Yes.
This is where—and I'm going to get to you, Mr. Ryan—intent is a challenging area in the law, right? We get into issues of morality when we start to use things of intent.
What we're trying to do is isolate the difference between reckless behaviour, which we have provisions for.... Mr. Virani mentioned vitiating consent through fraud.
Intent gets us into issues of, “Oh, you bad person. You have HIV+. You lied. You intended to transmit.” There are a whole lot of value judgements in there that are very tough to prove in law, so what we need to do on our side is understand the definitions around reckless behaviour.
I'll tell you my personal opinion. I think reckless behaviour plus transmission should be the standard. It's a high standard, and it would be a high standard to prove.
Mr. Ryan, do you have any thoughts on those two combinations?