I'll answer that question in a couple of ways. First and foremost, there used to be only one criminal organization offence in the Criminal Code. Once there were three, it opened up the door to different levels of evolvement and analysis. It's going to be very helpful in the long run to see people who are simply participating in a criminal organization, versus those who are doing an activity for an organization, versus those who are leading or influencing that organization. I think we'll have an ability to look at that more carefully to answer some of those broader questions in the long run.
So has it been worth it? There has certainly been an impact on the criminal justice system. We have people who have been identified. As we know, if you are identified as somebody who was convicted of a criminal organization offence, it's taken quite seriously. It impacts on things like classification, decision-making, release risk, and awareness of that population. Dealing with a unique group of the population who have had these offences has enabled us to examine more closely who they are, what they are like, and how they distinguish themselves from the rest of the population. We have been able to bring to bear more knowledge and better strategies and understanding of what it will take to manage this population effectively.
We're dealing with offenders after they are apprehended and convicted. The issue of how we can prevent this will come out as well. How can you influence this so it doesn't manifest itself in the long run? It is costly, and the social cost of crime is huge. They contribute to this. Anything we can bring to bear from our knowledge and understanding of how to impact on that will certainly contribute to public safety in the long run.