor General's list and said: Here are

the ones that are on the list; certainly check them. They apparently have been

operating without a licence for a year. We also said to our supervisors and

managers: Look, instead of just leaving this to the individual officer, you are

going to have to compare the field inspections done by the officers to this

Lotus spreadsheet, the inventory of our facilities, and make sure none get

missed.

MR. FITZGERALD: I am going to make a statement,

too, Mr. Chairman, and it has nothing to do with the Auditor General's report. I

know a few years ago that your department did a survey and went around to all

the small convenience stores in communities in rural Newfoundland and kind of

encouraged them or put the heavy hand on them to install bathroom facilities,

and it resulted in some businesses having to close altogether. The rules and

regulations were that there had to be hot and cold running water, there had to

be a bathroom, there had to be a sink, just for the simple reason that somebody

sliced bologna or cut cheese in that establishment.

Now, I challenge anybody to go down to Tickle Cove or

Open Hall and go into some of those convenience stores that are put there on a

bald rock and put in a sewer system. It cannot be done. As a result, because

some of those activities were carried out, people ended up closing their

establishments, some place where they could try to feed their families. Is that

activity still ongoing?

MR. COATES: Perhaps I can try and address it and,

Weldon, you can probably kick in.

In terms of that policy, I get back to what I said

earlier about risk management. That policy was based on an arbitrary

understanding of standards and so on and so forth. It did not have a lot of

weight in science and, as far as I know, the policy is certainly not being

actively enforced today. Since 1996, we developed new regulations that would

supersede any of that anyhow.

As far as businesses closing, I am aware of some of

the aggravation at the time. I think we addressed the aggravation at the time

with a lot of the specific premises you have in mind, because I know there were

some on the Bonavista Peninsula. I don't think - and I stand to be corrected and

I accede to your wisdom - that any premises were certainly closed by us, or

closed by Government Services on behalf of us. All I can say is that in our move

towards a more science-based standard we are getting away from those kinds of

arbitrary decisions that cause grief for your constituents.

MR. MOORES: Just to add to that, if we should run

into a premise that - if it meets the regulations, that is our first and

foremost guide. If it is outside the policy, before we would just arbitrarily

enforce the policy to the detriment of a business, we would go back to the

Department of Health and say: Look, here is the situation. Do you want to have a

second look at it and guide us as to what we do?

I would say there is not a week goes by - previously

my contact was Reg - that I did not talk to Reg. More recently my contact is

Darrell, and we are in regular contact. Our regional offices, when they run into

problems like that, that is one of the roles of my position, the support

services division, to make sure that we are consistent in what we do across the

Province. As problems come up, we will liaise back with the Department of Health

and make sure that the policy makes sense, as opposed to just blindly enforcing

it.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Would the Auditor General like to comment on that

issue with respect to operating without a valid licence?

MS MARSHALL: One thing came to mind when Mr.

Moores was speaking, and that was when he was talking about the list of

premises. We had a problem with determining the integrity of the list. I think

he was saying there were some that were closed, and we were not sure if there

was a total list, if the list was totaled. I think in a couple of your regions

we did not have a list; we had to go back to the officials and ask them to

actually go back and compile a list. We had a significant problem in that area.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Something came to my mind when Mr. Coates was speaking

a few minutes ago, when he was referring to the Schneider's situation a few

years ago - last year or a couple of years ago. One of the things that jumped

out of the Auditor General's report to me, one of the things that I took to be

the most serious there, was this, and it kind of relates to what you just said.

You talked about the response time that you have in place when something like

that arises. To me, food premise inspection and the like would be more to do -

although that is important - with prevention of something like that happening.

One of the concerns that came to mind when I was

reading the report was the fact that there were a number of food inspections

done and a number of the establishments were found to have infractions of

various natures and what have you. They were, I imagine, told to correct the

problems, but they were never, ever followed upon. To me, that is a major

concern. I wonder if somebody would like to address that? I think it needs to be

addressed.

MR. MOORES: I guess, to get the full picture, you

would have to look at the nature of the complaint; because sometimes what the

officer will say is: Look, this is not correct. You should fix it and, quite

honestly, does not go back and check it because it is a fairly low priority

deficiency. We rely on the officers -

CHAIR: Excuse me, can I just interject here? Maybe

what we should do is have the Auditor General speak to that and then you can

respond, because I was going to have her speak to it anyway.

MR. MOORES: Okay.

CHAIR: Okay.

MS MARSHALL: Perhaps I can just put it context and

give the Committee some idea as to the types of infractions that we were talking

about. He was saying some of them were not severe. It would be things like

improper refrigeration temperatures, heavy ice building up in the deep freezer,

washrooms floors that required replacement. Then there were others that were a

little bit more severe. I am looking for the ones that are severe.

WITNESS: Pest control, mouse droppings.

MS MARSHALL: Yes, there is one here that refers to

mouse droppings; call pest control re mouse problem. Those were the types of

hazards that we found in the files, so probably that could just put it in

context.

MR. MOORES: Okay.

The last one first, mouse droppings. What an officer

may give in that instance was to, within a very short period of time - like

immediately - have somebody from PCO or a company like that come in, and - call

an exterminator. Now, rather than go back and necessarily inspect to see that

had been done, we would ask them to fax a copy of their contract, receipt or

whatever, to prove that had actually been carried out. Some of the deficiencies

can be followed up on without a physical inspection again.

What I was going to say is that the real measure that

we would use as to, I guess, how serious any of these deficiencies have been, is

that there have been no outbreaks of disease reported from any of the licensed

food premises within the department caused by something that happened at that

location. The Schneider's outbreak that we referred to earlier originated from

what would be, in our terms, a food production facility in Quebec. It was picked

up here because the product ended up on our shelves, but a food premises

inspection would not - when you look at the package, it was a pre-packaged food

and appeared as good as any other pre-packaged food. It only got picked up when

people got sick, after the fact.

CHAIR: Wouldn't you agree that prevention, with

respect to food premises inspection, is more of a pre-emptive thing rather than

a reaction to a given situation? Wouldn't that be the more important objective

of the food inspections divisions?

MR. MOORES: Yes. I think I will let Reg Coates

answer that one.

MR. COATES: You are absolutely correct. I don't

think anybody can argue with that. There are a couple of things to remember. One

is that the food inspection system is but one component of the continuum to deal

with food safety in the Province, in that the food safety education programs

that are again to some extent in infancy but have been developed and delivered

for many years, are part of that process in educating food handlers. Enforcement

is only one technique, and if we rely solely on enforcement we probably would be

in a much sadder state than we are. Our surveillance systems pick up the end

product, as you again point out.

The reason that the example of emergency response is

so important is to note that we dealt with an emergency quickly and efficiently.

The analogy is that we are also dealing with the high-risk areas quickly and

efficiently.

The Auditor General pointed out several areas that you

could categorize very quickly. In commonsense terms, what would be a higher

risk? Certainly a bathroom floor, by no way, compares to a refrigeration

differential in terms of temperature abuse. Obviously, the temperature abuse

situation should be dealt with quickly and efficiently, as opposed to a bathroom

floor. Although one could argue, with some of the bathroom floors that we have

seen in some of our public facilities, we would probably like to get some of

those corrected as well.

I keep referring back to the risk management system

because we have to start looking at science both in terms of the information it

provides us from a program policy development but also in terms of what AMANDA

and the framework can provide the Government Service Centre from an enforcement

perspective. The very specific questions you ask now are very difficult to

answer, number one, because the electronic recording systems were dated, they

were archaic. They were old, they were difficult to retrieve information, and

that was part and parcel with the technology of the day.

Secondly, in terms of the way we carried out business,

inspectors were focused on looking for the broken floor tile. They were focused

on looking for the broken ceiling tile. They were not familiar with the themes

of risk. This is not new stuff, but in terms of the way we do business it is

new. They are not familiar with looking for the things that we need to be

looking for.

In terms of developing risk management framework and

those other things, we also have to focus on the education not only of the

public but the education of the staff. We are working in that direction and some

training is happening next month to start beginning that process as well.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Mr. Lush, do you have any questions?

MR. LUSH: I don't know whether I do or not. I had

a lot before we began.

CHAIR: Okay, we will move on.

MR. LUSH: I was sort of like Mr. Mercer. When I

read this, I was a little bit confused. I thought that things were in a state of

confusion; that the department, or the departments, did not know where they were

going or how they were going to get there; that they did not have any goals or

objectives, and were not operating according to the MOU. Nobody seemed to know

where they were going.

Anyway, Mr. Coates, you sort of relieved that

somewhat, and I feel that I can go home and eat my lunch without worrying too

much whether it was touched by Newfoundland hands. I really was concerned that

things were not going the way they should be, that they ought to be, and that

there was some concern about how food and food premises were being controlled or

not controlled.

I guess you sort of, as I said, relieved that fear and

suggested that the Auditor General's report was beneficial and that things are

now moving in a different direction, or maybe in the direction where they

probably ought to go.

I was just wondering about something. Ms Knight made

the remarks to the effect, about the structure, that everything was going fine

with the two departments, the Government Services and Lands and the Department

of Health, and the boards. There is no problem with the structure as such?

MS KNIGHT: No. Certainly having a divided

responsibility puts an obligation on both departments to have good

communications with one another at all levels from the top down. Luckily, with

the Department of Health, I think we have those systems in place. The MOU is a

guide and a framework which we operate under, and in addition to that, as I say,

our regional people have to talk to regional people with Health and right up

through the system. As long as those communications channels are there and we

can get the advice and expertise when we need it from the Department of Health

this system works fairly well.

MR. LUSH: You mentioned as well, I think,

something to the effect that the report itself is called the Department of

Government Services and Lands. Is that the department under which all of this

comes, or is there equal sharing of responsibilities?

MS KNIGHT: The Department of Government Services

and Lands is responsible for the inspection and the licensing of food premises.

The policy and the legislation rest with the Department of Health and Community

Services. That is a standard practice actually. There is a number of areas

within the Government Services and Lands where we do that on behalf of other

departments, where the policy and the legislation rests in one department and

the inspection and the permitting is done by Government Services and Lands.

MR. LUSH: In the recollection of the people

present, whichever person would be responsible, have there actually been

establishments closed down in Newfoundland - I am thinking of restaurants in

particular - for not being in compliance with the rules and regulations?

MR. MOORES: Since the Government Service Centre

was formed, there was one facility that was - as far as inside the building

there was no real problems with it, but it technically did not meet the food

premises requirements in that its septic system was malfunctioning. Under the

health legislation, if you actually read the legislation, the way this

particular deficiency was working you couldn't argue it was impacting upon the

food quality within the premise. One of the benefits of the Government Service

Centre was that in addition to enforcing legislation on behalf of the Department

of Health and Community Services we also enforce on behalf of the Department of

Environment and Labour. This had to do with the septic system in this particular

instance. Because once you get into the larger systems they are regulated under

the Department of Environment and Labour legislation instead of health

legislation. We used the authority of the Environment Act to issue an

ministerial order to stop use of the malfunctioning septic system.

The owner came back and said: The reason the system is

malfunctioning is because I have converted my premise from a takeout to a

restaurant and I cannot handle, without upgrading the septic system, the

additional volume the restaurant puts on it. Can I revert and operate as a

takeout? We put conditions in place where he could revert to a takeout but could

not operate as a restaurant until the septic system was upgraded. That business

later voluntarily closed because they were not making enough money as a takeout.

That would be the only one that I can recall where we

specifically dealt with a significant problem that resulted ultimately in the

closure of a facility. In the short term, that food establishment licence was

held back. It was not issued until we had a commitment in writing that he was

not going to be operating as a restaurant.

MR. LUSH: I think it is pretty important today,

regardless of which classification we are dealing with out of the four, where

servers are handling food and serving the public, that we follow proper hygiene

and proper health rules, particularly today where we are encouraging tourism,

people coming from all over the world. I think it is very important that our

people involved in the distribution and the handling of food understand this.

I say to Mr. Fitzgerald that I've eaten lots of

bologna where there were no bathroom facilities and I've eaten lots of cheese.

Today I am a little more particular. I am very careful about where I buy things

because health is such an important thing. I know that if you were to talk to

our people and read the Auditor General's report many of our people would say:

Get out of my life, I'm trying to do something. You cannot do anything in

Newfoundland today because whatever you do you are bothered by rules and

regulations. I say it again, I think handling food and distributing food is

vital to our health. I think we have to ensure that all of our establishments

are operating in the most healthy manner, that you and I can go in and buy food,

eat food, resting assured that everything is fine, that nothing is going to

happen. I think we have to set some pretty high standards, and maybe we have to

educate our people to understand that this is a requirement.

Having said that, I am wondering about something.

Again, I had a problem from somebody in a bakery business who complained about

inspections because they were making life very difficult. They had to put labels

on the food to indicate what was in it, everything had to be named that was put

in the food. I'm just wondering how strictly that is enforced. For example, I go

to stores now and I will get cookies and I will look for a label. Many times

there is no label on them. I'm just wondering how this is happening, whether

this is provided by somebody in the community who is not operating commercially.

If that is so then that is unfair to the commercial people who are required to

do this. The point is, I have seen baked products in stores with no labels on

them. Is that according to the law?

MR. COATES: Perhaps I can take a stab at that, Mr.

Lush.

First off, in terms of your concerns about having a

safe food supply, I share those concerns. Specific to the labeling issue,

labeling is governed by federal legislation and federal regulations. The

enforcement of labeling criteria is done by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

It is not a provincial matter so we do not deal with it. If we do find areas of

labeling or find situations where labeling is not being applied, even though we

are not trained specific to the federal legislation - and Weldon can correct me

- we would attempt to try and notify the federal authorities.

One of the things that we are trying to do now - we

just entertained some preliminary negotiations - is renegotiating a Memorandum

of Agreement with the federal government and the CFIA in looking at the

relationship in the food continuum between the federal government and ourselves.

Back in 1988 was the last MOA that existed. It existed at that point in time

between our department, which was the Department of Health at that time, and the

Health Protection Branch within Health Canada.

As you may be aware, the federal government carried

out a restructuring in the last few years not too dissimilar to what we have

done here. They consolidated all the food inspection programs between

agriculture, fisheries and health to form the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Interestingly enough, in terms of setting food safety policy and standards

nationally, Health Canada maintains that role which, as I said, is not too

dissimilar with our particular function here. We were first though, by the way.

In terms of the issues about prevention, one of the

critical things about prevention is the notion of educating the public,

educating the operators, and assuring an appropriate level of training for

operators within the system. I mentioned earlier about national standards. Late

in 1999 the national group responsible for harmonizing standards across the

country in terms of delivering templates completed and ratified the first

edition of the national food services and food retail code. Once we get through

with our risk management framework Mr. Johnson, to my far right, is given the

ultimate task of starting the analysis of that particular document to see how we

comply with this template. In that template is a fairly significant

section on

food service retail training for food service workers. We hope to start

developing or ratifying existing national and international programs on food

safety and to put a program and a database in play for that within our Province.

Now that is some time in the future but at least that is a preliminary look at

it. All your comments are well taken and I concur.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Any other questions?

MR. LUSH: I will wait until after a coffee, I

think.

CHAIR: Hungry?

MR. LUSH: Yes. I was just going to make a

humourous comment. I wish that you could require bathrooms. I'm getting to the

age where I use the bathroom a lot and I wish you could require bathrooms at all

of the major stores everywhere. There is nothing worse than a drugstore - these

things are getting humongous today, and you go in there and there is not a

washroom in the place. I think a lot of people are getting to my age and we

should have washrooms in just about every public facility there is.

CHAIR: Good point. We will take a break on that

one. Fifteen minutes.

Recess

CHAIR: Order, please!

Thank you. We will get this hearing reconvened.

When we broke Mr. Lush was on a topic that you would

not normally bring it up at a food inspection hearing. I don't know if Mr. Lush

was finished.

MR. LUSH: When you are desperate you have to speak

your mind wherever you are and hope that it gets somewhere.

I just wanted to ask something. For just about every

division, when the Auditor General started off, there were suggestions, I think,

that we lacked appropriate goals and objectives and stating where we are going

and how we are going to get there. Have we improved that situation?

CHAIR: Ms Knight.

MS KNIGHT: Speaking from the Government Services

and Lands perspective, we have gotten into a process of developing operational

plans for all of our branches in the past two years and we are in the process

now of revising those plans. At the time when the Auditor General did her report

we were not doing operational plans at the divisional level and we are doing

those today. So yes, we do have goals and objectives set as per the Auditor

General's recommendations.

MR. LUSH: I have a question for the Auditor

General, if that is permitted.

Just about, again, in every report the Auditor General

puts out that is a favorite condemnation of all government departments, mostly

which she does, that they lack goals and objectives. That is pretty basic, goals

and objectives. They state where you are going and how you are going to get

there. It is amazing how we have carried on for years not knowing where we are

going. Probably we knew where we were going, we just did not have it stated.

This became a preoccupation of educators, maybe back

twenty years ago, that you had to state your objectives and your goals. That is

one of the first things you did. That is the question I am asking the Auditor

General. Is this some new system of auditing or a new concern of Auditor

Generals with respect to goals and objectives? Where were we before we developed

this notion of having goals and objectives? I think they are very important by

the way, I am just wondering whether we are behind in terms of doing this kind

of planning.

MS MARSHALL: No, it is not a new concept, because

I have been Auditor General for eight years and it has always been a part of the

auditing environment. I know when I worked with the Department of Finance back

in the early 1980s we had goals, objectives and plans back then. It is just a

basic management tool, but we do find in the public service, and I am sure it is

probably existing in the private sector too, that people don't usually lay out

what their goals and objectives are. For Government Services and Lands what I

expected to see was, as Ms Knight said, a plan. We do an audit plan for my

office every year. Right now or last month, in January, we laid out all the

audits we are going to do for the next year and exactly when we are going to do

them, things like that. We would expect to see the same when we go into a

government department for each of their programs, but it is generally lacking

throughout the public service.

MS KNIGHT: This is just to follow up on your

concern, Mr. Lush. The government generally, in the past several years, have

gotten into asking all departments to do strategic plans and operational plans,

so I think you will find, if you check today, that all departments are required

to do an annual departmental plan based on a longer term strategic plan. Yes, I

think you will find within all departments today and certainly within Government

Service and Lands we have done a five-year strategic plan for the whole

department, and at the operational level all our divisions are now doing annual

operational plans. That is becoming fairly standard throughout government.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Mr. Joyce.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you.

I just have a few comments and two brief questions.

First of all, my wife is a food nutritionist and she

is very aware of the health concerns dealing with food and the health risks with

food. On a personal note, and I know Roger raised it, on the record I would just

like to comment on the field officers I deal with in Western Newfoundland. They

have a balancing act to do from a health perspective as to someone who is trying

to make a living. Personally, I think they are doing a great job. I know in

rural Newfoundland they have these regulations that sometimes were developed

probably in St. John's but they have to try to adapt them for rural

Newfoundland. I think they do a good job. They help out a lot of businesses to

take the regulations and live up to it the best they can. Sometimes they do,

sometimes they don't, but in general it is pretty good.

We heard earlier here about the washing of our hands

and the refrigeration. I can tell you from experiences that that is the major

source of contamination, if your hands are not washed before handling food, or

refrigeration, so it is very important. If you balance it all across

Newfoundland and Labrador the regulations are pretty well adhered to and the

compliancy is pretty good.

I just have two basic questions. The Auditor General,

as Ms Marshall mentions, is not usually getting into this. Do any of the witness

feel that this was a worthwhile exercise from the Auditor General, a sober

second thought for the department? I know a lot of the time when this

information was put together the Department of Health and Community Services was

just coming on stream and some people from Government Services went with

community health. It was a learning process. Do you feel that the Auditor

General did a good job, just a second sober thought for you guys? The second

question is: How far have you gone from where the Auditor General mentioned in

her report to now and with the recommendations that she made. Is there any time

frame when you will have most of the recommendation completed?

MS KNIGHT: I will just answer very generally and

then ask Weldon and Reg to follow up with more detail.

Yes, certainly we regarded the Auditor General's

report as useful. It is a good framework and a guide for us to judge how well we

are doing in this area. Certainly at the time it was done it was just when the

Government Service Centres were formed so we were finding our way then in terms

of how to operate, so it was done at a very initial time when there was a lot of

change within the department. Perhaps if she had done here report today I am

sure it would have been a better reflection of what we are doing than it was at

the time.

In terms of meeting all the recommendations, the major

response that we had was that when we get our new computer system up and running

it is going to allow us to get much better control and management over our

inspections and licensing system. As I mentioned, that system is being worked on

right now. We should be going live with it before the end of the fiscal year.

Once that is up and running and we are able to gather the data from that, we

will be in a much better position to have said we have met most of the concerns

that the Auditor General has outlined.

MR. MOORES: Also, I think as the Government

Service Centre evolved, we found certain areas where, if we realign what certain

people are doing, we might do a better job on food premises inspections. An

example of that would be that previously health inspectors, in addition to

So, the Government Service Centre made a recommendation to the Department of

Health that we really should get out of the business of designing septic systems

and put that out to approved septic systems designers - for instance, the

private sector - and that would free up some of our staff time to devote a bit

more time to food inspections and other more critical health related items.

Health has agreed, and while the Department of Health

had the plan at the same time as the Government Service Centre, they moved to

the risk base management, as Reg. was talking about, which will be another big

help there. Reg, you might want to comment further on that one.

MR. COATES: I guess a general comment to your

first point, from my perspective, since I was given the file and carry the file

forward at least until now, the Auditor General's review and the interface with

the Auditor General's office has been a great experience for me personally, to

begin with.

Secondly, in terms of the recommendations, I think

they are bang on. I think they are very useful, very helpful. While we realize

much of the deficiencies, for lack of a better word, that were noted in the

report, the fact that somebody else external to our system was noting the same

thing was immensely beneficial to say we are right on track.

In terms of the specific products that we are trying

to move forward with, based on the recommendations in the report, I think we

have about 70 per cent of it done. The risk management piece is a long-term

issue. It is very difficult for me to predict when it will get to its final

fruits, because part of it has to do with the acceptance of the framework, the

development of the data, the analysis of the database, the refinement of the

framework, and then the institution of a program.

You say your wife is a nutritionist. She would be

familiar with the re-engineered QMP that the federal government does; that is a

re-engineering quality management program, which is a risk-based inspection

system, which is our end goal.

All of these have to follow in some logical sequence,

and we are well along that path. In fact, as I said, in comparison to a lot of

jurisdictions we are in the middle of the pack - Canadian jurisdictions that is.

I think we have a lot done as a result of the Auditor

General's report, probably done in a more focused fashion. I think we still have

a lot to do, and I think we are well on our way to do it.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Ms Hodder.

MS M. HODDER: Thank you.

I guess, after the

preamble and all of the questions

asked around the table, it does not leave a whole lot at this particular point.

As a point of personal observation, I believe that we are doing something right

in the Province. This has certainly been a marked improvement in the way food is

being handled in fast food places and in restaurants, if you notice as you go

through. You will always notice now, when you go in, that people are using

sterile gloves to handle food in most places if they are making a sandwich or

whatever, and this is great.

I was just wondering: Is there a certain program or

anything that is offered to give people advice on the handling of food in food

establishments, or is this something set by the company themselves?

MR. COATES: It varies. Our Health and Community

Services Boards, in terms of having environmental health personnel on staff,

they have - I will not say in a routine fashion - historically gone out to meet

with groups and to give lectures and training sessions vis--vis food handling

training. It has not been profiled in the sense that we create a lot of

publicity about it. It has not been pro-active in the sense that we have been

doing it as a sort of voluntary or mandatory training program.

That notwithstanding, a lot of companies, particularly

national chains, have their own in-house inspection programs as well as their

own in-house training programs. Some of the larger firms, particularly in the

manufacturing sector, try to get into HACCP-based programming which is a risk

assessment inspection, and try to get accredited to international standards such

as the ISO 9001 series. Depending on the level of the facility and the level of

inspection, you can get different variations.

One of the things that we are hoping to do in the

future, and I think I alluded to it earlier, is to look at the food services and

food retail code that was developed nationally, and to look at particularly the

sections on training to see if we can bring in at least some standard for

training, such as BC Food Safe, which would be an equivalent training that we

would reciprocally agree to be acceptable for our Province, and then to start

developing a database with those people who are trained.

As you can appreciate, in the food services industry,

a lot of the people are young people and they are very transient so it is a

difficult thing to keep on top of. It is a priority area for us, at least in

this particular program.

Thank you.

MS HODDER: Thank you. I have one more question.

Does the department have any standard health guidelines in place to assess

temporary food facilities, since these are exempt from having inspections

(inaudible)?

MR. COATES: Prior to the regulatory development in

1996, we had developed policy guidelines for temporary food facilities. In 1996,

arising through the regulatory reform process, we developed a new set of

regulations in consultation with the Regulatory Reform Commission. Those

regulations exempted temporary food facilities specifically from the regulatory

regime, vis--vis unless they met with standard health guidelines.

The policies that were developed at that time were, in

effect, standard health guidelines. Since that time, with lessons learned from

the national harmonization processes, we have now developed, over this last

year, as a result of the work plan and linked to the Auditor General's report, a

first or second draft of standard health guidelines for temporary food

facilities. We are certainly on target and, by the end of this fiscal year, will

have them out, ready, published, in public.

As far as the inspection of temporary facilities go -

Mr. Moores can correct me - certainly the major events in this Province are

inspected by inspectors with the Government Service Centre and we maintain

vigilance in that area as well.

MS HODDER: Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Mr. Fitzgerald.

MR. FITZGERALD: I would just like to make a couple

of more comments before closing and say thank you to the Committee, because in

my dealings with some of the members here, I have found them very cooperative. I

have had to approach them and seek guidance or understanding. That is the thing

that I want to throw out this morning. It is obvious that you people are going

in the right direction here, but I caution you not to bring in blanket policies

to affect everybody. I know that cleanliness is important, and I know that the

handling of food is important, but you also have to keep in mind sometimes that

when you look at the Lions Club out in Musgravetown, or you look at the fire

department down in Port Union, that goes out on a regular basis and serves cold

plates, serves meals and this kind of thing, while they should serve good food

and they should serve clean food, to be served in clean places, in a healthy

way, I think, when you bring in rules and regulations, that those people should

not be looked at in the same guise or under the same planning or whatever as

people who would regularly do this at the Delta Hotel or Hotel St. John's.

Another question I would like to ask is about this

best-before date. Do you people do inspections when you go into establishments

and find that the best-before date is on the shelf and it should not be there?

I have a friend of mine who has a business out in my

home town and that is all he eats, he tells me. When he takes the best-before

date off the shelf, he takes it home and he, his wife and their family, eats it.

If there is a can which shows up without a label, it goes in his shelf; and it

is always a surprise whether he is opening a can of beans or a can of milk. He

appears to be pretty healthy, to me, and does not have a problem with it.

I brought in a piece of legislation - although it was

put through the House of Assembly in somebody else's name - called the Good

Samaritan act, if you recall - to help food banks in getting food from

establishments and to take away the liability of those establishments if in some

case something happened to the food and somebody got sick. As a result of that,

in talking with Mr. Walters, I understand that it has increased the giving to

the food bank quite substantially and it has been working quite well. I don't

see anything wrong with day-old doughnuts, and I don't see anything wrong with

sometimes people taking -

MR. LUSH: Particularly if they are on sale.

MR. FITZGERALD: I beg your pardon?

MR. LUSH: Particularly if they are on sale.

MR. FITZGERALD: Particularly if they are on sale,

or if they can help somebody else put food on the table or serve up a meal. I

put out the plea: don't bring in a blanket policy that affects all. Use the

common sense as you have done in the past.

MR. COATES: In terms of your question on the

best-before date, I am happy to say that it is also a federal requirement. The

best-before date is not a measure of food safety, it is a measure of quality,

and often if you have found a product that is expired from the best-before date,

particularly if is your doughnuts, I would not worry. By the time they had

gotten to the point of spoilage that they could cause you harm they would be

green and fuzzy in terms of mold. Otherwise, best-before dates are a good

measure for quality but they are not absolute and people tend to link them to

food safety, such that if the food product is expired then it is not safe. In

many cases that is not true. If you look at milk that is expired on the

best-before date, often it has become spoiled and you would not drink it anyhow.

I would never link best-before dates to food safety. As I said, I am happy to

report that is a federal requirement and it is their responsibility to enforce

it.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Any more questions, Committee members?

Mr. Mercer.

MR. MERCER: I would like just a synopsis from you

perhaps. I have been taking a very quick look at the 1999 Memorandum of

Understanding and doing a comparison with 1995. It seems to me that you have

become more specific in terms of the programs that you are going to be looking

into, and more definitive. Can you give me some of the main highlights of the

main differences between the 1999 and the 1995, quite apart from the length?

MR COATES: Perhaps I can take a stab at that as

well. In 1995 the programs that were essentially transferred were under the

environmental health banner, which would include food inspection and things of

the like, inspection systems. Also at that time or a little later there was some

transference of programs offered under the Welfare Institutions Licensing and

Inspection Authority which would plan reviews and physical inspection for

electrical and building and life safety for facilities such as personal care

homes, as an example, in terms of health input.

Today, as opposed to 1995, we have a much more

expanded relationship with the Government Service Centre. We are a much bigger

department, Health and Community Services, where we have incorporated some of

the programs and personnel from the former HRE, Child Welfare, Youth

Corrections, those kinds of things. We now have as a department of health the

mandated responsibility for child care centers in terms of regulation, in terms

of the new Child Care Services Act; we have a new manual in place for governing

personal care homes in terms of the policy and the way we administer services to

personal care homes; and we have dealings with a whole variety of other types of

facilities such as group home, co-op apartments and a whole variety of things.

In the process of revising the MOU it became clearly

relevant to us at the time that our role and interface with the Government

Service Centre was well beyond environmental health services, so we tried to

capture some of that in the new MOU. At the same time we tried to be a bit

specific on some of the new detail because it was new ground, uncharted

territory. So while there may be some apparent new detail in terms of process,

this still is a work in progress and that MOU, as you can clearly see, is vetted

for annual review. In fact, I think the Assistant Deputy Minister of our board

services already received some nominations for the Standing Committee to perform

that annual review which will hopefully occur later on, in the next fiscal year.

It is really an understanding. I mean, you have to

understand we are talking about two government departments and six incorporated

boards and we are all working for the same goal: hopefully for the promotion and

protection of the public health and safety. What the document does is try and

keep the lines of responsibility clear as opposed to them muddying over time

with changes in faces, changes in names, changes in people. I don't think any of

us around the table, at least in terms of Government Services and Lands and the

department as well as our boards, are fuzzy about our responsibilities

currently. Things change, people change, times change, and this document is

meant to sort of keep us in check as well in terms of our accountability.

Thank you.

MR. MERCER: Essentially, in some respects it does

address the issue I think that Tom raised about goals and objectives. It does

serve as a framework in which you do work. You do essentially know what it is

you have to do and where you are going and when you get there. So it does serve

that role as well?

MS MARSHALL: Could I just make one comment there?

The thing though that is not in here, and I would not expect it to be in here,

would be the operational plan for the year. So that is something that you are

planning to do or you are doing. That is what I understood this morning.

CHAIR: Mr. Coates.

MR. COATES: In terms of both departments, we all

have strategic business plans, as the Deputy Minister has stated. We have ours

as well and of course, as one would expect, our operational plan covers a few

more things including inspection.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

I have a few questions and maybe concerns. With

respect to staffing, I think it was mentioned earlier that there are some

seventy field inspectors Province-wide, I suppose. Has that number been cut over

recent years through government cutbacks in staffing? Are there fewer there now

than there was three, four or five years ago?

MR. MOORES: Yes. As with a great number of

departments throughout government, resulting from fiscal constraint, it is fair

to say all of our program areas lost some staff. It was not any one program area

that got hit. The year in which it happened with respect to the health

inspections: if you look at 1996-1997 we had twenty-nine, and 1997-1998 we had

twenty-four.

CHAIR: What impact does that have on the number of

inspections?

MR. MOORES: It decreased the total number of

inspections. In 1996-1997 we did 7,553, in 1997-1998 we did 6,334, so in total

it dropped by about 1,200.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Earlier on there were some comments - it seems to be

prevalent throughout the discussion here this morning - with respect to the

operating procedures, talking about goals and objectives and what have you. It

seems to me, from what I have heard this morning, in March 2000 when your

computerized system comes in place you are going to have a fair bit of the

concerns of the Auditor General, and the concerns that were brought up here this

morning, addressed. I want to ask a few specific questions with respect to the

concerns of the Auditor General to make sure that they will be addressed.

Page 3 of the Committee documents, quoting from the

Auditor General's report, under Conclusions, reads: "The Government Service

Centre could not demonstrate whether food premises are fully complying with the

Food Premises Regulations because..." the report itself does not provide enough

information and they are not always completed. Would you be able to address

that? I think the report of the inspectors themselves - what the Auditor General

is saying - is that it is not complete enough. Is the report itself being looked

at, revised and updated and what have you?

MR. MOORES: That is a two-step process. In the

first instance we have brought in standardized reporting for daily inspections.

That at least makes sure each officer is reporting the details of where they are

going in the field, the type of inspection and what they are doing. The Auditor

General's report also said there are certain things that need to be recorded on

the form to tell you how good or bad the particular premise was at responding to

the regulations. That side of the form has not been nailed down yet. That is

part of the risk management process. Once that gets developed we will be adding

other items to the form that the officers have to capture.

I don't know if Reg would want to add to that.

MR. COATES: Certainly.

In terms of the risk management framework - and I keep

coming back to that because it is a critical piece - we will have that up and

running, as I said. We are a little bit behind because of the vacancy in our

department. We have some preliminary notions to the kind of data that we want

recorded. We will be working with the Government Service Centre and we will

probably hit their target on line within a month or so, after AMANDA is in

place, to build onto their modules, to look for that specific data.

As far as the full implementation of the process, it

is going to take at least a year's worth of data for us to do some analysis on

it before we can say how effective we have been in designing our framework. Like

I say, we are a little bit behind but I think it is not going to be significant

enough to prevent us perhaps this time next year having some preliminary

feedback in terms of data gathering.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Ms Marshall, would you like to comment on that?

MS MARSHALL: That is basically in line with what

we wanted to see. I think a big factor in all this is (inaudible) you are going

to be able to get the data in and then get the data out and start using the

data. I am looking forward, actually, to seeing what is coming out of that

system.

CHAIR: Thank you.

With respect to that - and this leads into the next

one - the Government Service Centre was supposed to submit monthly statistical

summaries to the board and then quarterly statements, I suppose, to the

departments, and all the regions of the Province have not been doing that

consistently. Would that also be addressed in the new, updated system?

MR. COATES: I guess it is again a bit of two-part

question. The statistics that currently the Government Service Centre is capable

of generating are essentially administrative in nature; the numbers of

inspections, which is a lot of the focus in here. The value to health

departments and health regions is limited because we are not in the business of

administering staff. We want to find out what are the health end points that are

not being met. So we have not been exactly, for lack of a better word,

characterizing that as a major concern for us. We have not been going after the

Government Service Centre saying, we are not getting our monthly reports,

because the meaning for us is not huge. How many inspections they do in a year

of Class 1, Class 2, Class 3, really does not tell us a whole lot other than

what it says. What we need to get to is: Where are the health risks? So it has

not been a huge issue for us and I suspect, depending on the region, it has not

been a huge issue for the Government Service Centre.

MR. MOORES: Actually the new MOU basically says it

shall be monthly or at such other period that shall be agreed to between the

respective Regional Government Service Centre and Regional Health and Community

Services Board.

In the response to the public accounts letter, we put

an example in the text on page 62, handwritten, of a typical monthly report in

our Western Region, and that is one of the regions in the Province where they

decided, albeit the report contained a lot of numbers and not exactly what they

would like to see, it would be typical of the information that they did find

useful, and that region is submitting on a monthly basis.

CHAIR: Auditor General.

MS MARSHALL: The basis of my comment in that

regard is that the Government Service Centre is just that, it is a service

centre, and I was expecting to see information related to both the Department of

Health and the community health boards on the inspections. I would assume this

type of information will now be generated by your new system. It will not just

be statistical information, but there will also be qualitative information, is

that correct?

MR. COATES: Again, referring back to - and I am

starting to sound like a broken record - the risk management system and the

framework, what we want to build on, theoretically, by example, is: if we look

at a food premise that is a Class 2, we are going to start identifying certain

critical perimeters, like temperature abuse, cross-contamination, personal

hygienic habits. Clearly, when we start seeing violations, there would be a code

attached to those so that the data modules would include those kinds of codes.

Then we can start looking at where we are getting our greatest and highest risk

areas so we can start targeting our inspections more effectively. That is the

kind of level we want to get down to eventually. That may take some time.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Again, with respect to complaints to the departments,

the Auditor General notes that not all complaints are investigated and followed

up. Also, in 1997-1998 there was a total of 190 complaints and in 1998-1999 a

total of 213. Have all these complaints been dealt with? What is the status?

MR. MOORES: We will respond to any of the

complaints that we get. The speed of response may not be as fast as the old

health policy said, from the point of view there is some assessment made of the

complaint when it comes in and how quick it would need to be responded to.

Sometimes the complaint it made anonymously, which precludes going back to

whoever made it. Essentially what we do is, if the complaint is made verbally,

we will do a verbal follow-up. If the complaint is made in writing, we will do a

written follow-up; but our policy is that all complaints be investigated and

followed up on.

CHAIR: Thank you.

I have a couple of other questions and then I am

finished. Ms Hodder brought up this point and I noted it myself with respect to

temporary food premises. Mr. Coates, you addressed that, and I was not really

quite sure at the end of it. Are there regulations and guidelines put in place

now for these temporary food premises such as down at the Regatta, for one, or

these chip wagons and these types of places?

MR. COATES: Let me try and clarify the situation

for you. It is a valid question. The food premises regulations of 1996, and the

exemption provisions within the regulations, temporary facilities are exempted

provided they meet with standard health guidelines of the department.

CHAIR: Can I just butt in there?

MR. COATES: Sure.

CHAIR: If there are no food inspections on these

premises, how do you know they are meeting the guidelines?

MR. COATES: Let me -

CHAIR: Okay, sorry.

MR. COATES: - move forward.

In terms of the 1996 regulations, before there were

promulgated, we had in place a policy or procedural document dealing with

temporary food facilities such as the Regatta event that you mentioned. We

passed that information on to the Government Service Centre, to continue to use

for guidance, and basically called them our standard health guidelines, for lack

of a better word. We did not proceed to revise the document because it was

relatively new to begin with. Secondly, we were waiting for the national

harmonization processes that we are a part of. Thirdly, we wanted to see how

some of the other things evolved over time, vis--vis inspection systems.

From what I understand - and we have always inspected

the food concessions at the Regatta and that continues today in terms of those

kinds of events - I do not think any major event, as witnessed by the Cabot 500

celebrations, in the temporary food concessions across the Province that were

inspected, were missing - Mr. Moores can correct me if I am wrong - inspection

of temporary food facilities.

The reason that they are exempted from the regulations

is that the regulations were set up to deal with permanent fixtures, permanent

structures that are erected to hopefully see the test of time and operate year-

round, for the most part. Temporary food facilities are a different category, a

different kettle of fish - excuse the pun - where they can be mobile. They are

certainly usually less than seven days in duration in most cases, and they are

here today and gone tomorrow. A lot of cases are not for profit. So it did not

seem fit - to get back to the point raised by Mr. Fitzgerald about not applying

the same standard to everybody across the board - that we should regulate them

to the same standard that we would regulate Hotel Newfoundland.

We wanted to make sure that when we are dealing with

these facilities, the basic principles of keeping things cold, keeping things

hot, washing your hands and that kind of stuff, were being met. That is

essentially what the standard health guidelines are. To the best of our

knowledge, we have no reason to suspect that it is not.

CHAIR: Thank you.

A couple of topics off the Auditor General's report

somewhat, that deal with the fisheries in the Province; let's say fish plants

and what have you. I think they come under the jurisdiction, probably, of the

feds, I would think. Can you comment with respect to those facilities and crab,

for one? I don't know a lot about the fishery, mind you, but it was mentioned to

me with respect to the quality and what have you of the crab in particular. Can

you comment on that at all?

MR. COATES: Very generally. As far as I understand

about fish plants, they are licensed by the provincial Department of Fisheries

and Aquaculture. On behalf of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture they

are inspected by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The standards that are set

for those plants are based on what they call re-engineered QMP or Quality

Management Program which is a HACCP-based inspection system or a risk-based

inspection system. Essentially the plant has to set up areas of critical control

which they think are ultimately important to make sure that the quality and

safety of the product are maintained. The plant inspector audits the records,

books and processes of that plant to ensure they are in compliance.

Whether or not a specific crab plant is out of

compliance or not I would have no way of knowing because, as I said, it is not

within our jurisdiction. It is certainly not within the jurisdiction of

Government Services and Lands. I can attempt to try and get an answer or

somebody could give you a call on that.

CHAIR: That is fine. It is just a question I had

in my mind.

Also, here is another. A few years ago we had quite a

stir over in England with respect to the mad cow disease. What is the

possibility and chances of something like that happening in North America, do

you think?

MR. COATES: I have a good computer graphic if you

would like -

CHAIR: No.

MR. COATES: In terms of mad cow disease - and

again it is beyond the realm of our particular responsibilities - the practice

in England, specific to that disease, was to feed the mulch brains of sheep, I

believe it was, which carried the disease scrapie, to cows which in turn

developed CJD or Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease type, or mad cow disease. Then the

fear was that that too in turn would be transmitted to humans who ingested beef

and come down with the human form of what is called Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. I

am sorry if I have mispronounced that but I am not that good in those disease

names.

In Canada that particular farm practice does not

occur, at least from what my colleagues in Agriculture Canada have told me over

the years. There is always a fear that any disease - I mean, we are in a smaller

globe now - can be transmitted anywhere. There is nobody who can absolutely say

that CJD will not occur, related to beef, in Canada. The risk in Canada and the

controls that are put in place by the CFIA, based on a risk assessment from

Health Canada and the influences of Agriculture Canada, I think would limit

that. There are many other problems that we have to worry about rather than CJD.

I think witness of that has to do with a lot of the

importation of Guatemalan fruits in the last few years, particularly in Central

Canada with cyclospora, which is a parasite or a protozoan that is affecting a

lot of Canadians. These are the kinds of things we are seeing in this country.

We don't even get a lot of hamburger disease which tends to be a scourge of the

United States. It is possible but it does not seem to be in play right now.

CHAIR: Thank you.

I have no further questions. I do not know if any

other Committee members have any more.

Would any of the witnesses like to make concluding

remarks? No. That is good.

The Auditor General? Thank you.

I would like to thank everyone for coming here this

morning and giving us your views and answers to the questions. It seems to me

that the Auditor General did have some legitimate concerns in the issues that

she brought forward. Obviously, I did not see any rebuttal really here this

morning of the Auditor General's comments in her report. It is good to see that

steps are being taken, I think, to address the concerns. Hopefully in March a

good portion of the concerns will be addressed and as you said, Mr. Coates, it

will be some time yet before we have everything put in place but we are working

towards that. Again, I would like to stress too, in my mind, that the big thing

with the food premise inspections would preventative. I think that was one of

the points that was brought up here this morning and brought out in the Auditor

General's report. I think all the witnesses will agree with that.

We will be making a report to the House of Assembly

with respect to our hearings here this morning and any recommendations that we

feel may be necessary to be put in place if you people have not addressed them

prior to that.

With that, I would just like to say thank you to the

Auditor General's staff, the witnesses, the Committee, our staff for being here

this morning, and the media for listening. As I said, we will be reporting to

the House and you will be hearing from us in due course.

Thank you.

The Committee adjourned.

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees
Citation	2000-02-07
Type	committee
Volume / chapter	committees_standingcommittees_publicaccounts_ga44session1_2000-02-07_pac_20-_20no.6_.htm
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	f5055f39c04b9c553bf171ea444c40a882f38375

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).