Justice Committee on May 7th, 2019

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much, Mr. Garrison.

Ms. Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for coming in today.

Ms. Montgomery, you mentioned the 90-90-90 strategy and that Canada is way behind in implementing that strategy. Can you give us some examples from around the world of where this strategy has been implemented and what their criminal laws look like with respect to HIV non-disclosure?

[Robin Montgomery]

Sure, thank you very much.

First off, it would be very helpful if I could follow up with some more detailed information following today's session as I don't have the full breadth of information at my fingertips, but what I can say is that according to UNAIDS—and I'm going to refer to some background information here just because I'm not great with short-term memory—across the world in terms of where we are standing globally on reaching our 90-90-90 targets, we are off track. While we are seeing general prevention or new infections start to decline, in many areas of the world we're still seeing them rise.

In 2017—these are statistics from World AIDS Day, December 1, 2018—if we're looking at the 90-90-90 cascade, three out of four people living with HIV knew their HIV status. That makes it about 75% knowing their HIV status worldwide. Among people who knew their status, about four out of five were accessing treatment. That is about 79%. Again, we are still far off from 90. Among people accessing treatment, four out of five were virally suppressed, or 81%, and 47% of all people living with HIV around the world are seen as being virally suppressed. We have a considerable way to go.

This is a strategy that has been widely endorsed by all UN member states. It is the key global public health strategy that is being implemented in order to reach the 2030 goals. But we are seeing a slowdown in progress largely because of drops in funding to HIV prevention activities, particularly within the community, as well as a slowdown in terms of political will, where it's no longer seen as being the priority issue amongst governments and decision-makers but rather has fallen to the side of the agenda.

However, it is an incredibly critical issue and if we are to reach that 90-90-90 target in countries around the world, we really do need to step up the fight, which also means more resources and political will.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'll turn to Mr. Salam, if I may.

You spoke a little about non-disclosure and intentional versus unintentional negligence—and is it negligence or is it irresponsible or dangerous in that regard—with respect to how our criminal laws are currently structured. We see that HIV non-disclosure provisions rest within a sexual assault case. If we were to take it out of there, where would such an intentional exposure to HIV be housed?

[Khaled Salam]

I would love to be able to answer the question, and I last night honestly thought that this question would come up to one of us. It's too bad that we don't have someone today from the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network or HALCO to address that because they are the folks who have that knowledge. I don't have any legal background. I would love to be able to answer the question in terms of where that would be housed when there is actual proven intentional transmission of HIV.

In terms of my own experiences in working with a lot of folks living with HIV, I can tell you that I did a lot of support work with a lot of different folks, and I never once encountered—or through my colleagues or through other sources—anyone living with HIV who ever went out there actually trying to transmit the virus to someone else. I can tell you that people living with HIV are, for a fact, the most cautious and the most concerned about the health of those around them, including potential sexual partners. I've never met a community that is more concerned and more cautious than people living with HIV when it comes to protecting other people's health. When you're talking about intentional transmission, it is in the rarest of cases that might happen. It would definitely also have to be 100% proven that there was actual deliberate intent, which doesn't happen all the time. I think that a lot of the cases that we have seen have been driven and fuelled by HIV stigma more than anything else when it comes to prosecution.

Unfortunately, as I said, I'm not a lawyer, so I can't answer your question in terms of where that should be housed. However, it's a great question, and hopefully you will, as a committee, be following up with the legal sources to get that answer.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Ms. Montgomery, I think you have something to add.

[Robin Montgomery]

I fully agree with Khaled. I think it's a question that really warrants a very careful review, including a review of what other countries around the world, other jurisdictions, have done. I have a couple of examples here: Australia, Kenya, Switzerland. Switzerland, in 2016, adopted a referendum for a new law that limits criminalization to intentional transmission of HIV. There are a lot of good practices out there. The best answer to your question would be to do a comprehensive review of what has worked in other countries and what might be applicable to our Canadian settings.

Thank you.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you.

You have 20 more seconds if you want.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Twenty seconds is not enough, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

If you don't mind, I'm going to take it. I want to ask Ms. Segal a question.

Ms. Segal, I'm in complete agreement that this should not be sexual assault law. I'm in complete agreement that we need to radically change the way that we frame this. Where I have difficulty.... Pretty much each and every person who has come before the committee has said that there has to be both transmission and the intention to transmit.

I have great difficulty. You're the first witness who has mentioned recklessness. I'm not sure whether it's recklessness or wilful blindness, but there has to be something beyond an intention to transmit. An example would be in the case of two partners where one partner specifically asks the other, “Do you have any STDs?” and the other person lies. To me, that's at a standard where, if there's transmission, then there should be legal consequences, even if there was no intention to do so.

Can you talk about where LEAF is with regard to recklessness and why you chose recklessness as the standard?

[Karen Segal]

Thank you very much for asking me that question. I've been listening to this conversation hoping for the opportunity to weigh in.

In terms of the issue of intention, first of all, intention is nearly impossible to prove. Proving intention means proving the subjective state of mind of the individual at the time. If the requirement is to prove intention, we might as well completely decriminalize HIV non-disclosure because it will be near impossible for the Crown to prove intentional transmission.

Similarly, you gave a really excellent example of why intention alone is not a good enough standard. In that case where someone says, “No, I don't have HIV; thank you for asking” and proceeds to have sex without protection, that person might not want to transmit the virus but just is indifferent to whether they transmit the virus. We do see scope for some protection for people who have incurred some bodily harm, some interference with their bodily integrity as a result of the indifference of their sexual partner to their own physical health.

In terms of the requirement of transmission, I think that is a good way to balance between the concerns over what recklessness is and what will be defined as recklessness. As you mentioned, recklessness is defined in criminal law, and it would be a question of fact to be determined by every judge. It would be informed by the federal prosecutorial directive. It should be informed by the most recent science, the most up-to-date science. The requirement of transmission would also act as a proxy for having taken some steps. It would reduce the concerns around total over-criminalization while also providing some protection for people who have been denied the opportunity to make an informed choice about their own health and their own bodily integrity.

Since I have the floor here, I'll quickly talk about the issue of where in the criminal law it should be. I think that's a question for the committee to seriously sit down and look at, consider what exists in Canada's criminal law and think carefully about where it can be placed. There has been some suggestion that criminal negligence causing bodily harm might be a standard. The focus, in LEAF's submission, should be on transmission with some backup for recklessness where transmission did actually occur but the accused took some sort of reasonable steps to prevent transmission.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you so much.

If you want to look at what California just did, and if you have any thoughts on it, please email the committee. That would be interesting. There's a California senate bill that treats HIV like all communicable diseases and treats its intentional transmission like actual transmission of a communicable disease.

I really appreciate everyone's help today. Your submissions have all been really thought-provoking.

I'd like to ask the second panel to please come forward. I know both people from the second panel are here.

Thank you to everyone on this panel. We're going to briefly pause while we change panels.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

We are reconvening now with our second panel on the criminalization of non-disclosure of HIV status. I'm delighted to be joined here by Professor Kristopher Wells from MacEwan University. From HIV Edmonton, we have Ms. Shelley Williams, the Executive Director. By video conference, from the BC Centre for Disease Control, we have Mark Tyndall, Lead of Research and Evaluation.

Welcome.

Mr. Tyndall, we tend to go first with the people on video conference because we don't want to lose them, so I'm going to ask you to go first. You have eight minutes to present to the committee.

[Dr. Mark Tyndall, Lead of Research and Evaluation, BC Centre for Disease Control]

Hello from Vancouver.

It's a pleasure to be asked to address the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as you consider criminalization of HIV non-disclosure.

This is a very important issue that has public health implications that go far beyond the individuals who have been criminally charged. I would like to focus my comments on these unintended consequences.

I am an infectious disease specialist and epidemiologist. I was recently the director of the BC Centre for Disease Control and the deputy provincial health officer of British Columbia. I have been working in the area of prevention for over 30 years. I started medical school in 1982, the year this new disease, later called AIDS, was described among gay men in New York and San Francisco. I have worked in clinics and have conducted research with hemophiliacs, gay men, indigenous peoples, sex workers, and more recently, people who use drugs. I spent four years living in Kenya, working on HIV prevention when no treatment existed. I have had the opportunity to work and collaborate with global leaders in HIV prevention and have presented at literally hundreds of conferences and meetings about HIV testing, treatment and prevention.

I can state emphatically that I cannot recall speaking to anyone in the field of HIV who felt that criminalizing people for HIV transmission was useful as a deterrent to prevent HIV transmission. Further, I cannot recall speaking to anyone who thought that charging people under a criminal code that included aggravated sexual assault was anywhere close to fairness, even if HIV was transmitted.

I have been involved in three cases as an expert witness. In none of these cases was HIV transmitted, and in all cases there were considerable actions on the part of the accused to reduce the risk of transmission through condoms and/or antiretroviral medications. I was amazed how the lawyers for the Crown were so fixated on the difference between “no risk” and “negligible risk” of transmission. It is basically the same thing for all practical purposes. Among the estimated 60 million HIV infections that have occurred worldwide, it is very likely that someone was infected even though a condom was used properly, or transmission occurred through oral sex, but the odds are in the same range as winning, or in this case losing, the lottery. It is clear that many of the potential exposures that are considered in criminal proceedings in Canada pose no practical risk for HIV transmission.

In public health, it is always better to engage, inform and educate, and create environments where people feel at ease to discuss their concerns. Punitive actions and sanctions, especially at the extreme end of the criminal justice system, will fail. Pushing people into the shadows based on fear is always counterproductive. Consider the criminalization of drugs.

However, it is the unintended and unmeasurable consequences of these laws that make them particularly damaging to HIV prevention in general. The evidence to support this is clearly outlined in two consensus documents that have been submitted as part of these proceedings. These are the “Expert consensus statement on the science of HIV in the context of criminal law”, from 2018, and the “Canadian consensus statement on HIV and its transmission in the context of criminal law”, published in 2014, on which I am the co-lead author.

Like many of the topics in HIV, ideology and fear drive the debate and not so much science and evidence. If it were based on science and evidence, there would have never been any consideration of criminalizing HIV non-disclosure in the first place. While you may hear from other expert witnesses that the science has changed and so must the laws, I do not think these non-disclosure laws were justified 30 years ago when we were just learning about HIV transmission.

Even if it was found that HIV transmission was still possible while taking antiretroviral therapy or that condoms were not that effective in preventing HIV transmission, the laws were still unjustified from a public health perspective. There is simply nothing in public health that warrants criminal sanctions for sexual behaviours. There are already more than enough tools at the disposal of public health officials to identify any individual who may fall into the rare situation of trying to infect others.

There are three main public health implications of criminalization of non-disclosure. The actual extent of these public health implications are difficult to measure empirically, but they are critical to this debate.

Implication number one is the impact on HIV testing. Expanding and normalizing HIV testing is a priority in HIV prevention. It is estimated that 20% of HIV-positive Canadians do not know their status. Any policies that discourage HIV testing need to be eliminated, and the threat of criminalization for non-disclosure is at the top of the priority list. Why would people get tested knowing the risk? I can honestly say that I would think twice knowing these implications.

We want to encourage people who may be at risk of HIV infection to get regular HIV testing. It should be like getting tested for diabetes or high cholesterol. You have a test, you get a diagnosis and you receive treatment and information.

Implication two is the impact on disclosure itself. While we can all agree that people should disclose their HIV status to a sexual partner, these laws paradoxically discourage people from disclosing. If people understood the very small odds of transmission, even with sex that is totally unprotected, then they would likely take their chances. Why complicate the relationship knowing the potential implications? Many of the criminal cases have involved relationships that have gone wrong, and criminal proceedings are used as a means of getting back at a particular individual, often long after the encounter occurred.

The third implication is that the criminal penalty far exceeds the crime. Even if HIV was transmitted during a sexual exposure that did not include disclosure of HIV status, a sexual assault conviction far outweighs the actual consequences of becoming HIV positive. The life expectancy of an HIV-positive person on antiretroviral therapy is now equal to an HIV-negative person. The treatment is that good.

It certainly is true that living with HIV carries with it other emotional and psychological challenges, but this is largely due to the stigma that still surrounds HIV in Canada. Further, the people who end up being charged are often victims themselves. The only way that these cases come to the attention of law enforcement is that someone got angry, had a personal grudge or some other unusual situation.

The law is not enforced with any consistency and only a relatively small proportion of people are impacted. If we really thought that non-disclosure should be a central tool for reducing HIV transmission, then we would have every new HIV infection reported to the police, and they would do a thorough investigation around the circumstances of that transmission. We would find that most new infections occur when people are involved in situations where they either do not know or do not ask about the HIV status of their partner. Clearly this would be a disastrous policy.

HIV non-disclosure laws were a mistake from the outset. Now, decades later, we are debating something that should never have been enacted in the first place. While it may seem like criminalization acts as a deterrent, we know that this is not the case. I feel strongly that it is time that the Criminal Code around HIV non-disclosure be amended, as it is causing serious injustice to the people being accused and has immeasurable unintended negative consequences in the fight to eliminate HIV transmission in Canada.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much, Dr. Tyndall.

We will now go to Professor Wells.

[Dr. Kristopher Wells, Associate Professor, MacEwan University, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Dr. Kristopher Wells and I'm an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Health and Community Studies at MacEwan University, which is located in Edmonton.

The focus of my research, teaching and scholarship centres on sexual and gender minority—or LGBTQ2—youth, education, health, sport and culture. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this committee hearing this morning.

In his 2013 Massey Lecture series entitled “Blood: The Stuff of Life”, noted Canadian author Lawrence Hill asks, “How does blood unite us and how does it divide us?”

These are important questions, especially when we examine the history of HIV and AIDS and how it has forever changed the landscape of our world, nation and laws. When we ask whose blood matters, I would suggest that we are also asking whose lives matter. Our current Canadian laws and policies would imply that some blood is perceived to be more dangerous than others and, therefore, must be regulated and controlled.

It is shocking to know that Canada has one of the highest rates of prosecution in the world, including over 200 documented cases for alleged HIV non-disclosure. Canada's recent path to the criminalization of HIV has been described as “exceptionally punitive” and a potential violation of human rights for those living with HIV.

The question that should be asked is this: Why has HIV been singled out for such heavy-handed and disproportional treatment? For example, there have been very few prosecutions for other communicable diseases, such as HPV and hepatitis B or C. Perhaps what this differential treatment really indicates is the ongoing and pervasive misinformation and stigma that still surrounds HIV in our society, particularly within the criminal justice system.

It is well documented that the fear of unjust prosecution disproportionately impacts individuals from marginalized or vulnerable communities, such as those who are from racialized, indigenous, two-spirit or sexual and gender minorities. Criminalization also serves as a significant barrier in accessing HIV testing and treatment, as you've heard.

The ongoing criminalization of HIV non-disclosure is no longer in keeping with our evolving scientific knowledge, advances in medical treatment and the international consensus that “undetectable equals untransmittable”, which means that the risk of HIV transmission is effectively zero when a person living with HIV has an undetectable viral load. HIV is not an easily transmitted virus, and its specific roots or pathways are well documented.

The article “Expert consensus statement on the science of HIV in the context of criminal law”, which was published in June 2018, states that there are 68 countries that have laws that specifically criminalize HIV non-disclosure, exposure or transmission. Most prosecutions, including those in Canada, are related to perceived rather than actual risk of HIV acquisition.

Many of these laws and prosecutions have not been guided by the best scientific and medical evidence available, and are not reflective of advances in HIV treatment and care; however, they are greatly influenced by misinformation, societal stigma, fear and what some have described as an HIV panic. For example, we now know that HIV cannot be transmitted via contact from food or drink, or from inanimate objects such as chairs or toilet seats, nor from hugging, kissing, biting or spitting, yet at one time, these were all commonly held beliefs about modes of HIV transmission. In fact, until recently, many public and Catholic schools had policies banning HIV-positive students from attending class or sharing meals.

The Criminal Code is a blunt and often crude instrument, which should only be used in cases where there is intentional, actual or significant risk of harm. Instead, our primary attention should be on education, treatment and prevention. For example, our educational efforts should focus on science-based, non-judgmental and age-appropriate comprehensive sexual health education as a mandatory requirement in all K-12 schools across Canada.

We need to empower our young people to reduce stigma and increase their knowledge about sexual health. Research indicates that the vast majority of students want sexual health education provided by their teachers, whom they trust to share accurate and informed information, yet we need only read the news headlines across Canada to realize that inclusive and comprehensive sexual health is still not the norm and is frequently misunderstood and actively contested.

Canada has been a world leader in HIV research, with groundbreaking scientific discoveries that are now on the global front lines of HIV prevention and treatment efforts. Recently, several provinces have begun to provide free pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, to vulnerable populations.

PrEP is an anti-HIV medication that is scientifically proven to be more than 95% effective in preventing HIV acquisition. PrEP is one of the fastest growing and most promising and effective tools that we have in the fight against HIV. The Canadian government ought to work to make PrEP more readily available and publicly accessible across Canada as one of the most effective and cost-efficient prevention tools currently available.

There also needs to be enhanced funding to provide increased access to STI clinics and testing options, including rapid testing and other methods that empower individuals to look after their own sexual health.

First and foremost, HIV should be understood as an important public health issue, not a criminal one. Clearly, following the most recent medical science, criminal laws and codes should not apply to any person living with HIV who has engaged in sexual activity without disclosing their status if they have maintained a suppressed viral load.

The November 2018 prosecutorial guidelines issued by the Attorney General of Canada are an important first step forward; however, more needs to be done to reduce stigma, prejudice and the disproportional impact our laws have on indigenous, racialized and sexual and gender minority communities. We must finally end all unjust criminal prosecutions against those living with HIV if we are to meet Canada's commitment to eliminate HIV as a public health threat by 2030.

Currently, we are behind the 90-90-90 target for 2020, which requires that 90% of people living with HIV know their status, 90% of those diagnosed be receiving antiretroviral treatment and 90% of those on treatment achieve viral suppression. Removing the fear of unjust criminalization may help meet these important target goals. Many believe that the end of HIV is a realistic possibility if we focus concerted attention and scale up funding for accessible testing and treatment.

For these reasons, I urge this committee to closely examine the call to action contained within the “Community Consensus Statement: End Unjust HIV Criminalization”, which has been endorsed by over 170 Canadian civil society organizations. Clear evidence-based prosecutorial guidelines need to be developed, the Criminal Code of Canada should be reformed and all levels of government and public health agencies ought to work together to provide education and training to end the fear, misinformation and stigma that still surround HIV.

On November 29, 2017, I had the incredible privilege to be here in the House of Commons to witness the Prime Minister's historic apology to LGBTQ2 Canadians. It was an absolutely incredible day, a day that many of us thought we might never live to see. The Prime Minister's apology—indeed, Canada's apology—should not represent a one-time act but an ongoing commitment to end discrimination and unjust legislation, laws and practices that continue to target sexual and gender minorities.

Much work remains to be done, especially when it comes to current discriminatory policies on blood and organ donations and the increased backlash we are currently witnessing against LGBTQ2 equality in schools across our nation. For too long, the Criminal Code and the courts have been used as instruments of prejudice, violence and discrimination that have unjustly targeted those who are or who are perceived to be different in our society. The criminalization of HIV is only one very recent and tragic example.

Returning to Lawrence Hill's Massey Lectures, he eloquently reminds us:

Blood reveals and also protects us.... Blood...defines who we are: in our emotional states, in our social ranking, in our state of innocence or...guilt, and most important of all, in our relationships to each other.

Laws should not be used to unjustly prosecute people living with HIV. Rather, our laws should be used to protect us from discrimination and persecution, based on who we are and who we love and not on what is or isn't in our blood.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much. It's much appreciated.

Now we will go to Ms. Williams, from HIV Edmonton.

[Shelley Williams, Executive Director, HIV Edmonton]

Thank you.

On behalf of the HIV Network of Edmonton Society—referred to as HIV Edmonton—I would like to thank this committee for asking me to present before you. It is with absolute appreciation that I am a participant in such an important dialogue on the criminalization of non-disclosure of HIV status. I have worked with HIV Edmonton since 2011. My 37 years in community service organizations have also included working on issues of differing abilities and women’s issues including violence against women, poverty and homelessness.

I was also chair of a coalition devoted to and successful in developing access to supervised consumption services in Edmonton, another important justice and human rights issue. I have tremendous respect for the work of the committee and for your desire to hear from an array of individuals, including people living with HIV and others who can provide their expertise and perspectives. I have read some of the statements presented to the committee thus far and my presentation will be in support of what you have already heard.

HIV Edmonton is a small but mighty charitable community service organization devoted to the mission of zero new HIV transmissions, zero stigma and discrimination, and zero AIDS-related deaths. This vision was adopted based on UNAIDS' 2011-15 strategy, “Getting to Zero”. We do not think 90-90-90 is enough, although it’s an important mid-term outcome. It is now possible to get to zero, but we need society to adopt the vision and undertake the work of reform in law, legislation and policies to help us get there. Tremendous work over the past three decades has brought us to this point. Now let’s leverage it to move beyond.

The directive is a definite step forward in acknowledging that HIV is a public health issue and that the law has disproportionately affected people who are marginalized and stigmatized. The directive also acknowledges the changing science in the treatment of HIV in recognizing that maintaining a lower viral load does not pose a realistic possibility of transmission.

While these are positive steps, HIV Edmonton signed the community consensus statement in 2017 and we believe that there is more work to be done at the federal level, specifically and for the purposes of today, on reform of the Criminal Code. The directive of November 30, 2018, is not enforceable in most jurisdictions across the country, and it is too vague, which leaves room for inconsistency in application.

Criminalization of non-disclosure of HIV status should not be considered a sexual assault and the use of the Criminal Code should be limited to situations where there is proven malicious intent to harm and actual transmission of HIV.

HIV is a public health issue and not a crime, and because it doesn’t go far enough, the marginalization identified in the directive continues.

The social determinants of health and health equity are important considerations to ensure the law does not negatively impact people accessing health and community supports. Health Canada shows that the broad range of personal, social, economic and environmental factors determine individual and population health. Reducing health inequities means helping to give everyone the same opportunities to be healthy, no matter who they are or where they live.

Many different people come to HIV Edmonton for its education, prevention and support services. There are many stories that can highlight these key points and show why this committee has more work to do.

On more than one occasion in Edmonton, people have had their pictures plastered on the front page, identifying their alleged HIV status and asking for the community to contact authorities if connected with or if they have knowledge of the person. These are pictures of human beings, one as young as 16. This young woman was a guardian of the province and was considered highly dangerous, an alleged criminal because of her HIV status. One person called me and told me that this young woman might as well have taken an AK-47 into a mall and started shooting. Ignorance and sensationalism result in stigma and discrimination and perpetuate ongoing community misconceptions about the facts of HIV. Efforts at all levels of government must work together to consistently debunk these myths and normalize HIV in the realm of public health.

Publications of pictures and outing an alleged HIV status also does zero in encouraging people to be tested. We know that testing is key to getting a diagnosis and treatment. The majority of people who are diagnosed with HIV access and maintain treatment. The law should not deter a strategy we know is crucial to maintaining health. People living with HIV and struggling to access and maintain treatment need a full range of health and social supports that will work for their identified needs and circumstances.

At HIV Edmonton we have a peer-to-peer program for people living with HIV and fewer social and economic supports. They identify that the space is the only place where they can be themselves, safe to talk about HIV medications and their treatment as well as other aspects of their lives. Why? Because to do so in other spaces puts them at risk of discrimination and violence. The power differential cannot be underestimated for people living with HIV. For many, their personal, family and community relationships are negatively impacted because of a health status, and their health, legal and community supports may become more difficult to navigate depending on the knowledge and the understanding of the person they are receiving support from.

Government legislation, public policies and the Criminal Code must be cohesive and consistent in supporting the first and third statement of the directive, which acknowledges that HIV is a public health issue and that persons from marginalized backgrounds are disproportionately impacted. More must be done on access to prevention, education, testing, provision of support specifically addressing individual needs as well as broader policies and supports for programs addressing racism, abuse, domestic violence, substance use and poverty, including living income and affordable housing.

This committee has heard from a broad spectrum of people discussing the directive. I implore you to continue consultations with people living with HIV and with legal, social and scientific experts to hear opinions and develop reforms together that would put an end to the use of sexual assault as a means of criminalization of HIV non-disclosure and limit any use of the Criminal Code to cases of malicious intent and actual transmission.

It is a justice and human rights issue. I hope this committee will do the work and be resolved to know that getting this work right will be a huge step in moving towards zero new HIV transmissions and zero HIV and AIDS stigma and discrimination.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much to all the witnesses. We'll now move to questions.

Mr. Cooper.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

I'll direct my first question to Ms. Williams. You stated that in your opinion the directive issued by the Attorney General is vague in some areas. Could you, perhaps, elaborate on what areas you find it to be vague?

[Shelley Williams]

I'll admit I'm not a lawyer, but it's in the area of the third statement in the component of “lower levels of blameworthiness”, which I definitely have difficulty understanding. I think it makes it difficult, but as a lawyer I can't comment.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you for that.

Professor Wells, are you satisfied with the directive overall?

[Dr. Kristopher Wells]

As was mentioned by all of us, I think, the directive is an important first step but it needs to go further. I think it's really important, as was mentioned, that we consult directly with the communities that are impacted, with those living with HIV.

With the directive, I think we need to ensure that there's standardization across the provinces so a directive is not being used in one province and then not being used in another province. It creates this notion not only of inequity across the country but of people just unsure of what the current practices are and what the law has to say, and that continues to perpetuate fear, misunderstanding and stigma.

If there's one thing that we can do in this country, it's to work towards ending stigma. If we work towards ending stigma, I think we'll start to see some of the other changes that are needed come along the way.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

If you had the federal government taking the lead and working with the provinces to establish a consistent prosecutorial standard, would you be satisfied that the standard would be consistent with the federal directive?