April 25, 1919 (13th Parliament, 2nd Session)


Hugh Havelock McLean


Mr. H. H. McLEAN:

I do not think the hon. gentleman who has just spoken quite understood my point. It is quite true these official trustees could be appointed, and there would be no objection to them. But suppose there are estates where the creditors represent three-fourths, in amount, or a majority number, and they say "We do not want to leave it to the official trustee, we want to appoint a trustee of our own." Provided that man gives security to the satisfaction of the judge, why should not he be appointed? That is the point I want to make. This question does not arise in the ordinary cases. In those cases the creditors may agree to the official trustee; but in such a case as I have mentioned why do you deliberately take away from the owners of the property-because if a man is insolvent his creditors own the estate- the absolute control of that property? If the creditors do not want to take control the official trustee carries on the estate; but here you are raising this barrier. If the creditors are united in the matter- representing say three-quarters of the amount involved, and also, if you wish, a majority number-and if they want to appoint a special person for a particular purpose, why should they not have that power of appointment? There surely can be no answer to that.

Full View