Thank you.
There are two parts, I guess, to respond to Mr. McCallum, the first technical. In any given year, the department is appropriated money through main estimates and supplementary estimates. It spends money and gives a rendering of those accounts in the public accounts. However, through the course of the year, the department's authority to spend money that has been appropriated can be fettered or reduced by the executive.
In fact, in 2009-10 and in virtually every fiscal year, that winds up happening. It winds up happening usually because deliveries of equipment, or infrastructure that we had planned to build, will get delayed for whatever reason. So the money that we require to pay for the infrastructure when it ultimately is built, or to pay for the equipment when it ultimately is delivered, gets transferred from, in the year we're talking about, fiscal year 2009-10 to some other fiscal year in the future. Our spending authority for the year in question is actually reduced. That becomes the benchmark against which we compare, and in fact all other departments compare because they all have the same phenomenon to some extent or another, our actual expenditures.
With respect to 2009-10, after allowing for that amount of money that is reprofiled to the future to pay for future obligations, the amount of money that DND did not spend, or the amount of money, to put it euphemistically, “left on the table”, was $123 million. In fact, in the preceding five years, the total amount of money that fits into that category, that DND left on the table or did not spend, was less than $500 million for the entire five years.