Thank you, Madam Speaker, honourable Members. The majority of people getting this work were young people who had not yet had an opportunity to purchase their own vehicles. One had to get up at 5:00 in the morning to get to work by 7:00 am. If you missed your ride or if your ride wasn't going to work, you were fired. One chance, that is all you got.
Was this so that contractors could replace local workers with people from outside the community? I don't know, Madam Speaker. Maybe a bus service from Fort Providence or allowing residents to stay in the camp would have slowed the rate of attrition over the summer.
In the past, Madam Speaker, workers from my community have worked on portions of the highway between Fort Providence and Enterprise and stayed in camps. So, they are no strangers to this way of work. The reason I mention this here, Madam Speaker, is that next year the construction work will be even further from Fort Providence. Will workers from Fort Providence have to get up three hours before work to make it in on time?
Madam Speaker, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that, even though this contractor lived up to the intent of northern preference, they did not meet its spirit. Setting unrealistic barriers to employment and then replacing the workers when they cannot meet the requirements is not, in my mind, fair. Madam Speaker, what I would like to see is a community consultative process right through the tendering process on large projects like this.
The community could tell the government which companies have a good record in hiring locally, who treats their employees with respect and some consideration and understanding. After a contract is awarded, the government contractor and the community or communities involved should sit down together and work out any problems such as unrealistic employment barriers.
Madam Speaker, it is only by working together with government, communities and contractors, that programs such as the business incentive program will work. Mahsi cho.
---Applause