Bob Bromley

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that sums it up. With regard to Minister Miltenberger’s comments, I had specified specifically the 63 or 65-point-whatever million of our new responsibilities, so that’s what I’m talking about, indeed, and I think there is a lot of room here, although committee has never really been included in the discussion of the allocation of those funds, but that’s the discussion that’s missing here.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Once again here I see, without informing us on the thinking and where things are at, we’re being asked to spend the taxpayer’s dollar and I think that’s the under-riding and overriding concern here. We did have some discussions on this. I know the Premier will recall committee sent a letter back agreeing with the need for better communications but raising a number of concerns about the report.

Just to follow up on the number of positions we’re talking about here, we’re talking about five here, $185,000 apiece. The briefing material said… Well, let me start with the review...

Again, Mr. Chair, we’re doing all these things and they’re not working. Is there not a lesson to be learned there? I mean, we hear over and over again that people want real supports, not big money going to big multinational companies and subsidies and $300 million highways, you know, that are going to cost us to try and maintain. People have real needs right now, and if we were delivering those properly, we’d be retaining people, we’d be giving them the quality of life that will make them want to be here and we will be attracting those skills. So, without that reasoning laid out in a strategy...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I understand this came about as a result of new accounting procedures required by whoever sets those things. I don’t know whether it’s the Auditor General or what. I am happy to see this. I think our government is too. They realize these liabilities are real and are out there, and it’s nice to have some assessments on which to base what the costs are going to be in the future and today.

I understand that there are two components to this. One is assessing existing sites in a little more depth, rather than just knowing they exist and they do have some degree of liability. We...

Thanks to the Minister. I appreciate the commitment. The more flexible suite of job models would give people who would like to pursue local economic initiatives, for example seasonal land-based activities, more family time and opportunities for volunteer service in our communities and the freedom to do so. I can attest that, based on the number of people who are coming to me with this, that’s come up in our recent Local Economies Forum, people have a strong interest in this. Building stronger and more welcoming and nurturing communities, and retaining current residents and attracting newcomers...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to follow up on my Member’s statement today with questions for the Minister of Human Resources. I would like to ask questions about new and innovative solutions for the recruitment and retention of employees for our civil service.

Is the Minister aware of the common interest in reduced work time and job sharing amongst many employees, such as interest in three-quarter time or two-thirds time, half-time, flex-time? Thank you.

Job sharing, seasonal jobs and reduced-time jobs are important factors in the quality of life. Providing people with job opportunities geared to today’s northern lifestyle would yield happier and more productive workers with healthier families and communities. It may well yield improved attention and attraction of new northern families.

I urge this government to pursue this opportunity soon, and I will have questions for the Minister. Mahsi.

I appreciate the Minister’s response. I wonder if committee could be provided with an inventory of the art and the space in the building, the wall space or whatever, floor space, dedicated to the display of art in the facility according to the new policy.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don’t really have specific questions, so I will keep my comments to general remarks here. I really would just like to acknowledge that the great majority, probably 95 percent is carry-over from largely infrastructure projects, and it is indeed a great amount, $67 million. But on the other hand, it’s down in percentages in what our carry-over has been for the last several years. It’s been up to 30 to 35 percent and this year it’s down to 20 percent, and I’d like to acknowledge that we did a good job in the previous year at completing our infrastructure projects, or at...

I understand that these are sort of two separate questions in a way. I guess, in terms of registering our liability for our public accounts, which I believe is a part of this exercise, how would those be handled where securities have been assessed but not collected or secured for operating sites? How would that be accounted for?