Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question in this area is that there's a reduction. I take it that this is to the LHOs. Is there an equal percentage across the board to all LHOs?

Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as I said in my address to the budget, I'm concerned about

fairness and how it happens, so I have questions later that will go in that area. But when it comes to the general reductions to LHOs, was there a percentage of reductions overall, or was there a sliding scale in some cases? We heard earlier on in another statement about the cutting down of programs without proper funding and training. There may be cases as such but, at the same time, there are cases of just poor management and that's costing this government a lot of money. We're going to have to address that at the same time. We can't always say everybody was unprepared and unable to deal with the tasks that were at hand. So I think when we're looking at things, we're going to have to take a serious look at both sides. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a comment on this; with the privatization of different programs within this department, is this another area where the department can realize savings once it privatizes vehicles and equipment, supply services and so on. Is this an area that can be targeted for savings possibly?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What's the average age of these replacement vehicles?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Are these new vehicles additional to the fleet, or are they replacement?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Are these replacement vehicles or new to the fleet?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On this equipment, how many vehicles is this purchasing?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We heard earlier on the other privatization areas where there was a concern of fairness in the process of privatization if it goes out to tender -- as Mr. Picco would say, fairity. But in a small community where you have maybe one operation, you mentioned your earlier response to me about the business community picking up in the economic value of this. In this instance you would have the same amount of money being taken from one pot to another. There's no increase. Instead, you are putting more people off the workforce. There are no guarantees that there would be future employment for those that are being laid off. This is where my concern comes in, again, being a regional centre where these things seem to be taking part more than in larger communities, because this wouldn't affect the smaller communities.

My concern, as we've heard throughout the time we've been in the House and as we've gone through budget plans, is the fairness and dealing compassionately and fairly with employees as well. Now, we've heard some Members here state that the process of tendering and that would be fair, and I would put the other side of the equation there. Will it be fair to those who want the opportunity to be able to stay gainfully employed and possibly take over? Thank you.