Legislative fimbly

all the facilities some other rovinces enjoy until we have developed an economy which can support the expend tures requir .”

Now there's the whole crux of our problem: the development of an economy which will produce the revenue for our economic well-being and for our growth.

If thye had convinced Ottawa that we had requirements for industrial develop- ment here they should have been able to get some money for that purpose, but we find not a cent. It says on the same page. “The previous government, I am sure, had a similar aim.” This is the aim to increase the objective. Let me tell you what hap- pened about that. The Provincial Treasurer admits that we had the same aims. Now the previous government did something about that. It brought in industry and the healthy figures that the Provincial Treasurer shows in his Budget, figures with res- pect to provincial receipts from taxes of $4,815,000.00, as well as the $3,388,000.00 last year, are the result of policies of our government. In that regard, I submit that they should have endeavoured to get into the same boat. In 1959, previous to the Shaw administration in this province, the receipts for provincial taxes were under $4,000,000.00. Now that is quite a difference in the time. The reason was that the Shaw Government initiated a policy of development which was successful, but now this development has stopped. I submit that this is the secret of our well-being, this is the secret of our economic success: we can get a base of production here in goods and services which will put our people to work, and in turn result in income for our own province.

The various years are dealt with fairly minutely, but there is nothing new in these figures set forth here for the consideration of the members. Last year after the Budget was presented I gave the amount of net debt as of Slst December 1966, at around $49,000,000.00. The critics from the Opposition who are now on the other side got up and talked about everything from sixty millions to eighty millions, and I think some of them went up to one hundred millions. I am sure they have realized that they over-stated their case. The external audit shows that our figures were approximately correct. I don’t rejoice in the discomfiture of the experts in finance over there. On page thirteen, it is interesting to note that the net debt as of March 31, 1967 is supposed to be $1,000,000.00. I know that is not correct, and they know it is not correct because there are many things that should be taken into account to indicate that thas is not correct. The net debt on March 81, 1966 was “9,670,000.00, and the figures which have been used to indicate that the amount is $1,000,000.00, do not take into account several items and they do take into account some other items which should not be there. For instance, the item on loss on building of traw- lers which should not be in that particular item at all, unless they credit also the amounts that should be there. In addition, the Minister of Welfare the other day told us that over a million from the Canada Assistance Act would counteract, to some extent, the payments that have been made for welfare. That’s not there, and if we look Icarefully at the figures we will find that there are many other things that are misp ace .

Honourable T. Earle Hickey: The estimates include it.

M. Alban Farmer: The estimates for what?

Honourable 'l‘. Earle Hickey: For the revenue.

M. Alban Farmer: How much is the estimate for the revenue and where is it? Honourable T. Earle Hickey: It is included in the Estimates. You got them.

M. Alban Farmer: I can't find it, I can't find it. Honourable T. Earle Hickey: It is included with the Estimates.

Honourable George J. Ferguson: Would the honourable gentleman permit a question?

M. Alban Farmer: Yes.

Honourable George J. Ferguson. Sir, if you do not agree that the direct liab- ilities of the rovince are $1,000,000.00, how would you explain the debt charges of four million p us dollars?

.400_