Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members first to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us today three students with the Operation World Scholarship Exchange: Yesenia Gomez Dallas, Fiorella Fonseca Arce, Melissa Guillen Castro. The exchange is based in the constituency of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this morning.

Also, seated in the public gallery this morning, we have twenty-three Grade 6 students from Faraday School under the direction of Mrs. Evelin Anderson. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this morning.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, throughout the period after the last election when the government was building up the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, they maintained that it must be maintained at a 5 percent level. In fact, in 1997 the former Minister of Finance said: The government is committed to maintaining at least 5 percent in this fund.

I would like to ask the Premier: why did he take this position in '97 and fire over a thousand nurses, and does it make any sense today to now have to rehire some 600 in the budget they announced yesterday?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, you know, it is ironic, coming from a member opposite who did not want to have the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, who argued against it, who said it was not necessary, who ridiculed it, that now he is very concerned about the fund. That is the kind of politics that we get every day in this House from the member opposite, and he ought to be ashamed of himself. But of course he has no shame. He has no shame.

I would just like to tell the member opposite that in their budget this year the Saskatchewan government, over the past year, has raided over $460 million out of their rainy day fund, which they create out of the revenues that they get from gaming and from alcohol. It is now at its lowest level in the past couple of decades. It is less than a hundred million dollars. What is happening, of course, is that we have certain needs to ensure as a province–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Filmon: No, Madam Speaker, these are needs across Canada. Health care is in a stage of reform. We have not only to ensure that we can build the capital works necessary to move from an acute care base system to a long-term care base system, we need to ensure that our health professionals are well remunerated and are attracted here and we can recruit and retain them.

We have, of course, requirements to ensure that we build the dikes, the flood protection works as a result of the flood of '97, which is all ongoing. We have, of course, major capital works that are nonrepeating. We have a number of areas, and these are all accounted for. We have an agriculture fund, federal-provincial program that we must fund, and this is a one-time, short-term fund that has to be done because there is hurt in agriculture. The member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) gets up all the time and tells us about it.

* (1005)

Madam Speaker, these are the reasons why we have a Fiscal Stabilization Fund, and we are putting it to the appropriate use.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, on page 16 in the Monnin report he said he had never encountered more liars in his experience on the bench, and the Premier again misleads this House because we voted for the Fiscal Stabilization Fund in 1989–

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Doer: You did not cut off the Premier, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Emerson is up on a point of order.

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): On a number of occasions we have heard the ruling from the Chair in this House on the use of the word "liar" and here the honourable Leader of the Opposition is again challenging and using the terminology "liar" in this Chamber, and I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that we call the member to order.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I would point out to the member that the Leader of the Opposition quoted the Monnin report, that is, Justice Monnin. That is a report; it is a public document. I believe the exact quote is that Justice Monnin had never seen as many liars in his number of years on the bench. I think members opposite might understand some of our sensitivity on such matters, given the fact that most of the people referenced were key players of the Filmon team, but the point that the Leader of the Opposition was making was that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) stood up and put totally inaccurate information on the record. We supported the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, and our questions relate very much to the fact that this Premier now, going into an election, has decided to raid the Stabilization Fund, and as recently as December it was supposed to be sacrosanct. There was supposed to be a target–

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable First Minister, on the same point of order, and I would remind all members speaking to a point of order to be specific to the point of order with their comments.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the point of order is with respect to the member's comments about the Monnin report. I remind him that on pages 57 and 58, Mr. Monnin covers only one member in this House whom he finds blameworthy, and that is the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale). So, when he is talking about liars, we have to assume that the member for Crescentwood is one of those that he is referring to.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the official opposition, on the same point of order.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, it is obvious that the Tories have one position on Monnin on one page, page 16, and another position on the other page. We are willing and able to discuss all parts of the Monnin inquiry. We feel free in this Chamber to quote from any section of the Monnin inquiry. We do not need a sock in our mouth like members opposite. We do not need any gag orders in this Chamber, and we feel that we are free to speak on the Monnin inquiry, including page 16 where Monnin states that he has never encountered more liars in his experience on the bench.

The Premier obviously agrees with us, Madam Speaker, because he, too, is quoting from Monnin. We are not afraid to quote from Monnin. Let the truth come out.

* (1010)

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Emerson, the Leader of the Opposition did indeed quote from the Monnin inquiry, but I did not hear him attribute that specifically to any member in this House. Now I recognize it is Friday, and I recognize emotions are running high, but I would appreciate the co-operation of all members in using temperate language and not getting into enraged debates. So there is therefore not a point of order.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, on a new point of order, in his comments on the previous point of order, the Premier specifically made reference to a member of this House in terms of being a liar. I would suggest, in keeping with your ruling, that you once again–and I do not know how many more times we have to get this Premier to withdraw words and apologize, but he clearly, clearly broke the rules of this House. I would suggest that you ask him to, once again, I think for the thousandth time in this House, withdraw his unparliamentary language.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, on the point of order, I will make my point that the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) is the only member of this House who is found blameworthy in the report, but I certainly will not make any allegations of lying against him. I withdraw any implication of that.

Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable First Minister.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Opposition, with a supplementary question.

Mr. Doer: We have said for four years that hallway medicine and the crisis in health care has alternatives, and that is to use the rainy day fund to prevent the raining in health care in hospitals, to get our friends and neighbours and family members out of the hallways of our hospitals, to stop the indiscriminate firing of nurses. So, Madam Speaker, was the government telling the truth in 1997 when it stated: we are committed to maintaining at least 5 percent, or is it telling the truth now that a crisis in health care or a crisis for the Tories must be dealt with with the Stabilization Fund?

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if I might ask the honourable Leader of the official opposition to withdraw the words and rephrase his question. "To tell the truth," when referring specifically to any member of this Chamber, has been ruled unparliamentary by Speaker Rocan on several occasions, and it has been raised previously in this Chamber on several occasions.

Mr. Doer: Well, Madam Speaker, I guess my question is: was the government telling the truth when it made the statement that it was committed to 5 percent, or was it telling the truth this morning?

Mr. Filmon: I think that the answer to the dilemma of the member opposite is contained in today's Free Press editorial, and it says: "The irony here and it is a big one is that the Tories are being criticized for doing exactly what opposition politicians have been demanding for years: Spend more money, particularly on health care."

That, of course, is what is really irking the member opposite.

An Honourable Member: It is really bothering you guys.

Mr. Filmon: It is really bothering him; he is terribly exercised and terribly upset by it.

Mr. Doer: Yes, absolutely, we have for three years said all this gambling revenue and other revenue that is going into the Fiscal Stabilization Fund should deal with the crisis in health care. It should deal with the situation of ending hallway medicine. It has been this government that has said for the last three years, and I quote again from the former Minister of Finance, now Minister of Health, on March 8 last year: The Fiscal Stabilization Fund is spoken for. The government is required to maintain a balance of 5 percent in that fund.

Madam Speaker, why has this government put people through this kind of crisis for four years, why has this government fired a thousand nurses when it had a Stabilization Fund, and why is it rehiring people just before an election campaign?

* (1015)

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I encourage the Leader of the Opposition to look back at previous budgets, and if he does so, he will see in this budget year we are transferring $75 million to deal with health and other social programs. If he looks back last year, he will see that we transferred $60 million to deal with social programs. If he looks back two years ago, he will see that we transferred $100 million to deal with health and social programs. Certainly our performance has been consistent in terms of continuing to utilize our savings account to protect the social programs that are very important to Manitoba: health care, post-secondary education and other programs. So, again, if he looks at the Stabilization Account, he will see that in fact we actually took more money out of the Stabilization Account a year ago than we are this year. The balance in that fund is still in excess of $220 million, about 4 percent of our expenditure, and still gives us the flexibility on a go-forward basis, recognizing that that fund in its entirety was put in place and created by this government and has been applauded by people right across Manitoba.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, we would like to look back now to 1995 and the words and the election promises of this government. The road of health care announcements is littered with broken promises from this government, from this Premier, from this Minister of Finance and from a myriad of health care ministers past.

Madam Speaker, in 1992 the government promised the Oakbank personal care home. In 1995, in the election pamphlet, and I have it now, there is a commitment to build the Oakbank-Springfield personal care home. I would like to ask the Premier: why did you break this election promise of 1995, and is this similar to the other election promises we are getting right now in this artificial Trojan horse budget?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, when it comes to personal care home beds, I believe as of today there are in excess of 1,100 that are either under construction or about to be underway very shortly right across Manitoba. This budget includes an additional 200 personal care home beds, net new personal care home beds. So, again, we have made a significant commitment to creating personal care home beds right across our province, recognizing the important service that those facilities provide so that people get the care in that kind of a facility as opposed to in our hospitals and our acute care settings. Again, if you look at this budget, there is $15 million more for long-term care facilities, a significant commitment to continuing to provide those very important services to all Manitobans.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, and does this not sound like an echo from 1995? Does it not just sound like: This is a recorded announcement? Where have you heard it before?

Madam Speaker, I ask–

An Honourable Member: Well, we have certainly heard all of yours before, I will tell you.

Mr. Doer: Stand up.

An Honourable Member: Ride on the Jets again, that was a good one.

Mr. Doer: Save the Coyotes will be the slogan this time around.

The minister did not answer the question. I asked him specifically about his promise in 1992, 1995, a promise he recommitted in his budget in 1998. Madam Speaker, why did the government take down the sign that had been bleached by the sun, and why are there tumbleweeds blowing by the site where this government promised to build a personal care home four years ago?

* (1020)

Mr. Stefanson: Well, Madam Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition does just a little bit of homework and goes back to the 1995 capital program, he will see that the vast majority of those projects are going forward, and they are going forward with the input of regional health authorities in communities right across our province and with their support. So, again, this budget includes $123 million for capital projects. Last year's budget included about $150 million for capital projects, all dealing with more personal care homes, more hospital improvements, a number of improvements right across Winnipeg, significant capital improvements to our health care facilities right across Manitoba, something we are very proud of.

Mr. Doer: The only thing we have had from this Premier and this government is hallway medicine over the last four years because of your broken promises. You closed 1,400 acute care beds, you froze your promise on 600 personal care beds, you fired a thousand nurses, and now you want to rehire, just before the election, 600 more people. Do you think anybody believes you? Why do you not answer the question about the Oakbank personal care home, or do you not have an answer?

Mr. Stefanson: Well, Madam Speaker–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am having difficulty hearing the honourable Minister of Health.

Mr. Stefanson: Well, Madam Speaker, this budget includes over $2.1 billion for health care; 35.5 percent of all of our spending, in the last two years alone, approximately $300 million more for health care, dealing with all of the issues that are important to Manitobans, continuing to reduce waiting lists, to continue to relieve hospital overcrowding, to provide more personal care home beds, to provide more home care support. The list goes on in terms of continuing to strengthen what is a quality health care system here in the province of Manitoba.

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of pre-election, prebudget hype with regard to significant tax cuts by this government, yet a lot of people in Manitoba will be very disappointed today to learn that the income tax cut was not what they expected it might be. In fact, when you look at this minister's–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Leonard Evans: What this minister is offering the people of Manitoba comes to $71 per person per year or $1.36 a week. You know that barely buys a cup of coffee. We should call this a cup-of-coffee-per-week budget, because that is all we get out of this, Madam Speaker. How can this minister, with a straight face, say that he is giving significant tax breaks to the people of Manitoba when all he has given them is a cup of coffee each week?

* (1025)

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, I find it rather amusing that the member for Brandon East is complaining that the tax cuts were not significant enough. This is the long-standing member of a former discredited government in this province who created new taxes, who raised every tax there was, who voted against tax cuts in previous budgets, who voted against the balanced budget legislation. In fact, when we brought in the balanced budget legislation, every member over there spoke against it, and the member for Brandon East said it should be withdrawn. It is unnecessary; it is undemocratic; it is flawed. In fact, it would prove to be very embarrassing to the Minister of Finance. They opposed completely any form of balanced budget legislation.

I know that the Leader is trying to reinvent himself as today's Leader of today's NDP, but he does not have any support over there. His member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) said it is the worst thing that ever happened to her constituency. Everyone over there has criticized the fact that we have had surpluses, and now the member for Brandon East is saying that the tax cuts were too minimal. I cannot believe it.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. We will get through this, I am sure.

Mr. Leonard Evans: Madam Speaker, the minister should know you can balance a budget without balanced budget legislation–

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Leonard Evans: I was part of the government that had surpluses in the 1970s–

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Would the honourable member for Brandon East please pose his question.

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): How can this minister, with a straight face, call this a surplus budget when his surplus of $21.4 million would become a deficit of $163.3 million if he did not draw $184.7 million from the Fiscal Stabilization Fund? It reminds me of a business whose expenses exceed their revenues; they have a loss–

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, the member has already heard this morning how our neighbours in Saskatchewan have taken substantially more money out of their Fiscal Stabilization Fund to balance their budget, and I have heard members across the way talk about Saskatchewan's balanced budget this past year. According to the member for Brandon East, it probably is not balanced then.

But a further quote from the member for Brandon East when he was talking about balanced budgets in the past, and he said: What is so magical about balancing the budget every year anyway? Do you really think you are going to get the Manitoba debt down to zero? This member, who was a member of a government who created new taxes, who raised new taxes, is now criticizing us for having tax reductions. Certainly we have indicated that our job is not done. We want to look at further tax reductions. We have announced in the throne speech that we are going to have a Lower Tax Commission which will consult experts and Manitobans, and we will make further tax reductions in the future.

* (1030)

Mr. Leonard Evans: Madam Speaker, how can the minister expect to sustain the level of activity, the level of expenditures shown in his budget when he is using a one-time federal health grant and he is taking $140.7 million from the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, while at the same time his own budget document shows a lower level of economic growth in 1999, and we do know that there is a possibility of a slowdown of the American economy next year and that this would have a negative effect on our revenues? How can he possibly expect to sustain this particular situation?

Mr. Gilleshammer: The only dark cloud over any economy in this country is when they elect an NDP government. Manitobans and indeed Canadians have seen the devastation that one term of government can do in a province like Ontario–devastated that province where they have got a debt level that they are going to take many decades to get out of. That is what an NDP government does.

The member for Brandon East does not understand the relationship between lower taxes and a growth in the economy. We believe that the Manitoba economy will continue to grow, that there will be our ability to see the economy grow. If the members opposite do not want to take my word for it, I would like to table for them some third-party analysis from Nesbitt Burns. It talks about yesterday's budget, Manitoba–Prairie Prudence, and it talks about the fiscal outlook in this province.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, in 1995 this provincial government, the same group of individuals, stated they were giving the greatest increase in the history of the province to the capital health program of the province of Manitoba, the greatest increase ever. What they said was untrue, what the government said was untrue, what they said was not honest, and I said when they were re-elected, they would cancel it. And when they were re-elected, they cancelled that program after the election. They were not fair; they lied to the people of Manitoba; they lied to the people of Manitoba. Now we are hearing a budget that says the greatest expenditures in health care ever– before a provincial election. They lied then, they are not telling the truth today–

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Kildonan to pick and choose his words carefully and to please pose his question.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, facing a provincial election, why should the people of Manitoba have any faith that these expenditures the government has been saying they cannot do the past four years and we have been recommending–why should anybody in the province of Manitoba believe that they will carry through on their health care initiatives when people are waiting in the hallways today as a result of their lies in 1995?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, that was quite a performance from a desperate man over there. All I need to tell him is to look at health spending in the province of Manitoba in the last 11 years; it is up $800 million or 60 percent. Health care in Manitoba continues to occupy over 35 percent of our budget, the second-highest allocation of any province in Canada. On a per capita basis, we are in the top few provinces in all of Canada. Health care has been, continues to be and will always be the No. 1 priority of this government. We have proven it by our financial commitments and we will continue to do that.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Kildonan, with a supplementary question.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, why should the people of Manitoba believe this government's desperate health budget expenditures when last year they said they were going to save $5 million on frozen food, and the day before the budget we find out they are spending $2.5 million in addition and the hospitals are paying money for frozen food they are not receiving? Why should anyone believe these people who over and over again fix these numbers and cannot be trusted with health care?

Mr. Stefanson: Well, Madam Speaker, this government commits to balance the books and we do it time and time again, starting back in 1995. When we have had additional resources to dedicate through our surpluses, the majority of those funds have gone to health care. We are seeing the results of that right across our province, whether it is more capital facilities being built, renovated, improved, whether it is enhancements in programs like our Home Care program, like our personal care home program, like relieving the whole issue of waiting lists, continuing to reduce waiting lists for diagnostic services and surgery, and so on. Manitobans are seeing that right across this province. That is why this budget includes $2.1 billion, the largest expenditure ever, over 35 percent of our money, and $800 million, a 60 percent increase over the last 11 years to health care. That shows commitment.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, how does the Minister of Health or the Premier or anyone expect Manitobans to believe when they lied in 1995? And after firing a thousand nurses, for the first time in 11 years this government is now saying they are going to hire more nurses–after having laid off a thousand in the past 11 years? How can anyone trust these people on health care?

Mr. Stefanson: Well, Madam Speaker, I certainly question the parliamentary language and the desperation of the member opposite. I have already outlined to him very clearly the financial commitment to health care, how we rank right across Canada in terms of our total commitment, the second-highest in Canada as a percentage of our budget. On a per capita, we are amongst the highest in Canada.

We are spending $5.8 million every day in the province of Manitoba to do all of the things we are talking about to continue to improve health care. When it comes to the issue of nurses today, there is a nursing shortage right across Canada, in NDP British Columbia, in provinces like Ontario, and so on. We have a plan in our province to address that issue by setting aside funding to retain and recruit more nurses, by putting in place more permanent positions, by working with the Faculty of Nursing and the Assiniboine Community College to bring more nurses through our educational facility. By balancing our budget, we are able to dedicate these additional significant resources to health care, unlike the kind of government we had from members opposite who ran massive deficits of hundreds of millions of dollars. They took our debt from $1 billion to $5 billion in six years. They took our debt servicing from $100 million to $500 million. Without those interest costs, just think if we had that money to go for health care services right across Manitoba.

* (1040)

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): How things have changed since 11 years. We have in fact, Madam Speaker, made full circle. Eleven years ago, when they created the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, they borrowed $150 million in order to create it, creating a deficit at that time, and the New Democrats supported the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, the slush fund that we called it, as it is today. At one time the two parties used to work together. Today, the NDP are joining the Liberals in opposition to what this government is doing with the slush fund.

My question for the government is to recognize that in fact they are using that Tory slush fund that the NDP supported in '88 in order to create a surplus budget in order to put a bunch of election goodies in front of Manitobans for this coming election.

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, during last fall and early winter we consulted with 1,200 Manitobans about the direction this budget should take, and the approval of those 1,200 Manitobans for balancing the budget, paying down the debt and reducing taxes but also spending on priority programs was very strong. What we have done in this budget is have a balanced approach to it. We have balanced the budget. We are paying down the debt, we do have a surplus, and we are spending significant resources on our priority programs.

In this budget alone we are spending $194 million additional on health care. That is a 10 percent increase. That is the direction that Manitobans want us to go.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, can the Minister of Finance tell us why, when thousands of nurses, thousands of teachers asked this government to tap into the slush fund, they did not? It took an election, a provincial election for them to bring out the umbrellas.

Mr. Gilleshammer: In those consultations, Manitobans who were consulted–and all Manitobans had an opportunity to contribute to that–asked us to use the Fiscal Stabilization Fund wisely. We did that last year as well, making a $226-million reduction. The draw from the Stabilization Fund this year is actually less than it was last year, but we are following the direction that Manitobans very clearly gave us to make expenditures on priority programs.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance: does this then mean that he did not want to listen to thousands of teachers and thousands of nurses and health care workers that were calling on the government to use the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, that the only time that he is prepared to listen to Manitobans is when it is in the government's best interests in terms of re-election and is saying to this House today that this is nothing more than an election budget in case this government wants to have a spring election?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Madam Speaker, I just indicated that we listened to all Manitobans who came forward either at the meetings that were held across this province or who wrote in to the Department of Finance to give us their advice. I can tell you that Manitobans are very pleased with the fact that we have a balance. What the member should see is that we have done similar things. There has been consistency in our approach to budgets over the last five years. This is our fifth consecutive budget that is balanced. We are using the available funds to spend on priority programs, and our priorities have always been health care, family services and education.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): As an economist, I was always taught to carefully check the assumptions behind any modelling, and a careful check of the facts and figures of this budget show, Madam Speaker, the sincerest questions about the sustainability of this budget and the government's fiscal and economic policy.

I would like to ask the Finance minister if he can explain why the budget document projects a growth this year of 2.4 percent and an increased growth of 3.4 percent the following year when independent projections show the range is as low as 1.2 percent in growth this year and most forecasters are looking at declining growth over the next couple of years. Why has he painted very rosy financial pictures in growth when independent forecasters are indicating that is not the case?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Finance): Well, Madam Speaker, I tabled, in response to an earlier question, the analysis by Nesbitt Burns called Manitoba–Prairie Prudence where they acknowledge certainly the deficits that were run up in the 1980s by the opposition party when they were in government but also recognize the fact that we have balanced the budgets over the last five years. They have taken a look at our fiscal outlook and described this as Manitoba–Prairie Prudence. So, rather than use the forecasters that the member for Thompson might use–probably his seatmate from Brandon East–the third-party objective observers have endorsed this budget and indicated that we are on the right track.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, as a follow-up question, I am wondering if the Finance minister can explain, given the reality of the growth projections I indicated, why he is projecting an 11.2 percent growth in income tax revenue, despite the income tax cuts, and a 7.5 percent projected increase in retail sales tax. Is it not the truth that this government is inflating numbers going into this election in a desperate attempt to get re-elected?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Again, I would urge the member for Thompson and the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) to look at the document I tabled by Nesbitt Burns. What the member for Thompson does not seem to understand is that lower taxes create a competitive economy. It allows us the ability to grow the economy and grow the jobs in this province. We have now had more people working in Manitoba than we have ever had in our history. We also have the lowest unemployment rate at 5.4 percent and the lowest student unemployment rate in the country. So we feel very confident that our economy is going to continue to grow.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): As a final question, I am wondering if the minister will now confirm, which is obvious from a review of the financial documents, that they have used the revenue from the sale of MTS and in three short years have flushed that through the system, something that took us 88 years to build. I am wondering if, to sustain this budget, the real plan is that, once they get elected, they are going to sell off Manitoba Hydro and do that with the revenue collected with MTS.

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, the short answer is no.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.