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 3 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:

I know of course we have the experts here, but I want to give the juniors on the other side a chance to give legal advice.

This resolution brought back old memories, and I can recall the debate that took place some years ago when a resolution which I introduced was finally allowed to die in another place not too far away.

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

April 28, 1965

Mr. Nowlan:

But we may have abolished the other place by that time.

There is a resolution dealing with newspapers, and I could not sit down without making some slight, passing reference to that. I am sure many people read the editorial in one of Canada's leading newspapers this

DEBATES 701

The Budget-Mr. Nowlan morning. I am not advertising this paper because I do not always agree with its editorials, but the one today was intelligent.

What are we to do if that resolution means what it says? We are going to have the power to prevent the importation of periodicals. I can debate the aspect of the resolution which deals with deductions for income tax purposes. That is a debatable proposition. It is one which has been before the House and before more than one government in the past. I can quite understand the niceties of that argument and what consideration should be given to it but, Mr. Speaker, at the moment without some lucid explanation from the Minister on that, more than he gave us on Monday night, I am not prepared to accept the fact that we are going to ban or banish periodicals from Canada on the whim of the Minister of Finance and the Governor in Council.

Then of course we have the massive resolution dealing with the Canada Development Corporation; and again, as I said, it will be debated, and debated at length. We will listen to the arguments advanced by the Minister of Finance and we will listen to them carefully and then decide what action should be taken with respect to them.

That, of course, is a terrifically far reaching resolution. If it means what it says it will result in the taking over of one of the great Crown corporations which we own today, and there are other corporations which I am not going to mention at this time, but which one could think of and which could be included if we are going to take over any such corporations. As I say, that is a matter we can debate when the time comes.

Then, of course, there are other minor resolutions, but I do not think it is advisable to go into them at the moment and I will defer that until a later occasion.

So, Mr. Speaker, after considering these matters to which I have referred, I am now going to move an amendment. I move, seconded by the hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Starr);

That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

"This House regrets that the Government has failed to meet the most pressing economic problems of the country by refusing to abolish the sales tax on production machinery, which tax continues to penalize the manufacturing industry and business, thereby undermining Canada's competitive position in markets at home and abroad: and by not giving adequate relief from taxation for the lower income groups and increased assistance to old age pensioners in the face of the steadily rising cost of living."

April 28, 1965

The Budget-Mr. C. Cameron

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

April 28, 1965

Mr. Nowlan:

That may be. I am going to refer to that in a moment. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I should give some of these figures with respect to the average Canadian income taxpayer, who for the most part you and I are representing in this Parliament today.

DEBATES April 28. 1965

The single taxpayer with an income of $3,000 a year has a reduction of 6J cents a day; with $4,000 a year income, 10.9 cents a day, and with an income of $5,000 a year, 16.1 cents a day. For married persons the figures are not quite the same, of course. The married taxpayer with no dependants who is in receipt of an income of $3,000 a year gets the magnificent reduction of 2.7 cents a day, which really is going to make the coins rattle in his pocket. If he earns $4,000 a year he gets 64 cents a day reduction. I was going to say that his weekly reduction would amount to approximately the price of a package of cigarettes, but the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not here so I should not discuss the price of cigarettes. Then a married taxpayer earning $5,000 with no dependants will be offered the magnificent saving of 10.9 cents a day.

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

April 28, 1965

Mr. Nowlan:

Well, if I had, it would have been a lot better than the one brought down on Monday night. I suggest that the hon. Member concentrate his chirping on the Minister of Health and Welfare, who he says has ruined the tobacco industry, and we will be a lot better off. Perhaps he had better keep quiet and get back to hockey, about which he has not been too successful in the last few years.

A married taxpayer with two dependants earning $3,000 a year will benefit by .82 cents a day, but I will not pursue these figures because they have all appeared in the press. I simply suggest that according to the business indicators the problems facing the Canadian economy suggest that in the durable goods area-refrigerators, washing machines, and that type of thing-there may be, though I hope the indications or prophecies are wrong, something of a softening in demand for these items during the last part of this year. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that no finance company in Canada, no matter how bitter the competition may be, will finance a refrigerator on a payment of $25 a year, which is the maximum amount that can be achieved as a result of any of these tax deductions presented to us in the budget. So, having looked at these figures I do not quite follow the Minister when he says that this is an expansionary budget.

As a matter of fact, I think the head of the Globe and Mail bureau in Ottawa, George

April 28. 1985

Bain, wrote a very humorous column this morning, in which he referred to the fact that a married man with two dependants under these income tax savings would save $3 a year. If he was lucky and lived long enough he could tuck the first $3 under the mattress on the bed, keep it there, and at the end of the second year he could bring it out and he would be able to spend $5 to buy one of these Canadian Development Corporation shares certificates which the Minister mentioned the other night, and he would have $1 left over to buy something else.

Hon. Members talk about $265 million as being a very round figure, which appeals tremendously. They talk about $175 million in one year, which to me is an awful lot of money, more than I can contemplate. When you talk about two cents or three cents or four cents you are talking in a language which I can understand and which the average taxpayer can understand. That is why I said, and said quite sincerely, on budget night, and I say it again, that with all due respect to our intelligent pundit friends up above us, this is not an election budget. If it is, then the Liberal party is much more bankrupt than I realized was the case, because this certainly will not appeal to the voters.

I must say that the public relations boys, the public relations officers in the Minister's Department, have done a very good job in selling this Budget, according to the headlines which appeared in the press the following morning and the publicity given to it on radio and television. If one believes the rumours which circulate around this place, although one necessarily discounts 90 per cent of them, one would be encouraged to believe that the Minister of Finance is the one Minister in the Cabinet who willy-nilly is trying to drag his colleagues into an election, and he may have been influenced by his P.R.O. boys, who to a great extent have suggested that this would be an election budget. If it is, then as I say I doubt very much whether it will have any great appeal for the public.

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