Adding Layers to the Corridor Report

I have been seeing a few things in response to the corridor report from the CCTEHT and I wanted to take a moment just to write a bit of my thoughts to some additional layers. From my perspective the report was important, in fact, I was lucky enough to take part in the research while working in the non-profit sector. However, I think it is equally as important to remember that research is often narrow and though this particular report gave evidence to what many already knew, It is important to remember that this is not ALL experiences of trafficking.
For myself, my initial trafficking experience was not by a friend or boyfriend but by a friend of a family member. All my experiences of trafficking happened outside of motels and in private residences.

First, a few notes for consideration on the report. On page 8 there is an excellent model to conceptualizing what needs to exist and be proven for a trafficking charge to potentially be laid. It’s Called the “Action-Relationship-Purpose Model (ARP) This is the first time I’ve seen this model and I think that the addition of the Key Reporting Details is helpful if someone chooses to involve the police.

The document does an excellent job of giving data to a specific type of sex trafficking which is often what you hear about in media, “Romeo or boyfriend pimps” and trafficking perpetrated by organized crime.
I was surprised to see that the numbers of residential trafficking remained so low, and I wonder about a gap in training and awareness in the nuances of intergenerational trafficking and trafficking that happens within families. A friend of mine had sent an overlay of the map from the corridor report and the pipeline projects in Canada but still, the data specific to indigenous women and girls and the mining camp data remained low. Additionally, there is an article here titled “Follow the Oil Trail and you’ll Find the Girls.”

While I was working in the non-profit sector Wendy Sturgeon from Niagara Chapter of Native Women mentioned several times that the canal was being used as a pathway for trafficking however, this data was not included in the report- Read Wendy’s statement here from the local news. The shipping containers/boats were not added to the methods of transportation either. Read the article here with Wendy’s statement.

Although the barriers to exit highlight perspectives of many workers and police there is special attention to the fact that cultural and language services are not identified there as well as peer/survivor led. I wonder then, that we still very much have a system that is set up to collect data from many who have not directly experienced human trafficking. There are many ethics challenges with research that I am aware of however, I am incredibly surprised to see barriers related to cultural safety and language supports to be missing.

There were many great recommendations here on how to move forward and I find the cycle of change graph particularly helpful in explaining the process someone might go through before deciding to leave. However, there again was no mention of survivor-led training, or services although trauma-informed is used throughout and there is a good description provided of what that means the addition of adding meaningful engagement from survivors would be the first step.
Finally, it is important to draw attention to the reality that the movement of a person is NOT a defining factor of human trafficking. What should be focused on more so than where a survivor has been moved to is HOW their movements have been restricted or controlled. I have seen a few posts online that talk about survivors being moved and that is true that one indicator might be where they have been, there are many times that trafficking, and exploitation happen in the same location over several years.

There were many great recommendations here on how to move forward and I find the cycle of change graph particularly helpful in explaining the process someone might go through before deciding to leave. However, there again was no mention of survivor led training, or services although trauma informed is used throughout and there is a good description provided of what that means the addition of adding meaningful engagement from survivors would be a first step.
Finally, it is important to draw attention to the reality that movement of a person is NOT a defining factor of human trafficking. What should be focused on more so than where a survivor has been moved to is HOW their movements have been restricted or controlled. I have seen a few posts online that talk about survivors being moved and that is true that one indicator might be where they have been, there are many times that trafficking, and exploitation happen in the same location over several years.

In Keeping with our values of collaboration, I was so happy when the Canadian Centre to End Human Trafficking reviewed this blog and added a statement in response. View their statement below:
“The leadership and voices of those with lived experience is fundamental to our progress as a sector in combatting human trafficking. The Centre strives to facilitate meaningful collaboration among survivors, social service organizations, legal systems, corporate partners, and communities to expand our collective understanding of this heinous crime.
 
“The Corridors report is one report of what we anticipate will be several. We look forward to building on this foundational study, evolving our body of knowledge and exploring all forms of human trafficking; to inform actions that end this crime.”

Read the report by the Canadian Centre to End Human Trafficking here