another reason. I do not think when we are trying to establish the fact that we
have a highly respectable and competent class of business men whom we are going to make authorized trustees that we should at the same time suppose for a moment that they would make unjust or excessive demands. I 'think it is very unlikely that any such contingency will ever arise, and I do not see why we should assume it is likely.
There is a clerical error in that subsection. In line 39 after the word " sheet," the words follow " dividend sheet, dividends " etc. The words " dividend sheet " should be struck out. Amendment agreed to.
It is merely an extension of the time within which a creditor may prove his claim. If he has not proved it within the time prescribed he may apply to the court. The modification is this: We say: "within such further time;" the English Act says, I think: " within sixty
On section 37, subsection (9),-no action for dividend:
Provision is made in the Act that general meetings may be called by the trustee at any time he thinks fit, or by order of the inspectors. In the notice calling the meeting, it is not necessary for the trustee to specify the purpose for which the meeting is being called. A couple of creditors attend and vote whatever remuneration to the trustee they see fit. In such an important matter as this, proper notice should be given to the creditors of the purpose for which the meeting i3 called. I would ask the Solicitor General to consider' this subsection with a view of drafting an amendment to provide for such notice.
At the first meeting of creditors there is generally a fairly good representation of creditors, and general directions are given for the management or winding up of the estate. At that time no one knows what the estate is going to realize or what amount of trouble the trustee will have; consequently, the remunere tion of the trustee is seldom fixed at the first meeting of creditors. The difficulty is to get an attendance of creditors at all at the next meeting; the dividend as a rule, i3 so small that there is no inducement to them to come. In general practice the first meeting is the only meeting of creditors; the subsequent meetings are meetings of inspectors. This section provides that the creditors, or, in default of the creditors, the inspectors, may decide the amount of the trustee's remuneration. This provision is almost identical with the Ontario Act in respect to assignments and preferences. If we were sure that the creditors would attend and that a majority would vote the salary or remuneration, all well and good; but they will not attend.
Subsection (2) provides that the remuneration of a trustee shall be limited to five per cent. If he wants to get more than five per cent he should get it at a meeting at which a majority of the creditors are represented. If he wants to get that extra remuneration he must arrange that the creditors be present at that meeting in person or by proxy, and those creditors should know what they are to vote for. Otherwise, he will get the remuneration fixed by the Act.
This matter dealt with in this clause has been the subject of a great deal of-shall I say-malfeasance in office by assignees and inspectors. In my experi-
ence, assignees and inspectors sit down and simply vote themselves a large remuneration. The creditors, as the Solicitor-General has said, in anticipation of a small dividend, do not pay much attention to the matter. We hould curb the generosity to themselves of these gentlemen. The words " or of any creditor " should be struck out so that the subsection will read:
The trustee in bankruptcy or in authorized assignment proceedings shall receive such remuneration as shall be voted to him by the creditors at any general meeting, or by the inspectors in case the creditors fail to provide therefor, subject to review by the court upon application of the trustee.
I would like to see the court review the remuneration which the trustee is to get.
I want to put the boot on the other foot. I want the trustee to satisfy the court, whether the creditor takes any action or not, that the remuneration which he votes to himself or receives by the assistance of the inspector is a proper one. The remuneration should have the approval of the court before it is payable, for the very reason suggested by the Solicitor General- that the creditors do not pay any particular attention to the estate after the assignment has been made. It is all left to the inspectors, and the inspectors are very often appointed by, the trustee himself, in this way: The trustee, or the assignee as we
now call him, . having a majority of the' creditors' claims in his hands, writes to the creditors or gets their proxies and appoints John Brown and William Smith, friends of his, as inspectors. Very often it is a conspiracy between the assignee and inspectors to pay themselves large fees which they have not earned. I want the trustee to satisfy the court, in the absence of any action taken by the creditors themselves, that his remuneration is reasonable.