I think it would be fair to say there's not a generally accepted understanding of what that would mean. We've defined it in a way that we thought was meaningful for us, which is to say future-oriented financial statements. That will restate appropriations in a manner that would facilitate easier comparison later on, with actual results once the financial statements are completed. It is meant to facilitate a budget-to-actual kind of comparison.
I think we certainly can say we've achieved the production of the numbers. The point that remains to be evaluated is whether the users, the MPs and others, have found that effort to be useful or not. Until we find out if it's being used by the very people who asked for it, we can't say for sure whether it's been a success.
A certain amount of cost is involved in the systems to convert these appropriation numbers into this new format. Therefore, it is a bit of a burden on the financial community to produce the results, but that's the extent of it.
On the accrual appropriation side, I think it goes beyond that, because you're then going to be fundamentally changing the way Parliament has controlled expenditures for many years. I think that's an institutional change that surpasses a mere accounting change, and I think that needs to be thought through very carefully.