George Clyde NOWLAN

NOWLAN, The Hon. George Clyde, P.C., Q.C., B.A., LL.B.

Personal Data

Party
Progressive Conservative
Constituency
Digby--Annapolis--Kings (Nova Scotia)
Birth Date
August 14, 1898
Deceased Date
May 31, 1965
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Nowlan
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=ea30e79d-1feb-461a-bbea-b3e5a570ee30&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
barrister, lawyer

Parliamentary Career

December 13, 1948 - April 30, 1949
PC
  Digby--Annapolis--Kings (Nova Scotia)
June 19, 1950 - June 13, 1953
PC
  Annapolis--Kings (Nova Scotia)
August 10, 1953 - April 12, 1957
PC
  Digby--Annapolis--Kings (Nova Scotia)
June 10, 1957 - February 1, 1958
PC
  Digby--Annapolis--Kings (Nova Scotia)
  • Minister of National Revenue (June 21, 1957 - August 8, 1962)
March 31, 1958 - April 19, 1962
PC
  Digby--Annapolis--Kings (Nova Scotia)
  • Minister of National Revenue (June 21, 1957 - August 8, 1962)
June 18, 1962 - February 6, 1963
PC
  Digby--Annapolis--Kings (Nova Scotia)
  • Minister of National Revenue (June 21, 1957 - August 8, 1962)
  • Minister of Finance and Receiver General (August 9, 1962 - April 21, 1963)
April 8, 1963 - September 8, 1965
PC
  Digby--Annapolis--Kings (Nova Scotia)
  • Minister of Finance and Receiver General (August 9, 1962 - April 21, 1963)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 2 of 836)


May 3, 1965

Mr. Nowlan:

I acknowledge my own authorship.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Full View Permalink

May 3, 1965

Mr. Nowlan:

Since I cannot reply at this time, I can only ask the Minister a question. I assume he knows that the budget resolutions are to be debated very shortly, and I will take the opportunity to reply at that time to the questions he has raised.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Full View Permalink

April 29, 1965

Mr. Nowlan:

Why not? We achieved it.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Full View Permalink

April 28, 1965

Mr. Nowlan:

It was 1962, I am told. We are now in 1965 and the grant is still being paid at the rate of $2 per head of population in the Province. The Minister is not responsible for that formula. He inherited it from preceding governments, as we inherited it; and I must say we followed it. I do not like it. There may be some constitutional reason for it. As I said the other day in the debate on the Speech from the Throne, I can see a constitutional fiction in not wanting to break away from provincial populations, in that thereby you can maintain a semblance of provincial control because the grant is based on provincial population. I do not agree with that, but in any event what was there to prevent the Minister, in this great, expanding economy of which he spoke where he is giving everybody money, everything from the package of gum to the lower paid to the trip to Egypt to the higher paid, from increasing the student grant per head of population from the level of $2 set in 1962? The population of a Province increases relatively slowly. The population of every province in Canada is increasing and provincial pride may lead some to say that the population of their Province is increasing fairly rapidly, but on a relative basis the increase is slow, compared with the astronomical and fantastic increase in university population.

I say that the time is long past when this matter should have been dealt with. It should have been dealt with in the budget. If it can be dealt with in no other way, then it should have been dealt with by increasing the grant of $2 per head of population to $3 per head. The Minister would at least have been making an approach to dealing with the overall problem. I am sure the Minister will be the first to agree that the problem is an important one and must be dealt with. If one reads the report of the Economic Council he sees that it emphasizes the necessity for education and training as being fundamental to Canadian development. The Conference of Canadian Universities and other organiza-

April 28, 1965 COMMONS

tions in this country are all unanimous on this point. Something should and must be done about the matter now.

There are other matters to which I should like to refer but, as I said earlier, this is only the beginning of the debate on the budget. In a way, I am presenting a general summary. Many of my associates and, of course, Members of other Parties will take part in the debate, and various facets of the problems will be dealt with by my associates during the next few days of debate. After the budget is ultimately adopted, if it is, we will then be dealing with the resolutions in detail, at which time we can discuss them and perhaps amend them. I think it would be a waste of time and an infringement on the rights of Members generally if I were to deal with the resolutions at length at this time, but I must say I am rather intrigued by one or two of them. I would refer to the Customs Act resolution, to which the Minister made a casual reference the other night, which gives the discretion to the Governor in Council to fix values.

[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)

I was reminded of debates in days gone by.

I was reminded of the frenzied screams of the now Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), his voice raised to high heaven, and all the rest of them, saying that it was an insult to the Canadian Parliament because there was no appeal. They said, "You did not provide any appeal." How can you provide an appeal from a section which says "When the Governor in Council is satisfied", I ask any lawyer on the other side of the House, how can there be an appeal when His Excellency is satisfied?

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Full View Permalink

April 28, 1965

Mr. Nowlan:

There are no strangers here, of course, but if there were I would express to all those in the galleries not my apologies but my regrets that this situation is such that I cannot deal today with agricultural problems.

Nor do I intend to deal in detail with the matters contained in the budget speech. As always, of course, the important changes are to a substantial extent dealt with by resolution, and these resolutions will have to be debated on their own merits, if any, when the times comes. I do not intend to go into the subject matter of these resolutions to any great extent this afternoon. Rather I should like to discuss in a general way the speech made by the Minister on Monday night.

April 28, 1985 COMMONS

The Minister said-and I think this is the key to the situation-that this is an expansionary budget. He based this assertion on the statement or the inference-I am not trying to quote him-that there were substantial tax reductions which would result in an increased flow of money into the pockets of the taxpayers and subsequently to those of the merchants, thereby causing an increase in consumption and an increase in demand across the nation.

[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)

That is a plausible argument, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps we could accept except for the fact that the Minister himself apparently did not accept it a few months ago. Somebody once said, "O that mine enemy would write a book", and if he does not write a book perhaps it is just as well that he makes a speech, because I happen to have a copy of the speech the Minister made in Hamilton, Ontario, a few months ago in which he took an entirely different viewpoint. I am going to quote very briefly from the statement made by the Minister of Finance speaking to the Canadian Club in Hamilton on September 13, 1964, roughly seven months ago. He was referring to the tax cuts in the United States and the pressure which was being brought to bear upon him-and I can quite understand the pressure that was brought to bear upon him- to carry out the same system of tax cuts in Canada. This, in part, is what the Minister said:

Those who favour this course-

That is, the course of tax reductions:

-argue that the increased personal, disposable income resulting from such a policy would give the economy the kind of fillip which it needed at the time Unquestionably this would have been one way to stimulate expansion, but we estimated-

That, I presume, is the Government, the Department of Finance, or a combination:

-that a significant proportion of the additional expenditures resulting from a tax cut would have resulted in increased imports of consumer goods, thus adding to the current account deficit in our balance of payments, rather than adding to the employment opportunities in Canada.

That is a statement of a very learned, a very able and a very experienced gentleman made seven months ago. We had a statement made on Monday night virtually to the contrary. Both these gentlemen happen to be named Walter Gordon, and I am wondering which Walter Gordon we are going to believe. It is rather an interesting problem. In September this was a bad thing to do because it was going to increase the balance of pay-

DEBATES 695

The Budget-Mr. Nowlan ments deficit and would not increase production in Canada except to an insignificant extent. Today this is one of the great measures which is going to substantially increase employment in Canada.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Full View Permalink