I would favour going back to what I said about creative thinking outside the box, and not relying unnecessarily on some federal legislation, although I think there have been some serious ideas about updating wiretap legislation, because in the era of BlackBerrys, pagers, and Internet communications we're still living in the legislation that deals with black telephones.
Proceeds of crime have to be looked at much more seriously. A police officer once told me that he had arrested a biker over and over again and the biker didn't mind, but the day they came and took away his Lamborghini the guy was crying. In other words, the idea is that you go after organized crime where it hurts, which is in their pocketbooks. So are there ways to tighten up and improve proceeds of crime?
Again, I would really encourage thinking outside the box. One example of a failed prosecution is when Revenue Canada, as it was called at the time, decided to go after the Hells Angels in Vancouver. Revenue Canada is allowed to go after any group it wants, whether it's fishermen or farmers, not in an indiscriminate way, but to say let's look at them. What they would do is look at this person's job, how much money they had made, and what they had declared. They took on the Hells Angels for a variety of reasons. I can go into details later if you like. The prosecution didn't necessarily work, but again it disrupted and really angered the Hells Angels. That's a creative way. That's how they got Al Capone.