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

Sur les pages 138 à 139, on lit les passages suivants de la soumission de la conseille du ministre :



And… I’m sorry, I’ll return to exhibits. I am giving a lot of weight to the police report. Let’s not forget, this is a police corps… more specifically, it was the Human Exploitation and Trafficking Unit. It’s a very detailed report presenting facts and… and observations. When you… I’m at page seven, the tiny number.



And in the second paragraph, Detective X was advised by detective Y…because their names were protected... that two other females, one being [Ms. Ng], had been located upstairs with clients. And… and they’re going in… in… in details because they… they… searched the house, they found luggages [sic], money, personal belonging. I mean, giving in details the way the ladies were… were dressed.



So for us, between this report and the very convenient version presented by [Ms. Ng], we’re giving more weight to this police report. I do not believe the explanation for the tablet. It’s very, very far-fetched. It… when she explained when she was in the room, I was surprised by the fact she didn’t see a half-naked man in the room. They’re… it’s… it’s little details, but it’s adding those details that, to me, do not make sense.



When she enters the room, at least it’s a two-storey… two-storey house, I’m sorry, she… her belonging are in a closet on the second floor in a bedroom when she’s a guest in that house. The glasses explanation, too, that supposedly she’s in the house, she doesn’t know. But then going to her room and reach straight to the closet to get the… the tablet, but again, not seeing a half-naked man, it’s… it just doesn’t add up.



The declaration made by [Officer Bélanger] was done with the presence of an interpreter. So Ms. … [Ms. Ng] understood… understood very well the question that were asked. And let’s not forget though this interview took place on the same day, so those were very spontaneous answer she gave understanding the question.



So when asked about [Mr. Corneille], she said she didn’t know the name of the street. She didn’t know his family name. She was saying that she met him in [her country]. So I understand why, for the officers… why, for the officer, those answers raised questions regarding the indicators she mentioned. Again, these answers were given with the interpreter on the same day she was arrested.



La dernière partie de la décision du membre présidant (des pages 87 à 92 de la transcription de l’audience) dit :



Initially [Ms. Zhu] had sent an application requesting the Minister to provide the names of the police officers, who would have participated in the investigation on July 15, and prepared the report. At the same time … because naturally the … the … the … some of the elements in that report were strongly contested, particularly the question of how [Ms Ng] was dressed on that day. As well there was a request for the Immigration officer, [Ms. Bélanger] to be … to be called in as a witness.



Now, [Ms. Antoinette] on behalf of the Minister had strongly opposed these requests, and … and find that it was necessary in that … in case if the counsel wanted to have the information she should go through the … the (speaks French) the Access for Information Act. Okay.



But on September 10 for … for reasons explained at the time of … of [Ms Ng] wanting to … to really finish this matter as soon as possible, and also because she … she appeared to be in a state that she will take whatever decision is rendered to leave as soon as possible, [Ms. Zhu] decided to … to withdraw her application. It was also the fact that I actually had sent a notice prior to say that a decision would not be rendered during the hearing because I wanted to speak with both counsels in regards with this matter, which led … I … pretty sure [Ms. Zhu] to believe that this matter would not be resolved quickly, and then that means that delays would have been … would have had to be entertained.



In any case, that’s basically the situation. And today [Ms. Antoinette] had indicated that now, because this application has been withdrawn, no arguments could be made that there was no chance to be able to cross-examine the police officers that … Okay, fine. But that still leave for me as decision maker … as a decision maker the situation where I have a witness, who physically is present in front of me, and who is contesting strongly the (inaudible) of origin report of writers that we don’t know the names of, which I find strange because usually the … it’s not the police … the police officer’s names that are … that are redacted from a report, but this … all other individuals that are … are not … are not pertinent to the … the application before us.