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 8 of 19)


April 25, 1919

Mr. H. H. McLEAN:

Do these trust companies have to be appointed by the Governor in Council as official trustees?

Topic:   BANKRUPTCY ACT.
Full View Permalink

April 25, 1919

Mr. McLEAN:

Our experience has been that in a number of cases, estates have

been robbed by the creditors giving too much.

Amendment agreed to.

Subsection as amended agreed to.

On subsection 2-limited to 5 per cent:

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. H. H. McLEAN:

That is a very good provision, because recently a small company was incorporated in New Brunswick for some particular purpose-I do not know why; in other provinces small trust companies have been incorporated; therefore it would be necessary for the Governor in Council to be very particular before appointing trust companies as official trustees to see that they have proper assets and also authority under their charters to act as receivers or trustees.

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