We've already undertaken some changes, as I mentioned earlier, when we did our at-sea observer program. We tightened up the qualification process significantly from what it was for the dockside, and we've now gone back and we're starting to amend the dockside policy as well to make it more arm's length and less likely to be subject to any kind of intervention.
Along with that, as part of my current role, we're just implementing a national intelligence service within DFO, and a subsection of that group will be tasked with doing audit verification specifically for catch monitoring programs. So they'll systematically and randomly check, and this will be on top of what the CGSB auditors do, and it'll be on top of our regular program. Their sole purpose will be to look for inaccuracies or data that doesn't seem to make sense and drill into it. If there are irregularities found, it'll be turned over to investigators to start active investigations. So we're setting up a separate program just to deal with those types of issues and try to prevent that from creeping into the program.
Data systems are important, but the quality of the data is important as well, because scientists and stock managers are basing their decisions, in part, on the information that comes in through those programs, on the fact that the dockside monitoring program and the at-sea observer program are, by their very nature, supposed to be independent verification of catch. They themselves are supposed to be the spot-checkers of the industry records. If we have problems with that program, it's very serious. So we take allegations of misreporting or inaccurate reporting very seriously, and we have launched investigations in the past and we'll continue to do so in the future, if required.