Wednesday, March 27,1968

have thought of those things but they did not implement them and they did not carry them out the way they should have been carried out. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is all I have to say on the Budget. Different speakers from this side will be dealing more particularly with different Departments of the Budget. (Applause)

Hon. (leorge J. Ferguson, Minister of' Public \Vorks & Highways: Mr. Speaker, on rismg to participate on the Budget, I wish first of all to congratulate the Provincial Treasurer, the Honorable Mr. Hickey, for the very fine manner in which he delivered the Budget. He was very convincing in emphasizing the continued need for financial restraint and a program of fiscal responsibility to restore the fiscal integrity of the Province and to bring debts more in line with financial capacity. We cannot, Mr. Speaker, as the Provincial Treasurer stated, successfully spend our way to pros— perity. We all know that this was tried in this Island by the former administration and elsewhere throughout Canada and what do we find today? Because of this many Governments are in financial difficulties. Mr. Speaker, we would not be in financial difficulties today if the former administration had practised what they preach. The former Provincial Treasurer, the Honorable Mr. McQuaid stated, “Balanced Bud- gets may not be fashionable but something we should keep in mind if our free eco— nomy is to survive”. The former Provincial Treasurer, the Honourable Mr. Farmer, stated in 1960 when addressing this Assembly discussing the debt of the Province said, “This is a large amount of money and we feel that this cannot be allowed to mount and for this reason the prospects of a balanced budget holds a little greater prospect for the people of the Province. I believe”, he said, “it is going to herald a new day for this Province when we can look forward to a balanced budget through efficiency and management”. Now, Mr. Speaker, from these statements you would realize that the former administration knew what had to be done in order to keep the financial position of the Province on a sound basis. However, they continued, year after year, with deficit financing. It would appear that the opinion of the Provincial Treasurers under the former administration was not adhered to by other Members of the Government. Now, Mr. Speaker, on March 24, 1966, after the Budget was delivered I followed the former Provincial Treasurer, Mr. Farmer. and I predicted that for the year ending March 31st, 1967, that there would be a deficit of $11,000.000. Now, I think if you recall this raised a few eyebrows in this House, especially when they were budgeting at that time for a surplus on ordinary account of $68,574. What do we find, Mr. Speaker? We find that the debt for the year ending March 3lst, 1967, is $11,775,248. I wasn’t too far out. Now, this is the debt, I claim, Mr. Speaker, that the former administration is responsible for.

Hon. Robert E. Campbell: Sure they are.

Hon. George J. Ferguson: Never before, Mr. Speaker, in the history of this Province was there such a disregard for the control of finances in this Province. The ex— ternal auditors reported that the net debt of the Province increased from $39,415,059 at March 31st, 1964, to $49,670,369 at March 3lst, 1966.

Hon. Robert E. Campbell: Isn’t that terrible.

Hon. George J. Ferguson: With a further increase of $5,516,033 to July 28th, 1966. They further projected that the net debt at March 31st, 1967, would be over $61,000,000 and at that date it was, $61,445,000 as shown on Page 7 of the Public Accounts. This is an increase in net debt from March Blst, 1964, to March 3lst, 1967, of $22,030,558 in three years. Now, the Opposition are trying to pin the increase in debt of $11,775,248 for the fiscal year ending March Blst, 1967, on the present Gov- ernment. Possibly an analysis of this increase will more clearly indicate.w'here _the responsibility lies and I suggest, Sir, that it lies with the. former administration. The deficit to July 28, 1966, as shown by the external auditors, is $1,317,977. We must add to that a portion of the motor vehicle licenses revenue applicable to_ sub- sequent period of $750,000. When we total this you get $2,067,977. Now prowsions for Georgetown office, less adjustments, amounts to $610,989. You-must add the net capital expenditures to July 31, 1966, and you. get $3,538,247. This means that the adjusted increase in debt to July 31st, 1966, is $6,217,213. Now, Mr. Speaker, the net capital expenditures from July 31 st to March 3lst, 1967, and these are the capital expenditures which were committed by the former administration, totalled $5,033,000. Now, in order to be fair, the deficit to March 31st, 1967, as shown in the public accounts is $4,298,625. We must take from that the def1c1t that I mentioned before

—307——