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.