©2019 by La Nation française du Canada. Proudly created with Wix.com

And so that’s the … that’s the issue. So it’s either a piece of paper or a … a live testimony. I would agree that there’s no … I don’t have any reason specific why would a police officer would have lied about … about the … the … the elements provided by the lady. Okay. I don’t see why they would have invented the story, but at the same time [Ms. Ng] is … is saying, well, if … if really I was not wearing a bottom as they were saying, why is it that they put … that didn’t put down, for example, an identification element as important as [des marques identifiable sur son corps qui pourrait indiquer le trafic de personnes dans l’absence de preuves contraires].



So she created doubts in regards with what has been written. And so taking into account also the … all the other elements of the … the credible manner, the general credible manner in which she testified, all the other elements also supporting the … the … the reasons why she is in Canada.



This is … is difficult to … considering also that the other elements are very general in the report. Considering the elements that I have raised myself, considering the elements raised before with regards with the content of this report. It’s difficult to … to be able to give more weight to an element that appears in a document than to a testimony, which is … now, I’d just like also to mention that I’m not a very naive person by nature. Okay. I … I’m also not stupid, let’s be … be frank, okay. Everything looks bad … the situation looks bad really, but I have to decide … I have to decide, based on the evidence, that I have to … in front of me. And we have to be very careful not to reach too easily to the conclusion that any Asian lady that would be, for any reason, in a body house would be automatically having … would have been working in that place. It’s … it’s too … it’s too easy, okay, and that would … also to … well, I’ll … I’ll limit myself to … to that.



With all due respect … well, then in that … in that circumstances and what happens sometimes also is the fact that … seeing that everything was clearly contested, a decision could have been made by the Minister to … to have the police officers testify themselves.



I said … I said … without … it could have been … could have been possible also for the Minister, seeing that some of the main elements of the report could have been possible for the Minister … the Minister themselves to ask for the police officer to confirm visually if the person that we have in the room is the actual person that opened the door, and how she was dressed and so on, and explain more details. And so that’s why then … particularly in the context like I said, because it’s contested and at this point, also considering the credibility, the general credibility of the lady.



Now, in regards with the interview that [Ms. Ng] had with [Ms. Bélanger] the Immigration officer. Now, there’s … clearly there was an interpreter, so I have no issue with that. It confirms that detail … the interpreter was by telephone. And it seems here that … now, everything rests … well, everything … one of the main element that has been raised was in regard with if the lady knows the name of her … of her … of [Victor], [Mr. Corneille], and the answer provided seems to be attacking her credibility.



Now, the question is specifically what is his family name, and what’s written down, clearly not by Ms … not by [Ms Ng] but by [Ms. Bélanger] most probably, is I’m not good in English, so I don’t know. Essentially what she tried to make the officer understand is that she doesn’t know how to say it in English, and [Mr. Corneille] translated his family name in [a common unofficial language] to her, and that she tried to say it the way she … the way it sounds. Okay. And that the officer would not have understood what she tried to say. Now, we don’t know also if the interpreter then … the interpreter understood or not.



Again, taking in consideration the … the solemn … the detailed solemn declaration that was introduced into the record, and her … and the testimony of [Ms. Ng], I tend to believe that she … I tend to believe her explanation.



Now, it’s not necessarily here a question of an officer lying about what a person would have said or didn’t say. And let’s not forget that this is not written by the lady, but it’s a … question and answer seems to be written by the officer of what she thought she understood.



And also about the questions that were held about … that was made in regards with how she can go to … how can she reach [Mr. Corneille] or her … how to go to [Victor]’s place and so on.



We understand that the situation is quite particular here. Both partners in this relationship speaks [a common unofficial language]. And my understanding would be that they would exchange in that language. Okay. [Ms. Ng] testified that most of the time they are together, and that they travel … I guess that they travel together or if they … if she … she goes by herself in a taxi she would call [Victor], who would actually be providing the … the … the information to the taxi driver. For example, or they would travel in a bus, and she would be able to know what’s the route of the bus and where to … to … to get out.