Bob Bromley

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the deputy minister for that information. I didn’t get my statistic again, but I think I heard that it’s not a reliable statistic anymore. Perhaps we don’t have any statistics that indicate our succession with all these tools to deliver succession planning. Forty years is great in one way, but in another way people may not be able to retire, and I think we are hearing that across this great country, and there’s a possibility that the types of policies we are putting in place are failing people and their interest in retiring early and moving on to other...

I’ll leave it at that. Obviously, the increase is more than a PY, but perhaps we will get the details as we go. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to follow up a little bit on succession planning, which I think this division is largely responsible for. This has been highlighted for a number of years now and our workforce has been aging, basically, as I understand it. I think we had a significant proportion of employees, something like 20 percent or maybe much more than that that were within five years of retiring. What is the current trend on that measure, whatever it is? Thank you.

Thanks to Ms. Bassi-Kellett for that. I guess I’m going to leave it at that. Like I said, many of the topics were covered. I was particularly interested in succession planning and where we are at that and whether there are any trends in that trying to build ourselves a bigger buffer there, because it was pretty serious a few years ago. I think I’ll just leave it at that at this point.

In terms of recruitment, one of the concerns I have – and the Minister addressed this the other day – is that the exit interviews aren’t telling us what the external factors are that are causing them to leave...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the department being here today. We had a pretty good start to general comments and I appreciated the discussion yesterday and many of the points that I had were ticked off there. That is, addressed one by one.

There was a lot of discussion on vacancy rates and recruitment. One thing I didn’t hear about was turnover rates. We’re winning these awards as the best darn employer around, which I appreciate and I want to reiterate my earlier congratulations to the Minister and his staff, but if it’s just, you know, we pay really well and we help with expenses and...

Thanks again for the Minister’s response. I know he’d like me to answer the questions that I’m asking here, but I think that’s his job and obviously he has the resources. I’m happy to come up with my own suggestion, but he’s got a lot of professionals working for him, so I think those are the people we want to engage.

Does the Minister agree that regulatory legislative sorts of actions can be quite cost-effective – they don’t cost millions of dollars – and are a toolbox that we should be looking at to get the objectives achieved that we know we need to achieve? Mahsi.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to follow up from my earlier questions with the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources. I understand there is a report coming out on the cost-effectiveness of our respective program for greenhouse gas reductions. The Minister has obviously got the results as a result of the analysis he did in response to my questions.

What sort of contemplations are in place, are happening towards now responding to that information we have so that we can increase our cost-effectiveness on the basis of these analyses? Thank you.

I don’t know whether it’s in your purview to direct a Minister to answer a question, but that certainly did not answer the question.

The Diavik Diamond Mine has done some great work in reducing their emissions by installing wind turbines up at their mine site and they deserve full credit for this. Yet, in his response, the Minister claims the emission reductions from the Diavik wind program go to GNWT.

Did the Minister get permission from Diavik to claim credits – and these are very valuable credits – for their actions? Mahsi.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Before Christmas I asked the Minister of Environment a written question on the cost-effectiveness of the various initiatives his department is funding as part of the Greenhouse Gas Strategy. At the time, I got the impression that the Minister was surprised by the question, which was not my intent. So I wanted to check, was the Minister surprised to be asked about the cost-effectiveness of his department’s greenhouse gas reduction initiatives? Mahsi.

Thanks to the Minister for that response. The other side of that was, do we know where we fit in the larger scale looking at other jurisdictions?