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 6 of 19)


April 25, 1919

Mr. H. H. McLEAN:

I understand that, first, official assignees are to be appointed on personal application, stating their qualifications, and then security is to be given in the sum of $10,000. I under-

10 p.m. stand also that only these official assignees can be appointed trustees of the estate. Section 15 says that "a majority in number of the creditors who hold half or more in amount of the proved debts," and so on, may, at their discretion, substitute any other authorized trustee for the trustee named in the receiving order. I do not understand why only official trustees appointed by the Governor in Council can be appointed as trustees of the estate. Take a big fishing business like that conducted by the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Loggie)-this is merely an illustration -it would require a man conversant with that particular business to take charge oi that estate and successfully wind it up. But they can only appoint an official trustee from that district, and a man who might have special qualifications for the position could not be appointed by the creditors. The same thing applies to shipbuilding concerns and lumbering industries, which require men with special knowledge. I do not see why the creditors' power of appointment is taken away. In England, and under our own Insolvency Act of 1869 and 1875, the creditors have the power of appointment. I would like the minister to explain 126

why the majority of creditors, over 50 per cent, should not have the right to select the assignee of the estate, subject to the approval of the court, and why the choice should be limited to a particular class appointed by the Governor in Council. A certain number of people will apply and give securities and bonds, but in connection with large estates the creditors might not wish to have them, owing to lack of the particular qualification.

Topic:   BANKRUPTCY ACT.
Full View Permalink

April 25, 1919

Mr. H. H. McLEAN:

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.

Topic:   BANKRUPTCY ACT.
Full View Permalink

April 25, 1919

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.

Topic:   BANKRUPTCY ACT.
Full View Permalink

April 25, 1919

Mr. McLEAN:

The amendment seems quite satisfactory except that it does not provide for notice being given that the matter of remuneration will be discussed at the meeting. All hon. members seem to agree that that should be included.

Topic:   BANKRUPTCY ACT.
Full View Permalink

April 25, 1919

Mr. McLEAN:

Yes, it is already provided for I think by section 14, but we can see that the other sections are sufficient to require that the trustee appointed shall give the necessary security.

Topic:   BANKRUPTCY ACT.
Full View Permalink