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 5 of 836)


April 28, 1965

Mr. Nowlan:

The Budget-Mr. Nowlan

Our corporate tax rate is roughly 52 per *cent while the American rate is roughly 48 per cent. As I said, the Americans have social security taxes, but our people are soon going to have to make Canada Pension Plan contributions. This is a problem to which [DOT]the Minister of Finance will have to pay very special attention, because I can see a situation developing in the very near future where Canadian subsidiaries of United States companies will be paying a higher rate in Canada than their parent firms in the United States. This may very easily be happening right now because we are right on the verge, right at the breaking point. This is what happened in Windsor, Ontario, last week. If such a situation should develop, then the situation about which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) protested to high heaven last week, would be nothing but a spring shower, a summer breeze, compared with what will happen if these tax rates are not kept somewhat in line.

I could go on to deal with various matters included in the budget but I am merely going to refer to one specific matter in which I have a tremendous interest, as have all hon. Members to a greater or less extent.

I am referring now to the subject of education. The Minister paid lip service to education in his budget. Last Monday evening he said it was unfortunate that no solution could be found for this problem and he prayed that the Bladen Commission would soon bring in its report, inasmuch as it might perhaps contain a solution to the problem. The Minister was looking for help and guidance but, Mr. Speaker, he did not do anything himself with respect to the problem, and he could have if he had wanted to do so.

I suggest to the Minister that the problem of providing educational facilities is one of the most important problems, if not the most important, with which Canada is faced at the moment. I have spoken on this subject before and I am not going to bore the House now by going into detail with reference to the constitutional problem. May I simply say that I have never been able to see how the fact that the Dominion Government made X millions of dollars available to any Province with only one string attached, namely, that the Province should not reduce the contribution it was making to education because of the money it received from the Federal treasury-how that in any way constituted an impingement upon provincial rights. I do not think I could ever be convinced that

such action would be an impingement upon provincial rights with regard to education. The Provinces would have free scope. The only thing they would have to do would be to spend at least as much money on education as they are now.

The last Conservative Government raised the grant for university students twice and finally brought the grant up to a level of $2 in 1961 or 1962.

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

April 28, 1965

Mr. Nowlan:

Not half as much as you are; make no mistake about that.

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

April 28, 1965

Mr. Nowlan:

I certainly did not say the Minister said there are two Walter Gordons. He certainly did not say that. Of all the blunders the Minister has made, I do not think he would ever make that one. I quoted exactly what the Minister of Finance said. He will have an opportunity to reply when my speech is over, and he can then deal with this matter as he sees fit. No tax cuts, in Hamilton; tax cuts, in Ottawa. I am wondering, is this another retreat on the part of the Minister of Finance? This is a very interesting question. The Minister said on Monday night and I am quoting:

We can expect the rate of private expenditure to increase by nearly this amount.

That is, the amount of the reduction of taxation. This is, as I said, entirely different from the statement the Minister made a few months ago when speaking on the very same subject in Hamilton. I am not going to embarrass the Minister by reading statements, which I could, from several papers in Canada. Maurice Western wrote some columns in the Winnipeg Free Press about that which perhaps are scathing and critical, but I am not going to indulge in a reference to the four-leaf clovers and horseshoes with which the Minister has been blessed. It was said that everything was right except the Minister's own policies. When you get such diametrically opposed statements, and a contradiction such as that to which I referred a moment ago, you can quite understand why there might be some question as to the horseshoes and the four-leaf clovers which the Minister had hanging around his neck and which he now has to translate into action.

Dealing generally with the budget speech, Mr. Speaker, I have here an excerpt from a well known, reputable and one of the ablest- there are several of them-financial commentators in Canada, Mr. John Meyer of the Montreal Gazette, who writes a column every day in that newspaper. He wrote an article yesterday, which of course was at short notice, written the morning after the

696 COMMONS

The Budget-Mr. Nowlan Minister had brought in his budget, and he had this to say about the budget:

The budget, judged in all its implications, must be found entirely political. It is not an economic instrument at all.

This, Mr. Speaker, is rather a striking phrase for any responsible journalist to use:

It is an outrageous bid for political favour at the risk of financial instability.

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

April 26, 1965

Mr. Nowlan:

That, I would think, would be a two-bit reduction by the two-bit boys on the other side of the House. This is not what we were led to believe. This is not what the country expects nor what the country wants today. I do not intend, of course,

[Mr. Gordon.J

Mr. Speaker, to analyse the various proposals which have been brought before us tonight. Undoubtedly there are some very minor things included in the chaff with which we have been fed, and I would want some time before dealing with them. We will be doing that, I hope, in the relatively near future. In the few minutes left tonight I just want to sketch one or two of the outlines which I think are important. One of the most important defects in this alleged budget is the failure of the Minister to deal with the sales tax on not only building materials but at least on production machinery. This, Mr. Speaker, can hardly be anything but a deliberate omission on the part of the Minister of Finance, who had to retreat so far and so long and so fast on his first budget that he is determined to hold on to some vestige of that budget so he can show posterity that all of it was not scrapped. All of it should be scrapped and he would be a better Minister of Finance if it were scrapped.

Talk about tax reduction. Talk about income tax reduction. The President of Chemcell at the annual meeting last week said that if that tax was not repealed or changed, his company, with over 50 per cent of its products being exported, would have to pay a surcharge, as he called it, of over $1 million a year. That is one company in the export business that will be paying this amount of money because of the tax on production machinery and equipment. Sir, that is one thing that should have been dealt with. I will go into it at greater length on another occasion; but I want to emphasize that I think the country naturally expected something of that kind to be done, perhaps not with regard to the sales tax on all building materials, although that would have been desirable, but certainly with regard to the sales tax on the equipment and supplies going into production. This is something that I think would do more to develop and take the check off the economy than anything else that could have been done, and here the Minister absolutely refuses, apparently-although I am quite sure there was a great deal of pressure and argument brought to bear upon him-to do something that should have been done. For some reason he did not do this.

Another glaring omission in the budget, of course, is the failure to deal in any way with the problem of education. This is one of the fundamental problems with which this country is concerned; one which obviously, as we know, comes under provincial jurisdiction but

April 26. 1965 COMMONS

one in which the Federal Government, as I have said and we have said on this side of the House time and time again, must take a greater responsibility and greater activity. Yet there is no mention of that in the budget.

Mr. Speaker, one could go on listing the omissions. I have just jotted down rough notes as we went along and I will develop some of those later on.

[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)

Topic:   INCOME TAX ACT RESOLUTION
Full View Permalink

April 26, 1965

Mr. Nowlan:

They are so extreme that one would hardly dare to use them. A single person, for instance, with this massive $265 million a year income tax reduction, earning $3,000 a year will, according to one figure which I have checked casually, have a tax reduction of 7J cents a day. A person with $2,000 a year income will have a tax reduction of 2f cents a day; and you could go on and on. With regard to a married person with two dependants and $3,000 a year, his taxes will be reduced by $3 per annum, or 25 cents a month.

Topic:   INCOME TAX ACT RESOLUTION
Full View Permalink