Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I can first of all acknowledge the question in terms of the lapsing. There were really two portions to the lapse identified by the member, the $4.1 million lapse. Part of it was through grants and contributions, the dollars that were lapsed, and the other part was the O and M that was lapsed.
The reason, really, for the grants and contributions is twofold. First of all, the agency manages those contribution dollars based on take-up and need, and based on the timing and phasing of the projects. When we are forecasting projects that we believe are coming forward, we map out the potential timeframe for a proponent to bring forward a project description, an EIS statement, and the actual conduct of the EA. We map out certain timeframes. Often the proponent will take longer—or shorter—than what we anticipated to get the project description done. They will take longer to do the environmental impact statement than we might have contemplated.
During those times the clock is stopped, but there also is no work for aboriginal or other groups to comment on or participate in, and we don't flow that money when it's not needed. Those commitments, however, are retained going forward.
We have more than $6 million, for example, already booked for contribution—