Thank you for the question.
I'll address each recommendation. There is one recommendation, but there are really four sub-components of it, and I'll come at those in turn, if I may.
On the first one with respect to hiring and training of staff, both prior to the audit and post-audit, we significantly increased the staff horsepower associated with addressing the backlog. When the plan came into place in March 2007, we had 132 staff in place to address this. In advance of the plan coming into place, we had hired 40, so we went from 92 to 132 staff. Between coming into force on March 1, 2007, and July of 2010, we hired another 70 people to bring it up to 202. Since that time, we have hired and trained another 30 people to address this.
We have a total of 232 people today dedicated to addressing the backlog. We continue to look on an ongoing basis at the value proposition associated with hiring more people, conscious, of course, of the cost that would be against the plan itself. So that's an ongoing piece we look at and continue to evaluate. That's the first piece.
On the second one with respect to system improvements and administrative processes, I spoke previously about some of the systems changes that were put in place, both in the fall of 2010 and the fall of 2011. We continue to look at doing that on an ongoing basis. Some of the problems associated with that early on related to the fact that the system was really geared in much the way it would be for a regular force pension plan or a public service pension plan dealing with straightforward cases. They weren't necessarily well set up to deal with the unique part-time cases associated with the reservists. So we have continued to put those changes in place.
With respect to the recommendation to redesign administrative processes, the military pension renewal project will certainly amend the business processes associated with pension administration. But with respect to the manual record-keeping going forward, it continues to be a manual process, and that, regrettably, is what it is, and we're going to have to deal with it as we work through the backlog.
With respect to the performance reporting part of the recommendations, we have implemented a rigorous quarterly reporting piece that will be reported both to me and, three times a year, to the Canadian Forces Pension Advisory Committee, which I chair. That committee has representatives from the army, the navy, the air force, and the reserve community at the senior leadership level. The reporting will then be disseminated back through their respective chains, and we will look to place those performance reports on the website as well.
With respect to improved communications, I spoke previously about the proposal to combine the two websites into one on a trial basis by March 2012, with a final version no later than December, a year hence. We have conducted town halls to get the word out. There is a reserve force pension communication working group, under the auspices of the chief of reserves, to help get this word out. We continue to have a call centre with nine people dedicated during business hours to addressing concerns related to administration, and we have our own internal messaging vehicle by which we endeavour to get the word out as well.
Those are some of the specific pieces associated with the recommendation. I am confident that we're on track. We've gained a lot of experience in the four years since the plan was put into place. We've increased staff capacity. The communications have improved. The processing time for a file has gone down significantly. We have completed over 11% of the files. There is a management action plan in place to address it, monitor it, and report on it.
I would submit, Mr. Chair, that we're on track and we know where we are.