Yes. It's a matter I've given some thought to.
On the one hand, it can look like a huge task, no question. In part, it's been undertaken. Many of these rules, though, are not rules that are really in dispute. The Supreme Court of Canada, most recently in the A.D.H. case, has said here are the rules that ought to govern us. In this bill, for example, the Department of Justice has gone through particular sections simply trying to rephrase them to be quite consistent on technicalities. To assist in reading the bill, for example, the part saying “it is an offence” will always come at the beginning rather than at the end.
To a very great extent, much of this could be accomplished by putting in some statements like “knowledge is required for all circumstances unless the code says otherwise” or “intent is required unless the code says otherwise”. Say that early on, and then simply go through the code and remove words. Take out “wilfully” where it's not adding anything. Take out “corruptly”. Take out “intentionally”. Take out “knowingly” where it's already covered by that.
Most of it is not actually rethinking these provisions but just rewriting them in a consistent way. It's a big task, but it's not an unmanageable task.