Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my Member’s statement today I talked about emergency protection orders and some concerns highlighted in them. The Minister is well aware of some of the concerns as of late that have had an emergency protection order being issued incorrectly under false information. I’d like to ask the Department of Justice if they are going to review these particular circumstances to see if amendments are required to the emergency protection order process.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Minister responsible for Justice, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m not able to speak to specific cases or matters that are before the courts, but I can say that the Protection Against Family Violence Act and emergency protection orders are an effective and necessary response to the high rate of family violence in the Northwest Territories. NGOs working with the victims of family violence tell us that one of the most helpful tools are the emergency protection orders.
To the Member’s questions, an evaluation of the legislation and associated program was conducted in 2011. It indicates that the legislation is meeting its goals of awareness and protection of victims of family violence.
The Minister failed to recognize the fact this issue isn’t before the courts at all in any manner. The Minister further failed to recognize that this was a particular issue that he thought was fraught with problems. All I’m asking the House here today is: Would the Minister be willing to take a look at this particular issue, ask someone within the department to take a look at this particular situation to see if changes and adjustments need to be made if an EPO was issued in error due to false information? The burden of the removal of the EPO falls on the person it’s issued against. It does turn out to be quite costly.
There are penalties under the act and under the Criminal Code for knowingly making a false statement in an application or a hearing. Under Section 18(b) of the act, any person who “knowingly makes a false statement in an application or hearing under this act…is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction…not exceeding $5,000,” or some time in jail. So there are punishments already in the act for those individuals who choose to bear false witness against another.
Clearly, the point is being missed or, rather, it’s being avoided. The issue is about the person who the EPO is issued against. That person has been accused falsely in this circumstance. The Minister knows very well of this example. The issue is it’s not about the person who lied. The person who lied, the process is correct, as he’s highlighted. How does the person who has been accused, who has now become the victim of the circumstance, get the EPO removed? They have to take it to court and it costs $5,000 in this particular example. There is no relief mechanism built into the process when it’s recognized it’s been issued in error. That is the problem. Would the Minister be willing to ask the department to have a look to see what to do or what can be done to provide relief to those who have been falsely accused and issued an EPO against?
As I indicated earlier, there has been a review of this legislation done. It has made some recommendations with respect to EPOs. The department is currently reviewing those recommendations and will be following up on those recommendations.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister said they had reviewed. Now he says they’re reviewing. I’d like to be clear on the record. Are they reviewing it at this particular time and are they taking the example I provided to the House as consideration for this review?
A review of the legislation has been completed and some recommendations have gone forth to the Department of Justice which are being considered right now.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The honourable Member for Hay River North, Mr. Bouchard.
