I'm going to talk a bit about military equipment, which is so critical to the safety and well-being of our armed forces members—their ability to train, to be part of operations, and not having aged equipment parked for very expensive maintenance. Unfortunately, the 2008 CFDS, Canada's failed defence strategy, has been a road map to nowhere in terms of equipment for the last number of years.
I just want to note that since the 2007-08 capital budget, the average amount announced as a vote 5 expenditure but not spent—in other words, clawed back—has been $7.2 billion. That is money that Parliament approved but was not spent. That's an average of 23% clawed back. I will just note in comparison that for the 30 years prior to that, the average vote 5 funds left unspent was 2%. That's 23% versus 2%. I would hate to think that this government deliberately failed to provide our troops with the equipment they need, sacrificing them to pay for election tax breaks. Whether it's destroyers, patrol ships, resupply ships, icebreakers, close-combat vehicles, armoured patrol vehicles, drones, CF-18s, or Buffalo and Hercules search and rescue aircraft, most of the major procurement projects have been bungled and not actually delivered.
Minister, which of those replacement programs will actually be initiated this year? That's my first question.
My second question relates to something the minister previously claimed, that the capital equipment budget was reduced by $700 million and that some of that reduction was because the Canadian Armed Forces took early delivery of equipment previously, leading to a reduced need for capital spending.
What equipment was delivered early that would account for your statement?