Your first question, with regard to the capital and whether it stays with the same project, is a fascinating question. From a parliamentary control perspective, Parliament controls on the total vote. It's just one global number for capital. You're not approving certain projects. So from a parliamentary control perspective, no.
From an operational perspective, departments basically are tracking their projects. They have capital attached to them. If one is under budget and another is overbudget, can they move that money around? Yes, they can.
Two, are there any departments whose lapses concern me? No. The interesting thing about government is that the lapse is lower this year than the previous year. Typically speaking, when there are cutbacks or reductions in budgets, departments are so worried about overspending that they put the brakes on too hard. Ironically, in years when we're cutting back, lapses are typically higher than in years when we're not. It's kind of a strange phenomenon, but it speaks to the importance of not overspending your budget.
In this fiscal year, when you actually look at the net lapse, the vast majority of it is planned: capital carry-forward, operating carry-forward. We didn't talk about grants and contributions. Two major grants and contributions programs really accounted for the bulk of the lapse on that side—infrastructure, which is complex negotiations, so no big surprise; and our friends at Indian and Northern Affairs, where again, negotiations can be difficult stuff, so you often see large lapses there.