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 18 of 19)


May 17, 1909

Mr. H. H. McLEAN.

I second that motion. I think that some hon. members do not understand the nature of these mutual companies and seem to think that they are desirous of doing business in Canada. That is not the case. They are formejjl of, say, some 20 cotton mill companies combining to insure each other, and the only officers they have are a secretary and an inspector. We have not in Canada sufficient cotton mill companies to form such a circuit, and therefore it is necessary to apply to some of the New England Mutuals to get into the circle with them. Before these mutuals will insure, very strict regulations have to be complied with. Each establishment must have its own water supply and sprinkling system and other

appliances, all of which add to the cost of the property, but on the other hand the cost of insurance is very cheap, one-eighth or one-tenth of one per cent. It has been said that the stock companies in Canada are anxious to get that class of insurance; but I know that in the past, before we could go to the New England Mutuals, our stock companies would not take such risks under one or one and a quarter per cent. Now, these companies are willing to take that insurance cheaper, but not at anything like the rates charged by the New England Mutuals. Then our stock companies have not that system of inspectors and consequently cannot provide the same inspection. Another advantage about the inspection is this. A cotton mill is a hazardous risk unless equipped according to the regulations of these mutual associations, and besides if a mill takes fire, which is not fitted up with; this equipment, there is greater danger to the adjacent properties. But the mills which are properly equipped and subject to this inspection are practically very seldom burnt and there is nothing like the same danger to adjoining property. As regards the principle stated by the Minister of Finance, it would seem right and proper that there should be a small tax imposed, starting with say 5 per cent. Then there are the woollen mills, which are a hazardous risk, which the New England Mutuals will insure, and there are also the saw mills. In New Brunswick a saw mill operated by steam would pay up to seven per cent premium, whereas they may be able to get their insurance from the mutuals at four or five per cent. This additional tax of 15 cents on every hundred dollars of the premium would therefore be a large increase. It would amount to $100 or $150 according to the amount oi insurance carried. These mutual companies are incorrectly described as companies. They are really associations, or a partnership, so to speak, among say 20 companies, which agree to mutually insure each other, and each association has only, as I have said, two officers. Again take Lloyds, that does a great deal of inland marine insurance, and this Bill does not interfere with Lloyds taking risks of that class. If we establish the principle of imposing a tax, we should begin with a small tax of say five per cent, then see how that works out, and if found necessary to make any change, that could be made later on.

Topic:   JAMBS P. MURRAY,
Full View Permalink

May 7, 1909

Mr. H. H. McLEAN.

I do not quite understand the provisions of this Bill. Is it the intention of the minister to exact tolls for top wharfage? There are two classes of tolls collected on wharfs, side wharfage and top wharfage. I want to direct the attention of the minister to the position of wharfs in New Brunswick. Wharfs in rivers there have been built partly at the expense of the Dominion government and partly at the expense of the provincial government and the present Minister of Public Works has constructed certain wharfs and paid the whole cost thereof. These wharfs cost anywhere from $2,000 up These wharfs cost anywhere from $2,000 up to $5,000, and in the past wharfage has not been collected. Now you can see the difficulty that would arise. For example, a

Topic:   GOVERNMENT HARBOURS AND PIERS
Full View Permalink

May 7, 1909

Mr. H. H. McLEAN.

At present, as I understand, the minister has power to collect top wharfage on government wharfs in the river St. John.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT HARBOURS AND PIERS
Full View Permalink

May 7, 1909

Mr. H. H. McLEAN.

I would remind the minister that in the past these top wharfage rates have never been collected. I can point to one wharf owned by the Department of Marine and Fisheries where top wharfage has never been collected from the farmers who have been using it. He can understand also that when wharfs are owned partially by the Dominion and partially by the provincial government tolls are not exacted. If the wharf is built by the Dominion government, costing say the small sum of $1,500 to $2,500-top wharfage should not be exacted from the farmers using these wharfs. Some one has said that the same scale of fees should be charged on all wharfs for top wharfage. That would be manifestly unfair. Here is a wharf in the city of St. John built in a tidal harbour that has cost $50,000 or $60,000; and here is a wharf built in the river St. John that has cost $1,500 or $2,500. Why should the same rate of side wharfage or top wharfage be charged in both cases? I should say it would be unfair to have only one exact scale in force in such cases.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT HARBOURS AND PIERS
Full View Permalink

February 25, 1909

Mr. H. H. McLEAN.

I am delighted that my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Daniel) is giving me his assistance in obtaining these necessary public works. I am also highly pleased to hear him state this evening that he thoroughly approves of the policy adopted by the Minister of Public Works in erecting these wharfs, because I understand he joins with me in believing that these wharfs are absolutely necessary for the proper navigation of the River St. John. But I want to remind my hon. friend that he has changed his opinion this session from the opinion he held last session. I want to remind him that when the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) stated on the floor of this House that it was a vicious principle to erect at the pub-lie expense wharfs in rivers or lakes, and that the public money should only be expended on wharfs in harbours or on the sea coast, my hon. friend heard that statement and he did not dispute it.

Topic:   SUPPLY-TREATY WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL WATERWAYS TREATY.
Full View Permalink