Thank you, committee. Does the committee agree that this concludes our consideration of Bill 12, Business Day Statute Law Amendment Act?
Agreed.
Thank you, Minister, and thanks to your witness. Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witness from the chamber.
Committee, we have agreed to consider Tabled Document 275-20(1), 2025-2026 Main Estimates. We will now consider the Department of Education, Culture and Employment, and committee, we will resume where we left off.
Please return now to the departmental summary found on page 29 and revenue summary information items on page 30 and 31. We'll invite the Minister to go and -- do have you witnesses?
On page 30 and 31, are there any questions? Member for Yellowknife Centre.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I'd like to move a motion. I move that $5,250,000 be deleted from the 2025-2026 Main Estimates for the Department of Education, Culture and Employment. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'll speak to it at the appropriate time.
The motion is on the floor. To the motion. Member for Yellowknife Centre.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to introduce the details of why the motion is here and the dollar amounts and the process or purpose.
So, Madam Chair, it's no surprise to my colleagues that -- I should say we were all taken by surprise of the decision by Aurora College to cut the community learning centres. Now, that said, being kept in the dark is one thing but then we find out that they want to keep the money, the over $7 million appropriated towards this. That said, the program, if I understand it correctly, is intended to run until June, and, again, if I understand that correctly. So what I did was I took one quarter of the year off, and that's the difference of how we get from $7 million to $5,250,000. And that's how we get the number.
Madam Chair, now, let's get down to the nuts and bolts.
The issue boils down to is you can't cut a program and keep the money, first of all. And the way it's being speculated right now is, well, don't worry, trust us. I mean, there's no program that I'm aware of we just give people money and just say, figure it out or talk about it. This is called business plans. We're doing budgeting. Money is attached to a purpose. I feel incredibly -- I don't know how to say it even larger than that. Like, enormously uncomfortable of leaving $5 million -- I should say $5,250,000 in the hands of "just trust us."
Now, I believe in the principles and purpose of the community learning centres. As a matter of fact, the fact is if they weren't working, I wish we'd heard more. We may have had some fantastic suggestions, some good, some less good. That's the nature of what we do. But that said, I wish we'd had a conversation rather than this outright this is being cut.
Furthermore, there's other considerations that really impact this decision to, again, unilaterally cut. Employment in that community, inspiration in those communities. The fact is it is -- it's a beacon of hope, and that's been torn out from people. I mean, back to the conversation about where was the conversation. Often again, I brought it up today, we talk about trying to work together. Where was the conversation with Members on this side of the House saying we're having a problem and this is our solution.
So without going on too long but it's key, I want community learning centres, I want some solution. And I would tell the government at any moment I would support them bringing back a costed plan and initiative, and I would certainly vote in favour of that. It's not about just trying to take the money away from the department. That's not what it's about. It's about taking away from money without a purpose, and then it will just be spent. And if anyone tries to tell us it's not being -- it won't be treated as some type of form of slush fund or special project fund or unaccountable fund, we will never see the details of this regardless of how many promises and commitments we get here today. We will hear don't worry, we'll be accountable with the money. Yes, I believe it will be used in the most bureaucratic stewardship way. In other words, I don't believe we'll be buying doughnuts with it. That said, someone will go, well, we have never been able to fund this study, we've never been able to paint the building, we've never been any -- we've never been able to do X, Y, Z, so we're going to use the money that way. The purpose of this money is intended for community learning centres. And if they're not going to use it for community learning centres, I'd say they don't need it.
And the last piece, and I want to go back to what I said earlier about this was, is the fact that I actually support them bringing forward a plan and I will vote in favour of it. Heck, I'll even move a motion for the government if they want, even though I can't move a money bill to increase. But the thing is we need to find a solution, and if they come back and say hey, we've got a $5 million solution, we've got a $6 million solution for better education in the communities, opportunities, again, beacons of hope for people. We cannot give up. We must be relentless in this. I'll be voting in favour of those things.
And to tie this back, when our government is -- if I know the round number somewhat correctly, it's about $3.2 million away from the fiscal wall. Is now a time to be giving away money that isn't directed to a specified purpose, that kind of money?
So, Madam Chair, I do look forward to some feedback from my colleagues. I will respect their positions and directions. If they have questions, I will attempt to offer some thoughts or observations about the way forward at the very end if given an opportunity.
And so I don't forget, of course, I'll be asking for a recorded vote on this particular motion. That way I don't -- that way, we don't miss the opportunity of saying who stands on this particular challenge. Thank you.
The motion is on the floor. Member for Range Lake.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I support the motion under consideration by the House -- or by the committee. The Member, I think, has laid out the rationale for it quite eloquently which is we're all very aware that this decision was made unexpectedly. Well, not -- the decision was made unexpectedly but the rationale behind the decision has been known I think to the college, to the Minister, to the department for quite some time. But the timing of it was, of course, surprising to this House and to the department. So when we see something like that, I think it's -- we have to be responsible to what the consequences of that are and, in this case, it's, you know, reducing the total amount of grant that's being provided to Aurora College.
I have grave concerns, that I've already spoken about many times in this chamber, about the progress or lack thereof that Aurora College is making towards its goals. I think we've -- we're overly optimistic on those timelines. I question whether or not we are going to be in a position to actually be arm's length with this institution -- well, it's not even an institution, with this public agency. And until such time as it is let go, we still manage it like a public agency.
So the fact that they could blind side the Minister responsible like this is not good. It is not good for the continued management of the college. It's not good for our collaboration, cooperation, and understanding of how our working together to build a post-secondary future for the Northwest Territories. And we still don't have daylight on a number of issue that are very pressing to my constituents, a proper campus for students in the North Slave, and ultimately an institution that students want to go to. We built an institution for communities, not an institution for students. And this kind of decision just demonstrates that where we are leaving adult learners in communities out in the cold with no plan to replace it. And there's going to be a briefing that we'll all hear about. That's great. But that's well after the fact it was -- the decision was made with no real understanding of what comes next. So until we see that plan, I think this is a very strong message to send that we can't just keep approving or throwing good money after bad. We can't approve plans that don't exist. And we have to be responsible for taxpayer dollars at a time when we are very close to our borrowing limit and, furthermore, when the government has singled one of its key priorities is restoring balance. And $5 million, when you're $3 million away from the debt ceiling, is a lot of money.
And, you know, to other things, I just spoke of a water pipeline that's in dire need of replacement. I'm sure the city of Yellowknife would appreciate $5 million from our capital budget being allocated to that or for into municipal and community affairs funding formula. $5 million could go a long way to my colleague in the Sahtu who's been fighting for his winter roads for the Mackenzie Valley Highway, for other things that are needed. For my colleague in Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh who's been waiting for a school replacement for many years. $5 million in a small jurisdiction goes a very long way. And if they -- if Aurora College has said we don't need this money, we're closing these centres, then let's put it where it is needed, in other communities for Northerners who need it where there's urgent projects and urgent needs. So I support this, and I hope that the committee does as well so we can move forward and invest these limited dollars in where they're most valuable. And quite frankly, the college has told us we don't need this money, we don't want to do this program anymore, so let's take them on their word and reallocate this money into the higher priority areas of this government. Thank you.
Now I will go to the Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So I won't be supporting this motion. I agree that the loss of the community learning centres has been devastating, and I think this motion goes the wrong direction towards righting that wrong. I do think that the department of ECE needs to expedite, or as quickly as possible, untangle the exact amount of funding to take away from the allocation to Aurora College that would have gone to these community learning centres. I know that still has to be worked out because there's some aspects of adult education that the college is continuing to do, but as soon as possible we need to figure out exactly what money that they're not going to be using for community learning centres but then use that money to put into other organizations who can do this absolutely critical work that we've all recognized needs to be done, so whether that's a non-profit, Indigenous governments, other organizations out there who do believe that we need community-based adult learning and have the means to perhaps do it, you know, better or more innovatively than Aurora College has been able to do.
So, I mean, I'm hearing somewhat contradictory messages here. On the one hand, I'm hearing how important the community learning centres and adult learning is, but I'm also hearing of all these other things we could spend that money on instead. And my fear is that as soon as we take this $5 million -- more than that, I don't have a copy of the motion. I didn't get a copy, but over -- just over $5 million away from ECE and just away from their general pot, that money's going to quickly find its way to something else, and it will be a drop in the bucket in the pot of a major infrastructure project like a road, but it makes a huge difference to take that away from education, learning, and literacy. So we need to keep it in the ECE pot and make sure that it's used for literacy and community learning the way it was intended to and just have it be reallocated to another organization that's willing to do. And so I think we need to keep it with ECE in order for them to make that turnaround as short as possible once they figure out who else might be willing to step up and offer these services. So for that reason, I won't be supporting this motion. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Next, I will go to the Member for Great Slave.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, although I can appreciate what my colleague from Yellowknife North just said and I also appreciate the intent of this motion, so I've heard my colleagues, the Regular Members' side, especially our -- my colleagues with CLCs in their communities. I want to support their frustration, their constituents' frustration. And in discussion with my colleagues and staff, I understand that this funding can be restored in a sup should the briefing with Aurora College coming up prove fruitful. And in that regard, I am comfortable with supporting this motion which, to my mind, is a protest motion for my colleagues who have CLCs in their communities. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Next, I have Member for Inuvik Boot Lake.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, adult education learning, it's in our mandate. It's part of what we provide as a government. For me, this is about lack of consultation before such what I would consider a somewhat radical decision. There are many people and will be many people affected by the closures of the learning centres and, for me, know, the reason I would support this motion is what I would hope is that, you know, if Aurora College decides that it no longer wants to provide this service, then I would suggest that ECE under its mandate use this funding to continue the support for the learning centres and take it in house, in department, if the Aurora College no longer wants to do it. Having said that, Madam Chair, if Aurora College does come back, as my colleague Ms. Reid has said -- if they come back with a plan that does, indeed, look at continuing with the learning centres, then, yeah, I would happily vote for a supplemental appropriation to get this funding back and to ensure this important work is being done. But we haven't seen that plan. And, Madam Chair, I don't even know, I mean, $5 million is the number, and I understand my colleague from Yellowknife Centre come up with that number. Is that number appropriate? Well, the MOU at this point, I think, sits with the Minister, so the Minister knows what that funding is and if that funding is not the number, then she can certainly give us the amount in that MOU that does signify what the amount is to run these learning centres.
But for now, I think it's an important message to send. It's certainly affected the Members in my riding as it has others. I've heard loud and clear from constituents saying if the college is not going to do it, who is going to do it, and in my opinion, that should be the Department of Education, Culture and Employment. And if so, if they're going to do it, then it stands to reason that the college no longer requires the funding to do it, and we will take it on ourselves. So for those reasons, Madam Chair, I will be supporting this motion. Thank you.
Member for the Sahtu.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I received a number of communications and a letter from the regional leadership in the Sahtu sharing their frustrations of the announcement made to close the learning centres. And I don't see a need -- I will support this motion. I don't see a need to give money to an operation that's going to shut their doors. But as previous colleagues have said, come back with a plan and we'll reinstate that funding. There's different conventions and different options to appropriate that money there. But ultimately, there was a plan that was drafted to keep the doors open in these learning centres but it wasn't executed. It was drafted by the Aurora College last August. But that plan never went any place. It was only -- it was hidden to provide a demonstration that we only got 21 students, 19 students, so I don't see any value in these learning centres. No, we have talked numerous times on the customer base for trades training. And I'm excited to support and use any avenues available to improve on our skills trades in preparation for the Fort Good Hope construction centre who is going to be taking the initiative to address a crisis we have. We need more homes. This building will build more homes. But certainly it needs skilled tradespeople to be in compliance with the national building codes.
So I'm willing to share this plan that we have researched, and maybe that plan could be resubmitted to reinstate the funds. But as of now, we're not concluded on the budget yet. We're just deferring it with the information at hand which gives us the option to support the motion for withholding the operations of these community learning centres. So as said there, Madam Chair, I'll be supporting this motion. Mahsi.
Member from Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Since the 19th Assembly, I've been bringing to this House about the issues of education in our small communities and, in particular in Lutselk'e, where the leadership contacts been saying that they're still waiting to fill positions at the adult education centre. And I brought it here to the House. I raised it on the floor. I was assured that it's going to be looked a the and that position's going to be filled. Here we are now going into the 20th Assembly, a year into the mandate, and yet that position hasn't been filled.
You know, right now as it is, when I first heard about the cuts to the small communities on the education learning centres, I had to read it on Cabin Radio and I was a little disappointed that we had -- every time something has to happen, we have to go there and read it. My concern here is that, you know, this issue of restoring balance of this government and right now as it is, you know, we're talking about $5 million that they brought forward in the -- they're trying to figure out how we could use that money, but right now, they don't need it. But at this point in time, you could always come back and revisit it as mentioned by my colleagues.
Right now as it is, every time I go back to Fort Resolution, I drive by the adult learning centre and they have a teacher there, and she's concerned because her job's only there until June. And what happens after that, you know? It's a good thing that here in N'dilo and Dettah we do use the facilities at the college, but the thing is that we have nothing in our community of Dettah and N'dilo. We have some places where we could probably put them, but we're concerned. Every time a kid graduates from high school, they're about two grades behind. And if they want to go to college or university, we have to go to upgrading. And here we're now in our small community of Lutselk'e, of Fort Resolution, that's what happens. So, Madam Chair, I will support this motion. I just hope that -- again, I just want to say that small communities do matter. Mahsi.
Next, I have the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment.
Thank you very much, Premier -- sorry, thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to start off by pointing out a couple things that I heard from across the floor.
So this motion deletes $5,250,000 from the main estimates for ECE. It does not speak to Aurora College. It does not speak to deferral. It simply deletes the money. This is not a place this on hold. It's not deferring education, culture and employment's budget until after the briefing with Aurora College next week. It is a deletion.
The other comment in regards to reading about it on Cabin Radio, all of us did receive a public service announcement in the morning before this appeared on Cabin Radio. So I think that that is important to note there.
I do have a very -- let me back up a second. I want to first acknowledge that absolutely this was a shock to Members of this House. It was a shock to the constituents that they served. And I think it's important to recognize that. I think it's important to also recognize that would we have liked to have had a more strategic rollout of this announcement where people are made aware of what the forward working plans of Aurora College are as far as adult education especially in our small communities is, hundred percent. I absolutely agree with Members that they would have liked to have known right up front what the plan is. That meeting is booked with Aurora College for next week where next week Aurora College will come and sit in front of Members and explain to them what their plan is. Aurora College never said we don't want to be a part of this, we're walking away, we're going to have nothing to do with it. And I know there was some comments to that effect on the other side of the House. Aurora College said, how we're doing this isn't working. It isn't serving Northerners to the best of our ability, and we want to rethink that. So they are asking to come forward with a new plan and do it better.
I do appreciate, though, that it is hard to wait that time and this period of limbo to work on that. I think there's a couple of very important pieces that Members do really need to know.
If this money is gone, there is no ability for ECE or Aurora College to do the plans that they are putting together as far as shifting from what is happening right now.
In addition to that, I also think it's worthwhile noting that the money for CLCs is also there to ensure that any impacted employees in small communities are paid during the layoff notice period. That is incredibly important to the people of small communities in this House.
In addition, if Aurora College is, first of all, going to execute their plan in short order, they're going to need funding to do that. They're not planning to do nothing. They're not planning to not use the funding. The job that I have right now is determining if there are gaps left over within access to education within -- or adult education in small communities. And so if there's a gap that I then need to fill within the department, I won't have the funding to do that either.
I also think it's imperative that I point out that the amount indicated within this motion is about double the amount of the MOU, the memorandum of understanding, for adult learning and basic education between the Department of Education, Culture and Employment and Aurora College. So this even goes beyond that. So this motion is going to absolutely have a negative impact on adult learning in small communities and more so than I think the Member even intends.
I think it's clear that I don't support the motion. I hope that Members come to the briefing next week. I believe it's the -- I get off a plane and go pretty much straight to it, which I think -- I'm happy to, I think it's a very important briefing. I very much look forward to sitting with Members and having very important conversation. I think it's incredibly important. There is absolutely no part of me that feels that we don't need to be doing more for adult education, especially in small communities. But by taking money away from small communities, we're not going to get there. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Next, I have Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the MLA for Kam Lake I think touched on majority of what I wanted to ensure was clear which, namely, is that this is, again, voting to take $5 million out a budget for a department takes 5 plus million dollars out of the budget for the department. Period. There is no guarantee as to whether or not Aurora College will or will not come back with a plan that any of us find palatable. There is no guarantee that ECE will be able to find other staff since they will not have the $5 million allocated to this initiative -- that they will have other staff to support developing a plan that any of us find palatable. What we are just doing is taking this money away out of protest.
So I understand -- I understand the idea that there's a protest desire -- and, again, Madam Chair, I think many of us have said that we were also quite frustrated with how this came to pass. Unfortunately, Madam Chair, this motion has come by surprise to everyone in Cabinet. We are not well placed, being surprised, to be able to do any kind of analysis of whether or where money could be found to pay for staff in small communities on notice. We're not, being surprised, well placed to say whether or how we could find money on the interim to develop an alternative plan. Not well placed to say if there's an opportunity to restrict funding that could allow that work to continue to keep the $5 million. There are these other tools. There may be these other ways. We didn't know this was coming. So we can scramble to try to get our staff who are sitting back and listening to all of us to give us quick analysis, what can we do, other tools, other things, what can we do. But, Madam Chair, being surprised on the floor like this doesn't give us the ability to utilize the public service to support the desires of the Assembly, to support the small communities and support community learning centres, which all of us have said on many occasions, both one on one with Members as well as here, that this is what we all want.
So Madam Chair, there is a budgeting process that we go through in this building where chair of AOC and myself will sit down where we discuss concerns, we can discuss deletions, we can discuss additions, we can discuss changes, we can discuss policy changes. That has been the process now that I've been a part of for 11 budgets, including this one. It has been often ripe with many different types of topics, including things like this, where there is a dissatisfaction. And ultimately by that process, we come forward and at the end of it all, in the last while, you would see the Minister of Finance stand up and make a number of commitments, changes, both deletions, additions, policy changes, that reflect desires of this Assembly.
So, Madam Chair, I would urge our colleagues, all of colleagues in this House, to consider using that process, one that allows us to have some time to analyze what impacts there are so that we can make changes that are meaningful, so that we can effect programs in a reasonable way, so that we can ensure that our staff are supported to make these changes and that we're not being asked to do them on the fly not knowing necessarily what those impacts are, how they impact people, real people, and -- but actually trying to find a way to really try and find a solution.
So there's a meeting next week that Member from Kam Lake has mentioned with Aurora College. It gives us time from finance to look at, you know, where the money is and what it's actually being spent on for community learning centres and ultimately find a path forward so that communities with community learning centres can use those facilities, get students into them, keep their staff, and see those seeds of success. Thank you, Madam Chair.
To close the motion on this debate -- oh no, sorry, Mr. Morse. Member for Frame Lake.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, am I allowed to ask a couple questions of the Minister during this time?
No. You can make a statement or speak to the motion. You can speak to the motion.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, what I was hoping to ask from the Minister is she mentioned that this motion is double the MOU that the -- that ECE has with the college. I would have liked to know that number.
And the other question that I would have liked to have brought to the Minister is what, in fact, is her intention for dealing with this problem that Aurora College created for both us and themselves in the sense that we suddenly found out, you know, as the budget was already printed and hot of the presses that we have a fairly significant pot of money with no intended purpose and no plan behind it.
And so I do sympathize with the intent of the motion in the sense that it sends a clear message that you don't get to just cut things away from the communities without talking to the Minister, talking to MLAs, and discussing what the plan is going to be going forward so we can all understand what's happening. And I think -- I spoke to this in a Member's statement when the news first came out that I really am hoping to see better coordination between the Minister and between the college because it just seems like right now that collaboration that needs to be happening between the two entities that are responsible for the college just doesn't seem to be happening. And I understand that there is decision-making authority with the college, but the Minister needs to be involved in what's going on as well.
And so what I'm hoping for is to see a plan come forward, a plan come forward for what's going to be done with the CLCs -- we haven't seen that -- and a plan for, you know, what is going to happen with this funding. Because right now the college just gets to sit on it as far as we know, and we haven't heard a plan from the Minister that she's pulling a certain amount of funding away, and so we're left not really knowing what's happening with the money.
A couple of Members have noted that, you know, if a plan were to come forward or some of the items that were noted by the Minister for ECE and the Minister for Finance that it is possible to bring sups forward for those things. If we wanted to -- if we wanted to simply support staff through the notice period, if we wanted to have a fullblown plan for how the CLCs are going to be dealt with. So I think there are opportunities that the department can bring ideas forward to us, bring them forward for debate. We'll discuss them, we can approve the funding at that time. But as of right now, there isn't a plan for what to do with this money.
To the motion itself, I mean, I think the -- I have a few difficulties with it. I would have much preferred that the motion came forward in such a way that deleted this out of the Aurora College line item in the budget. Unfortunately, the motion didn't come forward at that time. It's just come forward as a general cut from the department. So that leaves us in the position where money is being cut from the department but, technically, we have no idea where that cut will be implemented or how. That's not stated in the motion itself. And so it is a general cut to the department that we're doing with the hope that in good faith the Minister will pull this from Aurora College for now and set about creating a plan and coming forward with a supplementary estimate.
The uncertainty that that creates is certainly not the most desirable effect. I would have preferred, I think somewhere along the lines of one of my previous colleagues, that this was simply cut from the Aurora College line item and left in ECE in order to indicate that, you know, some of the Members that spoke, or at least one of the Members that spoke, spoke to taking this money and doing all sorts of other things with it. Well, I don't think that's the intent of everybody here. It certainly wouldn't be my intent. The idea is that this be used for adult learning, literacy, CLC operation, those various things. So to take it away in a general sense and then just say, well, we need to do better things with the money. Well, hold on a sec, that's a very different conversation.
For those reasons, for the uncertainty that this creates and the uncertainty about what the motion actually means, I'm not comfortable supporting it. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I will go to the Member for Yellowknife Centre to close the debate on the motion. Sorry, Member for Monfwi.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I know that I did express my frustration too before. It would have been nice if there was more notice given to us to close the community learning centres. It's not just me, but my other colleagues have said the same thing too where we asked the college to do more community-based training or offer more community-based program. Because some of our young people are not too eager to leave, but there's not much in the community. If the community learning centre program was not working, then they should have done more to deliver or to work with the community members or to work with the leaders as to what they can do for us or how we can work together to promote community-based program. So, and I've been advocating and talking about it too. It's not just now. I've been talking about it in the 19th Legislative Assembly. And right now as we speak, there's a lot of instructors in the community working at the -- as an adult educator. Some of them are teachers. Some of them are our own people. And right now, they are left without -- as of June, some of them will be without jobs. Some of them are going to leave our community. And especially our own people, because there's no other jobs for them. It's not only in Tlicho region. It's going to be in other regions as well. So just the way that it happened where no -- no notice given. I don't agree with how it was rolled out to -- especially to the small communities because this is really, really greatly needed in many of the small communities. It's being used by many community members where it's like an outreach for some of them. And so with that in mind, I do support the motion. Thank you.
Member for Mackenzie Delta.
Thank you, Madam Chair. With the uncertainty of what Aurora College is going to do within the near future in terms of the community learning centres and what's going to happen with staff, if they do not decide -- if they do not come back with a plan that will meet the needs of the smaller communities, with this motion that we're going to be saying we're going to be using it for other initiatives. I think it's a little bit too early because, you know, we're having consultation with the board of governors and seeing what they say before we even know what they're going to do or they're going to present a plan to us, and taking this money away from the department, not from Aurora College, from the department, and using it elsewhere and hopefully the board of governors will come with a plan and saying that, you know, there are certain, maybe half of the community learning centres are able to keep their doors open for their community members. Because it is important. I've always stated this, the education system, it started with the education system. If our education system was solid, then our graduating students wouldn't have to go to adult education just to get into a trades program of some sort. But it starts from there. Now we're having problems with the Aurora College because they don't have -- they don't have the numbers to support these learning centres, but there are some other -- some community learning centres that are doing good work out there. I know from my community, at least, they're promoting it -- promoting adult education on the local radio station on a weekly basis, and that's something that's encouraging. But hopefully, maybe if they can amend this motion of some sort to say what -- you know, if the board of governors come back with a plan that meets our needs, meet the needs of the communities, then this money will be going back towards the learning centres.
It's frustrating, you know, having to go back to your community and they ask you questions, and you don't have the concrete answers because I don't think anybody does right now. The board of governors will make it known to us next week what they're going to do. We're going to be given an opportunity to ask them questions and see what their plans are. But it's very frustrating in a small -- a big territory with a small number of population, it's -- we find it very difficult to meet the needs of our communities who are spread out in a wide area. So hopefully we can come up, the board of governors can give us a plan so we can use that money towards adult education because it's really needed. It's something that's needed in the communities. I'm going to keep stating it, that it starts with the education, kindergarten to grade 12, that's what's failing us. It's not adult education that's failing us. It's kindergarten to grade 12. It started -- it's the governments before this one, and it's continuing. It's time to stop it, then maybe we'll have some good, strong leaders coming from the smaller communities. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. I'll go to the Member for Yellowknife Centre to close the debate on this motion.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I heard an opening with potentially a couple Members who are trying to decide which way to go, and I think I can help clarify or aid in their final-final decision. So maybe if someone's leaning towards a yes but sitting on the no side, hopefully this will do it, or someone looking for the reason why it was sort of filtered or created this way, I'm hoping I can do that.
I just want to respond to a couple things. You know, Cabinet's surprised by this motion. I assure you everybody on this House was surprised by this initiative in general, how it was cut. So I have seen a few budgets. I've seen a few potential cuts. I've seen cuts over the years. The sky does not fall regardless of how people try to characterize this. Keep in mind that when a department receives access to its budget, it receives access to its whole budget at once in theory, so it draws down on it appropriately. So ultimately, it's not as if they're running from a negative deficit from the moment, and some areas and some department -- this is a contribution to an agency, but some areas are allowed to run in deficits anyway.
The how the money could be spent was really just a rhetorical point. That's all it was, which is there is no -- if there's no program but someone's sitting on that money, what do you think's going to happen? And it's not for me to say because I don't know. Nobody knows. That's the problem, nobody really knows. To say we'll use it for planning or study, I mean, you know, we don't need a $5 million planning or study. You know, so, I mean, every cut I have been seen over the years, I mean has been fought or argued as if people will jump from the buildings. Like, it's characterized as the worst thing that could happen. And you know what? I've never seen catastrophic failures.
As far as -- something to keep in mind, so I think this is very important because a couple Members did highlight this, why on page 29. And I think that's a very, very good observation as opposed to the line item in particular. Because once the page item for information passed, it only then occurred that oh, my goodness, here's a solution to some of its problem. Unfortunately, it's too late to go back. And I say it's too late only because, you know, the government's known for naying unanimous consent for going back on stuff, extending stuff, so it just defeats the purpose.
This is -- now, anybody who's been to a committee meeting has seen internal transfers. This is exactly how they can balance this out. They can do this. They do this all the time. I do mean this when I say a sup will set us free. We see supplementary appropriations constantly come targeted at specific initiatives. They come out of nowhere. The government could even special warrant the money if they felt that any employee was at risk. The moment the legislature closes, when the mace walks out the door, the government has pretty much unfetterred access to a special warrant based on operational needs, etcetera, etcetera, so there is no one wouldn't be funded or paid if it was important. So these realities of access to money, it's still there.
The principle about -- the suggestion about, you know, more roads, more blah, blah, blah, that was just a principle about, you know, money could go elsewhere. I mean, we don't -- to change operational money to capital money is not really on the table here, and I think it wasn't really the issue at large. I mean, the government, don't forget, still has in the range of a $32 million contingency fund. So it's not as if it doesn't have money to fund within. So anybody who thinks there isn't money there, there's money there. And as a matter of fact, there's a lot of money there. So there's nothing at risk that the lights won't be on for adult learners.
I'm not singling out this Member, but, my God, I think it's right, the Member from Mackenzie Delta is right, like, the learning centres are kind of like the symptom of what we're not addressing at large. You know, he's right. We don't need any learning centres if we have a quality education that people feel that they're connecting to, like, you know, there's the solution, right? If they're getting the opportunities for good education and to tie that up so they could learn, move forward, absolutely right. But learning centres are a response to things not working.
So when I hear plans, they can be funded within, the department has -- the government has the contingency budget. Employees are not at risk. This, oh, they're paid money. No, there's plenty of money there through options. And, again, I can't stress enough, I mean, you know, there's internal transfers we see all the time. There's no reason the government can't do that and redirect it. They know what the principle and purpose is, and I'm sorry, but "trust us" is not a plan. And it's unfortunate that it had to come this way. I mean, Aurora College can run a deficit. The government -- so, I mean, they don't even need that support if they needed it.
Lastly, Madam Chair, I do want to thank all Members, even though I do want to thank Members who had a different opinion. It doesn't mean I agree, but I do respect it. It's enlightening. And I can't stress this enough, you know, as a young person I remember friendship centres as being a beacon of hope for me, you know, keeping some of us out of trouble. As a matter of fact, it probably saved us in many ways. Well, imagine community learning centres being somewhat similar that you don't have the skills to help support your family or do better. This is what this is. These are lighthouses of hope. They're beacons of hope for people. They're institutions that are key, the jobs are critical to the community. This money can be replaced. All the government would have to do is bring back a plan and say here it is, this is how much we need. So those folks who are leaning towards a no, that's all they have to do. And they can get it. Again, they could special warrant it.
So Madam Chair, there is nothing in danger other than the cold, hard, stark reality of we won't accept we're killing the program but keeping the money. Thank you, Madam Chair.
To the motion.
Question.
The Member for Yellowknife Centre. The Member for Range Lake. The Member for Inuvik Boot Lake. The Member for Monfwi. The Member for Great Slave. The Member for Mackenzie Delta. The Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh. The Member for Sahtu.
All those opposed, please stand.
The Member for Frame Lake. The Member for Yellowknife North. The Member for Thebacha. The Member for Yellowknife South. The Member for Kam Lake. The Member for Hay River North. The Member for Hay River South. The Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes. The Member for Nunakput.
All those abstaining. Eight yes, nine no. The motion is defeated.
---Defeated.
Committee, I will now call the department summary. Education, Culture and Employment, operations expenditure, total department, 2025-2026 Main Estimates, $403,245,000. Does the committee agree?
Nay.
Member for Inuvik Boot Lake.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I move that this committee defer further consideration of the main estimates for the Department of Education, Culture and Employment at this time. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The motion is in order.
Question.
Question's been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Any abstentions? Motion's carried.
---Carried
Committee, I'll now call a break. Thank you.
---SHORT RECESS
Committee, we have agreed to consider Tabled Document 275-20(1), 2025-2026 Main Estimates. We will now consider Housing Northwest Territories.
Committee, Housing Northwest Territories is included in the main estimates as information, and the totals are not voteable. We will continue to review that's estimates as we have for the previous considered departments; however, we will not vote on the totals. If Members have comments or questions, they can be raised at the appropriate time. Does the Minister responsible for Housing Northwest Territories wish to bring witnesses into the House?
Yes, please.
