Thank you for the question. I would answer in two ways.
We—and the Auditor General agrees—have made a lot of progress and have a reasonably good handle on quantity, so it's not a question of a military operation overseas not being able to get parts. That is our first and primordial priority, and it has to be. What I would suggest we're looking at is that there's a cost of maintaining outdated, non-useful inventory. I have to heat it, I have to secure it, I have to store it. We're going through that every year to get rid of it and to accelerate that process.
However, let's be clear in terms of the materiel group. Their business is to forecast what the military needs are and to make sure the parts are there, and I think the AG has said we're doing pretty well on quantity. Where we are having trouble is the value to put on that information.
It's not a question of doing nothing. I don't think anybody is sitting here saying we've done nothing or are doing nothing. We're trying to do as much as we can as fast as we can, because we do think it's important. I don't want to be paying to heat and secure and store materiel that I don't need, because I could use that money somewhere else, so we're trying to get rid of it and go through it. When you have 600 million pieces of inventory, you need to do it as fast as you can, but in stages, and that's what we're trying to do.