Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for your testimony, which is very interesting.
We've met and heard from a number of witnesses. After doing some reading—correct me if I'm wrong—I noticed a major problem with the definition, at the outset, of trafficking in persons. The term, as defined, poses a problem, even at the international level, if you refer to the protocol. Article 3 refers to work; it refers to trafficking in persons for work purposes, because prostitution is considered as work. It states that it is illegal to traffic in persons for the purpose of making them work as slaves. And everything's lumped in there: agriculture, prostitution, domestic work; any kind of work. Already from the outset, there's a problem with this definition.
Humbly, having conducted research as well, I'll cite the example of street gangs. We know how many gangs there are in Montreal. And yet these are individuals who carry on illegal activities. How is it that we are unable to assess, approximately, the scope of trafficking in persons? Is it a matter of definition, as a result of which everything is lumped together and we can't make progress on a problem of major importance? If we look at criminal gangs, trafficking in persons represents a burgeoning market for street gangs, bikers and so on. So my first question concerns the definition of the term.
My second is for Ms. Rozenbergs. Why does Canada invest so little in the fight against trafficking in persons? Some countries cooperate to an enormous degree; you mentioned the United States, Sweden and Australia.
Most of the funding for anti-trafficking activities, according to the brief you submitted, currently comes from the U.S. government, Sweden, the European Union and Australia. Canada is mentioned, but I don't think its contribution is very large.
If we consider only the fight against street gangs in Montreal, it's estimated that $40 million would make it possible to eradicate this phenomenon. I'm not using the word “eradicate” in the sense of making it disappear, but more in the sense of controlling it. So why does Canada allocate so little money to a problem of global scope? Perhaps that's a highly political issue that you may not want to answer. Those are my two questions.