Under the most charitable view, I think you could be correct. Given the realities of what people know about the Criminal Code—which I brought with me, and I'm not a strong man; it's heavy in one hand—I think that if you presume that everyone knows what's in here, both the offenders and the victims, and society at large, you may be correct, but I don't think that's an assumption that we can make.
Even if there is some benefit as you've described, I think there is an opportunity cost that's lost when you increase criminal litigation. The Criminal Code is a blunt tool to deal with public education, to deal with change in societal attitudes, to deal with those sorts of situations, and when you evaluate the marginal benefits that may arise in the situation that you've described, if there are marginal benefits, and when you weigh that against the cost, I think there are other ways that we can educate the public.
In Canada, we've just gone through a period where we've been discussing the offence of sexual assault quite a lot. It has been in the news. People have been educated. There has been a robust debate about what should happen in court when a sexual assault complainant testifies. What's appropriate questioning? What's not appropriate questioning? What is sexual assault?
I know my children in school are educated about consent and issues like that. That's not through changes in the Criminal Code. That's through a larger, broader public discussion. I think that is a more effective way than legislation to deal with the public education issues that you described.