Tuesday, March 27, 1968

M. Alban Farmer: Mr. Speaker, I want to continue now w' ' ‘ '

the Budget. As I mentioned when the Budget was delivelrtehd ”d: $251233??? of March 19, I felt that the Budget failed to provide the essential requirements whigh a Budget should provide. In addition to setting forth the figures of revenue and expenditure, a Budget is calculated to provide" for policy that will stimulate the economy. Now, I will submit arguments to the effect that this has not been done In. this Budget. For that reason I consider it a very defective Budget in that respect First thing we find in this Budget speech is a reference to fiscal integrity Now. I submit that when an examination is made of the Budget there’s no fiscal integrity demonstrated in that document. It also refers to priorities. Now, priorities as I understand them, are a series of requirements which the Government or which any institution for that matter might make. These priorities are set up on the basis of essential things that must be stimulated or dealt with. I find that there is no ord- erly sense of priority in this Budget at all: nothing at all that indicates that con- Sideration was given to priorities. For the fiscal year ending March 3lst 1967 the Provincial Treasurer indicates an increase in debt of $11,775,248. Again’this year for the year that’s supposed to end on Sunday next, for something over three milliori dollars, making a total af approximately fifteen million dollars debt increase by this Government in less than two years. Now, I submit that this is not fiscal integrity This is not having a regard for priority which should be taken into consideration in the dealing with these things. The Provincial Treasurer goes on further to say that part of this was due to the former Government. I submit that when we sat over there in 1960, and this same question came up, the people who sat here said “Oh, you spent it. You spent it.” And I say that the same thing can be said frond here now because the former Government was in office for four months. They had outlined their expenditures but when the new Government came in they didn’t take into account the amount of money that was spent. They went helter-skelter to the point where they spent $11,775,000 more than they should have spent. They crv about the increase in carrying charges and interest. This, of course, is a natural sequence to the irresponsible way in which they have indebted the Province. Let us look at some of the matters for this current year. The expenditure for Welfare is up one-half a million dollars. I submit that it looks very bad for the Minister, and not only for the Minister in charge, but for the Provincial Treasurer who would let a Minister get so much out of hand as to spend $500,000 over and above what he should have spent. Then we go down to Highways, Snow clearance, $800,000 in excess and Road Maintenance, $180,000 in excess. I submit that this is the place where the “pork barrel” was rolled out and I submit that this is not fiscal integrity or having regard to priority. On Page 11, last year’s figures, there was a proposal for a surplus of forty-one: no. for the current year that ends in March, he bud— geted :‘or an amount of $41,836,000. Instead of that he got $43.900,000. He had over $2,000.000 extra but nevertheless he still goes behind almost a $100,000 in that year. Now this, is this living up to his talk and his puffing about fiscal integrity? $2,000,000 more than he budgeted for and at the time he put in the Budget, he budgeted for a modest surplus. Instead of that, having two million dollars more, he still goes in the whole by approximately $100,000. This is the display of fiscal integriiy that we hear them talking about. In the year 1905, the then Government, the Shaw Government, had ordinary revenue of $26,718,000 and they showed a sur- plus 071 ordinary account of $824,000. These people have $43,000,000 and they go back $100,000. That’s the difference; that shows that in the case of the former Goverrment there was some fiscal integrity and there was some taking into account of pri(rities that were necessary. Let us look again at 1966. Public Accounts. That year the Government of the day had $30,000,000 ordinary revenue and they had a surplus of $1,055,000, almost $2,000.00 surplus on ordinary account and, as I say, this year when they have almost $44,000.0-00 they still go behind. The Provincial Treasurer was referring to the management of the bonds business. He has to let the civil servants, the teachers, the hospital employees all go without any increase over aid above the normal increment. I submit that this also is something that he should not have to do if he had manged properly and had applied the money where it shorld be applied and saved the money where the savings should have been made. Now, we will look at our tax increases. This year, coming on near the end of the Budge: speech, we find that there’s a reference to incresed taxes. I think that the Provin:ial Treasurer is trying to set some sort of a record. According to the news media, we have the highest gasoline tax of any place in the North American con- tinent. We have also the highest price for cigarettes and I think probably the poor

—305’-——