Without a doubt, it's something that will have to be considered. The legislative reforms and what they will look like were the subject of discussion. Indeed,
the jury's still out about what they should look like.
In connection with the think tanks mentioned by the witness in the previous panel, two options were proposed. The first is to amend the existing provisions, specifically those related to sexual assault, so that they do not apply in the case of HIV non-disclosure. The second is to make sure that only cases involving an intent to transmit HIV or actual and intentional transmission are covered by the Criminal Code. That means making sure the criminal law applies only to those cases.
What will that look like? Will it take the form of an existing provision but one that is less stigmatizing than those covering sexual assault? Perhaps. Will a specific offence dealing with the intentional transmission of HIV be necessary? Perhaps. I'm just trying to show the importance of taking a two-phased approach. The first phase seeks to make sure the sexual assault offences do not apply to HIV non-disclosure, thus removing the stigma that goes along with that, and the second phase seeks to make sure only the intent to transmit HIV is subject to criminal charges.
Basically, that could mean adopting a specific provision or using an existing one. It would have to be determined.