As I said, we do that in a number of ways. Speaking more broadly, government has undertaken a number of measures to improve overall financial oversight management. We created the Office of the Comptroller General back in 2004. Every organization must have a chief financial officer, as already noted. Those are now up on the website for all to see. Also, 80% of the chief financial officers in large departments now have professional accounting designations. That's compared to about 33% for both chief financial officers and deputy financial officers as assessed by the Auditor General in 2002, so we've made tremendous progress in terms of getting highly qualified chief financial officers in these organizations, including the small organizations. In the small organizations we have 35 CFOs or DCFOs who have a designation.
As well, in terms of oversight accountability, all of these agency heads have been designated as accounting officers under the Federal Accountability Act. They are required, therefore, to take on those responsibilities as accounting officers.
Reporting is one way of providing oversight, and that's why it's such an important initiative. As we reduce and remove policies at the centre, it means that the centre has somewhat less oversight. As we reduce reports, we want to do so in a way that still allows some measure of oversight. The worst thing that could happen would be to remove all these reports. Then if something went wrong, the question would be why we didn't know about it. It's finding that balance.
Again, I want to emphasize that we recognize the burden being placed on these organizations. However, I think Frank is right: it does take some time to ensure that we have the right set of policies and therefore the right set of reports. In my view, that is coming together.