I think you make a very good point about the timeliness of this type of information.
I don't want to start commenting on the specifics of Maple Leaf, other than what I know from public information, but it would appear from what we've heard in testimony before this committee that the failing they fell into was a fairly common one of gathering information that was very valuable for process control purposes and then failing to analyze it in a way that would show where the problem was.
I think the relevance to your question is that if they had had oversight from well-qualified people who understood what these types of systems were supposed to do, that failing would have been pointed out at a pretty early stage, because they essentially had an important part of the system be non-functional. I think that would be bound to come out in the type of comprehensive audit that section 4 apparently talks about.