Thank you, Member from Inuvik Boot Lake. To the motion. Member from the Sahtu.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And thanks to the Member from YK Centre for bringing this motion forward. I second this motion on the principles of fairness and respect. I do have elders staying in that centre and also have visited that centre and seen the expansion, and it's a beautiful facility, and it really stands up to shine this government that we are behind our seniors' community, and it doesn't matter where they come from. So on fairness, I support this motion as a seconder. And as mentioned, I couldn't have said it any better than the mover. I think all of us in this House here in some way or fashion do have relatives or friends staying at the facility, so we should keep that in mind and stand behind what is best for our territory and community and, respectfully, the elders that we stand behind and serve in all areas of the region. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member from the Sahtu. To the motion. Member from Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When I go into my four communities in my riding, we have not very much elders left in our communities and the ones that are there are shipped out to Hay River, Fort Smith, and even here in Yellowknife. And we've got to continue to support our elders in our communities, and I know for a fact that we have elders here as well in this facility here in Yellowknife, from Lutselk'e, Dettah, N'dilo, and they really enjoy that facility. And I'm going to support this motion from YK Centre and the seconder from the Sahtu for that reason. Nobody should have to go through what the elders endured during this fire evacuation a few years ago, and I know that we have learned a lot since then. But right now, Mr. Speaker, I support this motion. Mahsi.

Thank you, Member from Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh. To the motion. Member from Yellowknife North.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So I certainly know from my own experience during the 2023 evacuations attempting to contribute to evacuating and supporting vulnerable populations within Yellowknife. I know that non-profits were in an extremely difficult and at times impossible situation having no clear guidelines set out ahead of time both as to what roles and responsibilities were for the evacuation between themselves, the territorial government, the city, and no clear guidelines as to what they could or couldn't spend money on or be reimbursed for. And so it does seem unfair. I agree that they were only told afterwards what expenditures would be eligible for reimbursement and from where.

So I do support the premise of this motion. I don't personally have the details or evidence in front of me in terms of what exactly Avens sort of spent money on and if there's debate as to whether they should or shouldn't have spent money on certain things and so, like, I don't have the power to review that, but I do think that the GNWT does need to review this instead of just saying that, you know, an entire category of things is not eligible, I think the government has a responsibility to look at this and determine that if the expenditures that were made were reasonable and proportionate in order to do what they were obligated to do, which was protect seniors, protect their residents, take care of them during this evacuation, that funds should be reimbursed. But obviously I don't have the sort of spreadsheets and receipts and all that in front of me that I personally can make that decision, but I do think it deserves the GNWT looking at this again and if, in fact, those expenses were reasonable and proportionate to what needed to be done that Avens be reimbursed. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member from Yellowknife North. To the motion. Minister of Finance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I want to start by simply saying that Avens has been and remains an important partner to the GNWT in terms of delivering advocacy and support and services to residents, to seniors, to their families. They've been fulfilling that role for a great many years. And the residents that live there, Mr. Speaker, depend upon that sort of services, depend upon the services of the staff that are there. And so, Mr. Speaker, I do -- I acknowledge that there's -- many residents who were brought here as well as staff were here earlier but, Mr. Speaker, at this point, I want to provide a bit of information with respect to some of why the decision is where it is right now and how it has come there, and I want to assure, certainly the residents of Avens and the families of Avens, it is not because of any lack of caring for the residents, for their families, and for the staff that work there or about -- or for even a moment considering that Avens isn't a key partner. All of those things are true, and all of the statements that were made in that respect are accurate, they're fair, and there's not going to be any contest with respect to that.

Mr. Speaker, back in 2023, it was already said almost 50 percent of this territory was evacuated. That was following on earlier evacuations that happened that year and evacuations that happened the year before that and on the heels of the COVID pandemic that created an emergency situation in this territory for two years.

Mr. Speaker, none of that was fair. None of it felt fair. There were many people over the course of those years who went through those emergencies who felt that they were not treated what they called fairly or that felt that they experienced costs or income losses or revenue losses that they wanted compensation from, and quite simply not everyone was made whole at any of those junctures, Mr. Speaker. And, unfortunately, we're at another one of these junctures where an organization that is very well respected, that is an important partner, is coming forward and saying we feel that there's an element of compensation that we've not have been afforded in the course of the emergency.

So how we come to be there, Mr. Speaker, there was -- again, as was noted earlier, health care facilities were evacuated from multiple communities, including Stanton, and the folks that staff those facilities and support staff were called on to assist in moving them in a manner that was not expected and to then continue to provide care when they were evacuated alongside many other public servants from the GNWT who were asked to continue to perform their duties from difficult circumstances. All levels of government, municipal governments, some trying to remain, certainly in the zones that were being evacuated, some key staff remained, which was very difficult for them. Others were evacuated, but that was equally difficult, to continue performing their roles, and a lot of folks in the private sector and the non-profit sector similarly -- airlines would be one example -- asked to perform their services even when bases were moved and facilities were not what they usually were. So there was a lot of that sense, and if we want to say that that was unfair for everyone. But in this context, Mr. Speaker, I'd suggest fairness needs to be considered for what it means, which is acting impartially.

So what the GNWT received after from Avens specifically was, firstly, a claim for almost a million dollars, $989,000, and this did cover costs for overtime, accommodations, per diems, laundry, security, transportation, supplies, a lot of the costs that were incurred to support residents directly. Indeed, it's my understanding that this was all of the costs that were there to support the residents of Avens directly with one exception, Mr. Speaker, and that is a second invoice that was originally for $400,000, which I gather is the subject of the motion that's before us. And the reason this element was denied when the other one was fully covered, because this reflected a choice made on how to incentivize staff to attend their work duties. Specifically, it was an offer made and a decision made to offer a lieu time payment and to offer lieu time as an incentive to work your regular shift. And I want to right now say I am by no means passing judgment or suggesting that that was, you know, one way or a good way or a bad way or otherwise. That was a choice that was made that staff who work for Avens were being offered a lieu time payout in order to come and work what was a regular shift. And that, Mr. Speaker, we've gone back to Public Safety Canada. They've confirmed that if it's lieu time that occurs and arises during the emergency, if you have a lieu time that arises during the emergency, it can be part of your payment but when it's used as an incentive structure just as would be a bonus, let's say, that is not eligible. And so the GNWT has continued to apply that approach, Mr. Speaker. So similarly to decisions that would have been made, for example, if there was a public servant that they would certainly get paid their time for working and overtime for working but not be paid an incentive amount to show up to perform their duties.

So, you know, I understand, and, you know, I hear the comments that are being made. I, you know, appreciate the sense that this was all an unfair experience. And, again, Mr. Speaker, I think that sense of unfairness lingers for a great many people. But in terms of trying as a public government to do our best to be impartial in how we apply these rules, many of which, in this context, come from the federal government system, which is really the lion's share of what takes up emergency costs and emergency payouts, Mr. Speaker, that -- trying to be impartial as best as we can and apply some reasonableness by going and fighting to make sure that we get as much as we can for all of those making these claims, that we're certainly happy to continue to do. But there's, as I say, a great, a great many people, across the territory in all levels of government, in the private sector, in the NGO sector, who no doubt incurred some costs and/or had losses that are not being covered and, in terms of fairness, trying to continue to navigate that space as impartially as possible continues to be the approach.

Now, that said, Mr. Speaker, this is a motion; it is seeking to direct the government to take certain steps and, in that context, in keeping with the usual practice, Cabinet will abstain and accept the direction as it may come. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Minister of Finance. To the motion. Member from Frame Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am at this time in support of the motion and support the motion coming forward as written. I mean, it sounds -- I appreciate that explanation from the finance Minister, and, you know, it unfortunately sounds like this is all hinging on a bit of a technicality in terms of how it was claimed, what was claimed, whether it was proceeding during the emergency. I think the thing that was clear to me is during the 2023 evacuation, a lot of things were up in the air. There wasn't very much clarity for a lot of people involved, I think GNWT staff, various NGOs, and a lot was happening quickly, and so decisions might have been made on the fly that could have been made differently if things weren't proceeding and people didn't have to make decisions quickly and just deal with the situation they were dealing with. But they were. So I think, you know, it just feels really unfortunate to me that an organization as integral to our community as Avens, that does this kind of work, has been left in the lurch for a bit of money, you know, that, of course, the federal government is in a much better position to cover. This is money that was directly related to an evacuation of a scale that the territory has never seen before, I hope never does again, and I certainly hope, as we've been talking about in the House this week, that we learn from the events that happened and put a much more robust system and a much clearer set of rules in place so that if emergencies like this ever do happen again that we're much better prepared for it. I certainly expect that from the Department of MACA and that Minister. But I'll leave my comments at that, Mr. Speaker. I don't want to further elaborate on things already said by Members. I think the point is well made. I'll vote in favour of the motion. Thank you.

To the motion. Member from Monfwi.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we all know forest fire 2023 affected a lot of NWT residents mentally, emotionally, and financially. When Behchoko was evacuated in 2023, we had residents, both the seniors, families with small children, escaping to Yellowknife with fires both sides of the road. And our elders, depending on the space in the facilities, our elders were sent to various places. Some of them were sent to Sahtu, and a lot of them were sent to Yellowknife. And when that forest fire evacuation happened in Yellowknife, many of our elders got caught up in the system. Some of them were sent to Vancouver, to various places, and they had health issues with no interpreters. So this really had an impact on us. So it's just there are some people in my region that are still affected mentally and emotionally, and every time there's forest fire is mentioned, it triggers. It's stress on many of our residents, especially those with families and those -- for senior citizens. So this forest fire 2023, we're still paying for the effects of it. There are still some -- lot of people -- businesses, we heard businesses and to be fair and everything, there are some residents who are affected financially. There were a lot of people that paid for their own accommodations. They provided for themselves. And nobody is looking out for them because as a result of the government policy, they were not eligible so they couldn't get reimbursement. And yes, I do agree senior citizens are the most vulnerable in our society. We need to look after them. But I would like to include in this motion is that I would support it to include to be retroactive to all other residents who spent their own money not just only in my riding but in Yellowknife as well and in Hay River. There's a lot of people that are saying we're still affected, we're still paying our bills. So this motion is good. I like it. And I will support, but I would like to see more done for other NWT residents who were affected by the forest fire 2023. So that way we'll, like, if -- we talked about -- our colleague mentioned fairness, so then we're going to be fair to all the rest of the NWT who were affected. Yellowknife residents, Behchoko residents, Whati residents right now, and for Fort Providence, Hay River, Enterprise, you know, there's a lot of people that were affected by this. So I will support this motion but with some -- you know, I would like to see the mover and the seconder to be working with other Members to be retroactive. Thank you.

Thank you, Member from Monfwi. To the motion. Member from Great Slave.

Mr. Speaker, like other folks before me, I really do appreciate the intention behind this motion. As you recall, my questions yesterday spoke to the needs of elders and folks with disabilities in evacuation, and I mean I think this is top of mind for a lot of us. I also appreciate the context that was provided by the finance Minister just now. The resources that we have are stretched, and our pockets are not endless. The surplus has dropped by $150 million. So I can see both sides of the equation, Mr. Speaker.

I'd also like to point out that I have something that one of my colleagues likes to refer to as motion sickness, Mr. Speaker, simply put. I do recognize that this is a sincere and good tool that Regular Members have to direct the government, but the direction is non-binding, Mr. Speaker, and I find that very frustrating indeed. I will support this motion based on principle, but I am sad to say that I can already see the writing on the wall. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member from Great Slave. To the motion. Member from the Deh Cho.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do support -- I will be supporting the motion. I think that, you know, reimburse them, to think about the seniors. And we talk about safe communities for residents and it's one of our priorities, so thinking about that and thinking about how even in my riding when people got evacuated from from here to -- like the Member from Monfwi said, to Vancouver, people are still dealing with the effects of that. And financially too, some people are still dealing with that. So I'm thinking about that and how we care for seniors, how Avens does a lot of work for -- even my constituents, I have a couple of constituents that have -- that were there, had their end of life care there. And so with that, I will be supporting this motion and also looking at the changes that the Member from Monfwi wanted in for reimbursement for people that were affected back then and even up until this last evacuation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member from the Deh Cho. To the motion. Member from Mackenzie Delta.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too will be supporting this motion. Like my colleague here saying that these motions are non-binding and can already see the outcome of it, but supporting and reimbursing our greatest resources, our elders, I've always stated that, you know, these elders, we're losing elders at a rapid pace and they're our greatest resources to have within our community. So we have to support them in every way possible. And the non-binding issue is still at the forefront because you can already see the outcome of it, but the intent is there and the support is there, so therefore I will be supporting this motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member from Mackenzie Delta. To the motion.

Question has been called. Before we go to the vote, Member from Yellowknife Centre can conclude the debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I won't be long. I will just quickly say first off thank you to all my colleagues who spoke. Every one of them said something of value that I thought was very interesting. I will take on that note specifically the comments made by my good colleague from Monfwi and Deh Cho. I think what I look forward to is working with them to create a motion to say exactly what they want to say, and that way we get that conversation out specifically to target those folks who need that type of help. And I just said to my colleague from Deh Cho and Monfwi that I'd help them work that through so we'd get something done in a timely way.

Mr. Speaker, it is mentioned by two colleagues, my good colleague from McKenzie Delta, including Great Slave, about it being a non-binding motion. That is true. But what needs to be also true at the same time is the fact that it's a strong voice from this side of the House. So, you know, whatever the final number ends up being is the words were spoken, and I'm hopeful that the department will listen and find a way through this process.

The Minister of Finance points out a comment, and I appreciate what she did in the context of putting stuff -- as I often say the phrase setting the table of the issue. But keep in mind that, you know, things cost what they cost in an emergency, so either you keep people there and you have to pay what you pay or you don't, and then you've got to deal with what you've got. And the clear, simple analogy is, as I said to my good colleague from Inuvik here, which was a plumber may be worth $100 during the day, but you call them at 3 in the morning, they're worth 200 bucks, or else they don't come. So you tell people as the place is under grave threat, well, we're going to pay you regular, I mean, there's a stress there. We have to be real and fair. People have to be appreciated and respected. And I don't think it was a balloon cost. I think it was respect for those who chose to commit themselves to make sure they didn't leave. Because the last thing you needed was people panicking and leaving. And that's part of one of the messages being said here.

Just tying it up very quickly, this motion is about respect for all NGOs, and I want to stress to my colleagues, if you brought -- and it sounded like most people spoke in favour in one form or another, and I want to thank you for that. I want you to know from my heart that if your community's NGO was facing these types of challenges, I mean, please knock on my door because it matters to me. This highlighted, as many of my colleagues have said, Avens does support many of our community people, and we have examples. So, again, it reaffirms it's such a diverse organization supporting Northerners to help sustain as much dignity in their last hours, days, or months of their life, that they have the best way out, the most dignified chapter, Mr. Speaker. And thank you for that. And as such, I'll tie it up with that. I've already asked for a recorded vote, so I'll at this time thank everyone for their time and consideration on this matter. Thank you.

Thank you, Member from Yellowknife Centre. Member from Yellowknife Centre asked for a recorded vote. All those in favour, please stand.