I'm not so sure they're that low. I think others have made the point very effectively that the real growth in the numbers in terms of HIV and AIDS...that the whole demographic is changing rapidly.
A recent study in Manitoba showed that back between 1985 and 1995, the number of women who contracted HIV...or the percentage of new HIV infections was eight. Between 1996 and 2007, one-third of all Manitobans who tested positive for HIV were women. That's almost 500. And one-third of any new infections since 1999 have been contracted by aboriginals.
So the demographics have changed, yet the criteria have not changed. I think what we're trying to do today is figure out a way to be honest with the precautionary principle consistent with scientific facts.
So I want to ask Mr. Alexander and others this question. What are the options? We can recommend that we change the list of exclusionary criteria, or we could go back to the system that existed, which had clear testing and all kinds of measures in place to screen out high-risk behaviour, or we can do what they've done in the United States, where they have some exclusionary criteria, but they're not regulations. In fact, they are not exclusionary; they're just there as guidelines.
What would your advice be in terms of where we should end up as a committee on this matter?