Mr. Speaker, the honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta pointed out the other day that the equality provisions of the Charter were not in effect when the residency requirement was litigated in the case of Allman versus the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories in 1984. I have sought advice from my department about the point the Member raised; namely, could the equality provisions provide a basis for challenge of the residency requirement that was not available in 1984. Mr. Speaker, I am advised that it is never possible to predict for certain what courts will do, but I am advised that the right to vote is the best ground to challenge the residency requirement in the Plebiscite Act, that it is not so much an equality argument as an argument founded in the right-to-vote provisions of the Charter. I am advised by my department that therefore the challenge was thoroughly dealt with by the court of appeal in 1984, and it was on the best ground that could be available to a challenger today, and that therefore that case probably accurately sets out the law today as well as it did in 1984.
Dennis Patterson on Question O235-12(2): Residency Requirement Under Plebiscite Act
In the Legislative Assembly on March 3rd, 1992. See this statement in context.
Return To Question O235-12(2): Residency Requirement Under Plebiscite Act
Question O235-12(2): Residency Requirement Under Plebiscite Act
Item 5: Oral Questions
March 2nd, 1992
Page 234
Dennis Patterson Iqaluit
See context to find out what was said next.