No, Mr. Chair. I'm going to read this study, because I think it's very important that everyone understands what I'm talking about.
The government reports continually track new HIV infections and progress towards what are called UNAIDS' 95-95-95 goals: 95% of the people with HIV have a diagnosis, 95% are on treatment and 95% are virally suppressed. The diagnosis rates in Canada in 2024 report 2,288 new HIV diagnoses. Prior to this, reports had observed a spike, with the “HIV in Canada, Surveillance Report to December 31, 2023” showing 2,434 diagnoses, representing a rebound and subsequent plateau after the COVID-19 pandemic.
Progress towards national testing and treatment targets is summarized in the “Canada's Progress Towards Ending the HIV Epidemic, 2022” report—another study that I would really like to learn more about—offering detailed breakdowns of the care continuum across different demographics. It even goes so far as to give the Canadian guidelines on pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis, which was a funded study that outlines the evidence-based recommendations for clinical indications in drug regimes. It then goes into Health Canada's synthesized medical data to evaluate the risk of sexual transmission between partners. Of course, this would get into some of the groups that we listed in our motion.
The results of the study of the risk of HIV transmission support the undetectable equals untransmittable—U equals U—consensus, providing that the risk of sexual HIV transmission is negligible when an individual is on an effective ART and has a suppressed viral load.
Another study is the surveillance details of how HIV impacts priority groups. This is where we get into some of the minority groups. Again, a cross-sectional investigation was done. I really feel that a lot of these studies on which we've spent millions of dollars need to be taken into account with our committee study. For full access and professional guidance, monitoring data, and methodologies, there are two organizations that are all part of our Canada.ca portal, and it lists over 800 studies.
This is why I'm asking the analyst this: How can we take all these studies that the government has spent $44 million on and incorporate them into our study, as opposed to trying to get all these professionals in and hearing from them in two meetings for that matter?
Again, I would ask the analyst....
I don't know, Mr. Chair. How would she communicate that to us?