Thank you, Mr. Chair. Simply to provide some perspective on the questions of a constitutional challenge, obviously, any legislation could be challenged by any individual in court, the subject of a constitutional challenge. In my review, I have seen there's a lot of case law dealing with whether or not place of residence is a ground for making out discrimination under section 15 of the Charter. Section 15 is what guarantees the equal benefit and protection of the law.
What I have seen the courts consistently find is that place of residence in and of itself is not an analogous ground, so it's not a protected ground from discrimination under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The exception is where it's tied to something that is immutable about oneself. So, for example, residence on an Aboriginal reserve is different from residence in Alberta or British Columbia or the Northwest Territories.
I have not seen any case law that suggests there's any significant risk of a charter challenge in drawing a distinction in legislation between residents of the Northwest Territories and residents of another jurisdiction. What's important there is that the case law makes it clear that where this distinction that's drawn in any legislation takes into account the actual situation of the people being designated, so there's a basis for it that is based on the actual circumstances of those caught by it, that tends to argue against a finding of discriminatory effect, and thus, against a Charter violation. That's what I found in my review of the case law.