Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Minister mentioned socioeconomic agreements and I'll first start off with, because he's also the Minister in charge of the BIP. Some constituents have been concerned about, for example, potential projects coming forward under this big, mega project and the example that they really cite is they can't compete with the mega projects just because of scales of economy. They're small contractors and I think even Mr. Menicoche had once mentioned an example, and it was a very good example, of a supplier in his community who could supply 50 trucks or 20 trucks, but they wanted three times as many by one supplier. What is our government doing to help ensure that when industry comes knocking, that industry examines that?
Let's break some of these contracts up into useable, feasible sizes that the small guy can jump on board and the small guy in the community, the same guy that supports the hockey team, the same guy that walks his daughter around selling Girl Guide cookies, the same guy that shovels snow at Granny's house down the street for no reason other than he cares about his community, has that chance. As it stands now, I haven't heard, and it's not that you haven't said those words, but I'm not hearing that we have that potential built in, that industry is going to be encouraged.
Now I'm going to tie it back into the socioeconomic agreement. Right now the Minister of Finance is meant to be the leg breaker on these things. When the RWED agreement moves forward in the future, ITI will create these socioeconomic agreements. Part of the problem is that they don't really have legs. As the Finance Minister had said, these are pretty tough to enforce. I can recall that Mr. Dent had words in the last Assembly when he was sitting on this side of the House saying that for this diamond company, you have to give away your next born. There's such a solid agreement and yet, at the end of the day, they're very difficult to enforce and we've had our second in command here say, look, they're just tough to enforce.
I don't need to go endlessly into examples. I don't think there's a need. I think the point is there. Before moving on, the issue is why would we consider socioeconomic agreements as the promised land to our future when we have a history that can be proven at a moment's notice, whereas we fall down on these things and we just can't use them to the effect that they're built with the intent and the honesty that people have come forward to build these items together with. Why wouldn't we create legislation that just broad brush deals with some of these issues? I think it would be very competent of us. It stabilizes the environment for industry. Industry knows exactly what they have to do. There are no hidden rules and there's no interpretation from legislation. It's pretty straightforward and without negotiation.
So I'm kind of concerned that I'm not hearing legislative initiatives to help deal with this. I hate to think that once a socioeconomic agreement is struck, which I can appreciate...They're an ongoing negotiation. I don't have to mention again the Minister responsible for the FMBS is taking the heat for the diamond problem, which is arguing over how much rough is coming across the table, whether it's 2.5 percent or 7.5 percent, who knows. We shouldn't be arguing this. It should just be simple here's the law, here's the land, this is it. How does the Minister feel that the socioeconomic agreement will truly take us to the promised land so that the little guy out there, wherever the little guy is, will take advantage of these things? I don't have to underscore it any further about how important the little guy is to the community long after these mega projects have come and gone and no longer continue to invest in our communities. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.