Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Indeed, the Department of Transportation has huge implications for constituents I represent. I've got six communities in my riding alone and the main connect is a highway system or a winter road system, especially during the winter months. So that's how we get our freight in and out of almost all the communities. I see that there's been some dedication in the upcoming budget to address some of the concerns that were brought out by the Minister when he toured the riding, particularly Nahanni Butte's concern of continuing the creation of their access road and trying to get some resolution there, as well as addressing Jean Marie's contract to maintain that road, even upgrade that access road one step higher to classify it as a highway. I will be looking at that, as well as allowing other communities to participate in some of the contract work that's in and around their communities.
That's something that's picking up steam, is the ability to negotiate contracts, particularly with highways around our communities. Like Fort Liard, I brought up that negotiated contracts that are being reconsidered and, well, I'm finding out that the government is actually doing away with them. They're talking about consultation, but they're actually doing away with negotiated contracts and practices even before a review is occurring. But some of the communities are saying hey, wait a minute, this is our traditional area and we're requesting preferential treatment. Particularly just getting back to Fort Liard alone, they're saying that that highway that's going by Fort Liard was originally intended to go, like, 30 kilometres away from the community, but through some arrangements with the federal government at that time, there was a commitment for a lifetime contract for that community to take care of their roads in their proximity and if that's what people want, I think that our government should start looking at it.
In questioning last week in the House, I brought up the whole concept of set-aside policy, like an aboriginal set-aside policy. I know now we've got, like, negotiated contracts, but I still think it's a thing of the past because things are changing and lots of Members are questioning. Okay, these are public dollars, why aren't people having opportunities to bid on it? What the people are saying in the communities is that we're here, the majority of our communities are aboriginal and we should have the opportunity for that work, for the building capacity, that there are companies for proximity work. One of the ways the federal government does it, in questioning the Premier, he said, well, it's not really one of the best systems out there, but it is a system entrenched in public policy that people know that because you are a majority aboriginal population community, that you will be given preferential treatment for those contracts. So when it's entrenched like that as a public policy, then people know
what the government's doing. But with the negotiated contract policy, you know, I can see where there's room for questioning why you keep giving it to that same business over and over, but with a new way of modifying or doing things, I think we will have a tool in order to negotiate with these 100 percent aboriginal communities and we could look at for some of the communities like Fort Simpson, which is like a 50 percent aboriginal, there's a way to massage that policy.
But, I really think that we have to look at this because the contracts and particularly the highway contracts, like around Fort Simpson and indeed Fort Resolution, that if our communities aren't allowed to participate in the contracting opportunities, then it's jobs that aren't there for our people and we're moving toward an income support economy. That's like going backwards, especially with unprecedented growth. We're proud of our North, but we keep forgetting that we've got economic depressed regions even though we've got skyrocketing growth in the capital, for instance, but out in the regions for the most part one could argue that we're still economically depressed. So we do need this work and these contracts, and our people make the argument that we're still not sustainable because every time we find a good worker, we train them, they're either taken up with government or move into bigger industries like Diavik or anybody else. It's not a case of not being able to perform up to the expectations of that negotiated contract. We're striving our best and the communities are striving their best in order to provide the service, to build up their businesses, but as the workforce passes through them, as our communities train workforce for other people, like only because they can offer better salaries and better compensation packages that people aren't staying around long enough and the ones that are staying around long, are quite a long time like in the case of the ferry situation in Fort Simpson. Just because our negotiated contract kind of held them back from providing fair wages too. They had that contract I don't know like 10 or 12 years, for whatever reason the workers were paid not too much from what they originally started at 10 years ago. But those are just some of the barriers that are happening, Mr. Chair.
In terms of a negotiated contract, the communities are saying, well, we still want those opportunities and we still want to build up our businesses. One of the biggest barriers is that, sure, we're supposed to be building capacity, buying capital equipment, but it's taking much longer than we thought. Now like in the case of Nuni or the joint venture in Fort Simpson and now they're looking at going out with public bid, but then their equipment is too old now so it's hard for them to even consider making a competitive bid, particularly if they're going to have to replace older equipment. I'm not too sure about the government procurement rules for contracting this out, or how old the equipment's got to be, but that's what's happening. Due to various barriers and pressures, the equipment wasn't being replaced adequately. Quite often when a new contract comes around and they know that contract is for certain, then they will invest into new equipment.
Just with that, I have to speak in favour of continuing the negotiated contracts right now because I know that our negotiated policy hasn't changed. We haven't had adequate consultation. We said we were going to go out into the communities. In fact, that's what's going to happen this coming year, but yet, Mr. Chair, we're already changing the guidelines without having it in place adequately. Let's face it; transportation is one of the huge income providers to our regions and to our communities, especially in the Nahendeh district. We say that we're a fixed economy, and what a fixed economy means, Mr. Chair, is that the pie, the amount of money that's going into the community that's generating and stimulating revenue and income is always the same. If we take out a chunk like this, then it's money that goes somewhere else.
So I guess if anything, Mr. Chair, if I can get the Minister to comment on the negotiated contracts, why is it changing so suddenly? We thought we had some time. Just with that, then, Mr. Chair, thanks.