Hugh Havelock MCLEAN

MCLEAN, The Hon. Hugh Havelock, K.C.

Personal Data

Party
Unionist
Constituency
Royal (New Brunswick)
Birth Date
March 22, 1854
Deceased Date
November 22, 1938
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Havelock_McLean
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=8dfefd55-ad19-4012-a2c9-b6c83a73227a&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
lawyer

Parliamentary Career

October 26, 1908 - July 29, 1911
LIB
  Sunbury--Queen's (New Brunswick)
September 21, 1911 - October 6, 1917
LIB
  Sunbury--Queen's (New Brunswick)
December 17, 1917 - October 4, 1921
UNION
  Royal (New Brunswick)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 19)


April 5, 1921

Mr. McLEAN (Royal):

I am sorry I cannot understand the perhaps very clear explanation made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty). Sometimes in the past it has been difficult for me to follow him on account of his speaking very low, and it is difficult for members to hear clearly what he states. What I understand the Minister of Justice to state is this. This measure is to remedy a hardship on the part of the learned Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. What we members, who object to this resolution, object to, is the principle that is established that the Chief Justice shall not pay income tax. That is a bad principle to go out to the country. Under the law as it stands at present, every man in Canada is liable to pay income tax; that is the principle that stands and that should be enforced, and the Minister of Justice has no right to make an exception. If, as stated by my hon. friend (Mr. Edwards), you want to increase the salary of the Chief Justice, increase his salary. But is this not true? The salary of the Chief Justice is raised to $15,000; is he not now entitled to retir* on $15,000?

Topic:   JUDGES ACT AMENDMENT
Full View Permalink

April 5, 1921

Mr. McLEAN (Royal):

I thank the learned Minister of Justice for his lengthy and perhaps not very clear explanation, because I am still in a little doubt in comprehending all he says. What I understand him to say is this. We are making this poor man suffer by increasing his sal-

ary by $5,000. That is unfortunate. Before that he received $5,000 for the onerous duty of acting as deputy Governor General. Very good. The learned Minister of Justice has not brought before our attention this matter: that all the other judges were allowed extra remuneration for extra work when they served on Royal commissions. They were often taken off the bench and appointed on Royal commissions and on other special work for which they received extra remuneration. It is now put into the Judges' Act that the increase of salaries shall cover all extra work that judges may perform; that they shall not receive one dollar more for extra work, which they may perform on Royal commissions or other work. Are they not then on the same ground or standing as the Chief Justice? They are prevented from earning this extra remuneration. The learned Chief Justice is prevented from earning this extra remuneration. But to come back again, this is the principle on which I want to stand. I have no objection to the salary of the learned Chief Justice being increased. The position should carry an ample salary to command the highest legal talent in this Dominion, and $15,000 is too small a salary for the Chief Justice of Canada. Why, you are paying to counsel, retainers of $20,000 and so many hundred dollars a day. If you go to Montreal at the present time, you cannot obtain a leading counsel under $10,000 or $12,000. So I say, I am not objecting to the salary being increased; I am objecting to this roundabout way of doing the thing. It is not the right way of carrying out the increase in the Chief Justice's salary. I think the salary of the Chief Justice of this Dominion should be $20,000.

Topic:   JUDGES ACT AMENDMENT
Full View Permalink

November 10, 1919

1. What wharves were built by the Federal Government on the St. John river and tributary waters, New Brunswick, and on what respective dates were the said wharves built?

2. Is the Minister of Public Works aware of the fact that these wharves require repairs and many of them have been in a bad state of repair for over a year?

3. If so, will the said wharves he put in proper repair?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   ST. JOHN RIVER WHARVES.
Full View Permalink

November 10, 1919

1. Why has the Federal Government not accepted the transfer of the wharves on the St. John river made by the Government of New Brunswick in the months of May and June last?

2. Who is now responsible for the repair and maintenance of said wharves?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   ST. JOHN RIVER WHARVES.
Full View Permalink

November 6, 1919

1. What wharves in the counties of Queen's and King's, New Brunswick, have been transferred to the Federal Government hy the Provincial Government of New Brunswick, and on what dates were the said transfers made?

2. Is the Minister of Public Works aware that the officers of his department have reported that many of the said wharves require repairs to be made as soon as possible?

3. If so. when will the said wharves be repaired?

Topic:   THE SUGAR SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   NEW BRUNSWICK WHARVES TRANSFERRED TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Full View Permalink