Clause 2, does the committee agree?

Clause 3, does the committee agree?

Clause 4, does the committee agree?

Bill 12, Business Day Statute Law Amendment Act. Does committee agree?

To the bill as a whole, does committee agree?

Does committee agree that Bill 12, Business Day Statute Law Amendment Act, is now ready for third reading?

Thank you, committee. Does the committee agree that this concludes our consideration of Bill 12, Business Day Statute Law Amendment Act?

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.