Okay.
Perhaps what I'd like to do is go back to this question of the lapsed money, because I would say that although the minister said I was wrong, I think I was right in terms of how I was looking at it.
I just had a discussion with Mr. Lindsey, and I think Mr. Lindsey and I agree that for 2009-10, the lapse was $1.2 billion in the following sense. The department proposed to spend a certain amount. They thought they'd spend a certain amount. At the end of the year, it turned out they'd spent $1.2 billion less than what they thought they'd spend. I have heard that the number is even bigger for the following year, for 2010-11. It could be that up to 10% of the budget of the Department of National Defence isn't spent.
Now, he will explain about reprofiling, but I just want to put it in these terms first. My concern would be that the Department of National Defence has some enemies in town, like the Department of Finance; if they see that National Defence is spending only 90% of the money it has, why not just take that money away?
If your lapse is $2 billion, that's half of the amount the government has to save in total across the government--$4 billion a year. I'm not saying that's necessarily reasonable, but I'm saying that it could be interpreted that way.
I guess I'm asking Mr. Fonberg, Mr. Lindsey, or anyone who wants to answer for an explanation.