Daryl Dolynny

Thank you, Madam Chair. No problem. This is in relationship to a vehicle that is non-registered. What I mean by vehicle, it could be motor vehicle, ATV, or other that is non-registered that is ticketed as an infringement. Again, I’m reading the new act here that it’s the vehicle that is ticketed. But because this vehicle is not registered, would the Motor Vehicles Act supersede the parks act or amendment in this case?

So I would assume that the assumption is that the vehicle or motor vehicle or, let’s say, all-terrain vehicle, it would need to be a registered vehicle in order to ticket a vehicle. What happens if the vehicle is non-registered? What happens if there’s a motorcycle, quad, ATV that is a non-registered piece of equipment in the park? What would occur in that regard?

Thank you, Madam Chair. As Mr. Hawkins says, the Chair is always right.

Madam Chair, just on the opening comments, I’m actually quite proud to say that I like what I’m seeing here in terms of some of these amendments, especially with the fire restrictions, but my questions or my overall comments here of concern is, would this act compete with current legislation that we have for motor vehicle legislation with respect to if there is infringements of the vehicle in a park. Which act would supersede in the event of a breach? But other than that, I do support what I’m seeing here, but I’m a little...

I’m hearing some great things, but my question was, do resident hunters or do outfitters have a seat at the table in these so-called public settings. I believe there’s opportunity there in consultation. It will take months and potentially another year to get the proper responses from community consultations regarding resident and commercial harvest allocations.

Can the Minister indicate why temporary tag allocation is not on the table now, especially with all the promising herd numbers discussed in this House?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in the House today in response to what was tabled earlier this week by the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources entitled Management Actions for Barren Ground Caribou Herds. Immediately I was pleased to hear that we have some herds that are doing quite well, such as the Beverly and Ahiak herds as well as the Bluenose-East herd. Although what was presented as merely a proposal on the potential limited resident harvest of these herds, we were left yet again with many questions unanswered for consideration.

The Minister mentions that we have caribou calving...

Unfortunately, we don’t have the regulations with us here today, so I’m at a bit of a handicap. If the Member could actually read those excerpts from the regulations, I would appreciate it.

I’m a bit confused here. If we’re ticketing a vehicle, we’re impounding a vehicle on GNWT territorial parks, and there’s damage done to that vehicle either in the impound process, during the transportation to the storage compound, or within the compound itself, who is liable for damage to that vehicle?

Would the department not be able to identify ownership through the vehicle identification number of the said vehicle?

I would assume in that scenario a vehicle is removed that is non-registered. Therefore, there would be no ticket issued because proof of ownership or registration would not be able to be ascertained. Is that my understanding?

I would assume in that scenario that the parks act would not indicate…or the violation would not be under the parks act. This would actually be under the Motor Vehicles Act. Would that be my assumption?