I will say this about the consecutive versus concurrent dilemma. For example, when we're talking about multiple child victims, I think it's appropriate for Parliament to send a strong message that there should be consecutive sentences, because it sends a strong message that every child matters and that one child's victimization is going to add to the punishment just as much as another child's victimization.
When I read the draft bill, I did look at this very carefully, because as lawyers, we always have to be concerned about the totality principle. If you go out on a joyride, take a baseball bat, drive past 200 mailboxes in a rural community, and whack down every one of them, you've committed 200 separate offences. If you have a minimum sentence of six months for each one, you have a 100-year sentence for one night of mischief. This is the problem that the totality principle presents.
I support preserving the totality principle in the legislation, and as I read it, it is, but short of that, I do support the language that I see encouraging the judges to be more vigilant to impose consecutives because every child matters.