Within section 467 there are wiretap provisions. That also falls under part 6. When we go for an extensive wiretap and there's a simple change in it--let's say, for instance, we have five people named, and a sixth person comes into the offence--currently in Canada we have to rewrite the wiretap. It is extremely labour-intensive. We have to update the judge on everything that has happened since he last issued it. Often the whole spirit of the wiretap has not changed, but it can take literally months to do. It becomes extremely ineffective.
I've just talked to the people in Quebec. What they tried to do a couple of years ago, although it hasn't been tested at the Supreme Court level, was simply an amendment. They said they were bringing this other person in for these reasons; it was a two- or three-page amendment, and then they just said that the spirit of everything in the wiretap the judge had agreed to remained the same. They were able to do that very effectively.
That was on Project Colisée a couple of years ago, when they tackled organized crime. When they were able to do that, it kept the momentum and flow of the investigation focused. If you do it other ways, it just really stalls the investigation, and what would take four months literally ends up taking eight or nine months.
Other things we would look at doing include some sort of registration or acceptance if you're named a criminal organization by a number of supreme courts. In this case, the Hells Angels is a criminal organization. Accept the fact that they're a criminal--