Unfortunately, I don't think so, and a specific example comes right back to me again. Four plus four plus four is twelve, reduced to five. Four plus four plus four plus four, or ten plus ten plus ten, or whatever, comes back to five because the fundamental analysis as the Criminal Code is drafted looks to what is fair and reasonable and not unduly harsh to the perpetrator.
The additional problem is that you have the jurisprudence out there that sits in the common law setting that we have, and that's another set of goalposts that just do not move. You have the added problem that not only does the code itself bring you back on totality, but you have the jurisprudence that sits there as guidance as to what the goalposts really should be. So I have between four and ten, and I have between four and fifteen, and I have between four and life. You'd like to think you were moving a mindset for that tough case when you do identify the monster, but the reality is that all the defence lawyer does is revert to the Stuckless case or the Graham James case where they had the monster and here is what the monster got and all of these provisions in terms of how we sentence people apply. So you're back to the jurisprudence.
Greg's perfect bill would actually be a reference to the Supreme Court where the Supreme Court opined on a moved set of goalposts. That's not going to happen.
I would have dearly loved to be part of a process that was appealed to the Supreme Court where this issue could be addressed. Unfortunately, I think until the jurisprudence moves, there is no way out.
An interesting aspect would be the possibility of creating a new type of offender, the dangerous sexual offender, as actually a defined term and which was a new offence that would give courts the possibility of maybe thinking their way out. But that would only involve a creative judge who looked past the earlier jurisprudence, and you don't get a creative judge who looks past the jurisprudence until you get the societal education and understanding of the impact on the victim.
Again, I hearken back to the start of my presentation. To the extent that legislation like this is there, though it accomplishes nothing that would have helped in my case, it's provoking a discussion and focusing people on the issue of child sexual assault, the impact on victims, and it's a step forward. It may be in our lifetimes, who knows?