Basically, the reason why it was 10 years was that in about 2003 the government adopted accrual accounting. For National Defence, being such a huge department, it was a very significant exercise to be able to transition. They were having issues with respect to looking at fixed assets, tangible capital assets. As well, inventory control then became an issue along the way. It stands to reason that it would take them a fair chunk of time.
Having said that, though, we felt that for 10 years' time they probably should be able to do better than they're doing right now. Year over year in the observations section, we do comment on the fact that they still need work in terms of the areas of inventory and asset pool items, because every year when we do our audit we have significant adjustments. If you are adjusting the accounts that significantly every year, it means that there are still some systemic problems.
In terms of what they're doing, I understand that they actually filed a response to the committee about a month ago. There was a recommendation that this committee had made in reaction to the observations we made last year. That report was filed about a month ago, indicating that they're working on a number of initiatives leading up to 2016 and going a little bit beyond. I think the chart I saw was for 2016-17. This would be something that we would want to look at in the current year's audit to see if they're on schedule.
They have made movement on some of these improvement initiatives, but the improvement initiatives are broader than just inventory reporting. They get into inventory management and maybe other aspects as well, so when we come back to the issue of inventory reporting, they really haven't gone very far. The important point is—