I am disposed to accept the idea which the hon. gentleman has placed in his amendment with some exceptions, and I have therefore to propose the following amendment :

That clause 1 be amended by striking out all the words after the word ' dollars ' in the 14th 'line and inserting the following :

2. The sum so forfeited may, with the written consent of any judge of the court in which the proposed action is intended to be brought, be sued for and recovered by any person who first brings his action therefor in any court of competent jurisdiction in which debts of like amount are now recovered;

3. Such sum may also, with the written consent of the Attorney General of the province, or of a judge of a superior or county court in which the prosecution is had, be recovered upon summary conviction before any judge of the sessions of the peace, recorder, police magistrate or stipendiary magistrate, or any functionary, tribunal or person invested, by the proper legislative authority, with power to do alone such acts as are usually required to be done by two or more justices of the peace, and acting within the local limits of his or its jurisdiction;

4. The proceeds to be paid into the hands of the Receiver General, and separate suits may be brought for each alien or foreigner who was a party to such contract or agreement.

At present action has to be brought in the Superior Court, because the penalty is $1,000. We retain that, but we declare that this suit may be recovered within such court with the consent of the judge of the court in addition to which we give the summary jurisdiction, which is given to police magistrates in speedy trials. The amendment has been prepared by the lion. Solicitor General (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick). We have adopted the ipsissima verba of the statute. It therefore carries out the idea of my hon. friend.

Mr. CLARKE.

I am sure I need not say that it is absolutely impossible for a layman, having heard this amendment read for the first time within the last minute or two, to grasp what the full meaning of it is, notwithstanding the very lucid explanation which the right hon. gentleman gave respecting it. I dare say that the legal gentlemen here will be able to grasp the meaning of the clause a great deal better than a layman could, but I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman, if under the operation of the Act as he proposes to amend it, it would be competent for workingmen who believe they are the victims of a violation of the Alien Labour law, to go before a magistrate, lay their complaint, have a summons issued, and the offending parties brought to trial immediately without cost ?

No.

Mr. CLARKE.

Or is it necessary, that the person should first of all obtain the approval of the Attornej7 General of the province, of a judge of a Superior Court or of a county court judge, in advance of his being able to proceed with the trial before a police magistrate ?

Yes.

Mr. CLARKE.

If the authority is ultimately given to a police magistrate to hear and determine the case, might I ask the Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

right hon. gentleman why it is necessary that the complainant should be required to get an order from a county court judge to bring the case into the police court ? If the provisions of this Act are not made as simple as possible, if they are not made as inexpensive as possible, and if the speediest possible trial is not afforded, the Act will practically be a dead letter. It was with the desire to obtain these objects that I presented my amendment when the Bill was in committee before. If breaches of the Alien Labour law occur ; if workingmen are to be given any of the advantages of the Act, it is absolutely necessary in their interest that a speedy hearing should be had. It is also due to the employers that if vexatious complaints are made against them these vexatious complaints should be disposed of with the least possible delay, and that the annoyance and inconvenience of having to appear in court should be reduced to the smallest possible limit. I am therefore at a loss to know exactly what the effect of the adoption of the amendment proposed by the right hon. gentleman will be. I should like to have it more fully explained. The police magistrates in the cities-and it is they who would most likely be called upon to hear and adjudicate upon alleged violations of the labour law-are well qualified to deal with these matters. They now deal with disputes between employers and employees as to wages, and as to breaches of contract and desertion of employment. It seems to me that in view of their experience in these matters they are just as well qualified in 99 cases out of 100 to determine whether or not a summons should be issued as is a county court judge, or a Superior Court judge for that matter. If persons who complain of a breach of the Alien Labour law have to go to the Attorney General of the province and get permission from him to go before a police magistrate, an unreasonable delay may take place. A delay may occur that will practically frustrate the ends of justice and defeat the desire of the workingmen to prevent cases of breaches of the law. If they have to go to a Superior Court judge it will he necessary for them to employ counsel, it will be an expensive matter, and there may be an appeal from the Superior Court judge. The same circumlocution will have to be adopted, if I properly understand the proposed amendment, even if they have to go to a county court judge. He may be out of the city ; he may be away during the long vacation ; interminable delays may take place in getting permission even from a county court judge to have the case tried in the police court. Extensive jurisdiction is given by the law to stipendiary magistrates in cities. I repeat that they are fully qualified to deal with matters of this kind. In fact I go so far as to say that from the experience they have in the class of cases that come before them, they are better qualified to deal with such a

case as this than are other judges. 1 think the interest of all parties will be perfectly safe if the right hon. gentleman will agree to amend the clause so that police magistrates would, upon information laid before them, be empowered to issue a summons to have the offending parties brought into court, and the case speedily disposed of. I again point out that it is impossible for a layman, having heard a resolution of this kind for the first time, to express a very intelligent opinion upon it.

My hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) has rightly apprehended the full scope of the amendment which I have introduced, and I do not believe that further consideration will change his appreciation of it. It is just as he stated. As the law at present stands, no suit can be brought except with the consent of the Attorney General of the Dominion, and that suit must be taken before a Superior Court. We propose to alter this. We retain the jurisdiction of the Superior Court but we give to the prosecutor an alternative jurisdiction before a police magistrate to have a S'wedy trial. The prosecutor has the option of going before the Superior Court or of having a speedy trial before a police magistrate. We have, however, determined that if the suit is brought before a magistrate for a speedy trial, the complainant must apply to the Attorney General of the province or to a Superior Court judge, or to a county court judge for preliminary authority.

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

Can he go to a Superior Court judge without going to the Attorney General of the province ?

Yes, he has that alternative. My hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) asks : Why do you not give the complainant the privilege of at once suing before the magistrate who has to try the case ? Well, that is a very fair objection to take and I will be prepared to hear the views of hon. gentlemen upon it. My hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) has very well said that a magistrate, in a large city like Toronto or Montreal, is as competent in matters of this kind as would be a county judge or even a Superior Court judge. But the hon. gentleman must remember that there are several sections of the country-new sections especially -where it might be difficult to find a stipendiary magistrate equally competent with the magistrates in Montreal, Toronto, or other large centres. When this Act was passed in 1897, parliament thought it wise not to allow the party making the complaint to immediately go into court as is generally the case, but to see that some restriction should be placed upon the power of prosecuting; aud parliament determined at that time that no prosecution should be made except with the consent of the Attorney General of Canada. What was the modern idea which inspired

that disposition of the law ? The idea was that in a matter of this kind, susceptible perhaps of international complications, it would be simply an act of prudence to prevent promiscuous prosecutions, and to see that no frivolous suit should be brought. A good many complaints have been made, amongst others by my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke), who has always taken a deep interest in this legislation, against this provision of the statute; and I must admit that the working of the law was perhaps cumbersome, because it forced every suitor to come to Ottawa in order to obtain this permission. Therefore, we thought it advisable to extend the power of granting the permission, and we have extended it from the Attorney General of Canada to the Attorney General of the province or a county court judge or a Superior Court judge. My hon. friend would say, and with some reason, you might as well give the same permission to the justice who is to try the case. I answer that we think it preferable, in view of the possibility that stipendiary magistrates would not be as careful in some parts of the country as in other parts, to keep this important power in the hands of an officer who by the nature of his office must not only be more experienced in the law, but have a more extended knowledge of legal affairs, and who would be better qualified to exercise that important power. I do not think any serious injury or injustice or any delay can result from this permission being exercised by the county court judges; who are well qualified in all parts of the country; and I think that my hon. friend on consideration will agree with me that we have perhaps done wisely in surrounding this prosecution with this safe but after all very lenient provision.

Mr. MORRISON.

Whilst I am free to admit that the amendment is a vast improvement on the Act as it stood before, at the same time I have a great deal of sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke). There are portions of the Dominion of Canada where the enforcement of this amendment would be exceedingly slow, and I think ineffective. Take, for instance, the vast Kootenay district in the province of British Columbia. There is only one county court judge there, and he resides in a remote part of that district.

There will be two by-and-by.

Mr. MORRISON.

If the government will assure me that they will give us a sufficient number of judges to overcome the difficulty, then I am quite satisfied.

My hon. friend may he sure that we will give the num-

ber of judges required by the legislature of the province.

Mr. MORRISON.

I know that the present government have been quite ready to give us tiie number of judges we require, did the provincial government only do their part. But at the present time, and for aught we know, for some years to come, owing to the dilatoriness of the provincial government in carving out those counties, we cannot have the additional county judges. At present along the international line, in the towns of Rossland, Trail and a number of other large mining communities, where there are great iniluxes of foreigners, this amendment will be practically a dead letter. It certainly will not be expeditious if the consent of the Attorney General has to be obtained, for he may be hundreds of miles distant. If you wish to obtain the consent of a Superior Court judge, you will have to go to Victoria, Vancouver or New Westminster, the only tdwns in the province in which Superior Court judges are to be found. If you want to get the consent of a county court judge in the Kootenay district, you will have to go a very great distance. If you have a case in Atlin, you are still further removed from any of these officials. So that, unless the case should arise in Victoria, Vancouver of New Westminster, the greatest delay will occur in prosecuting it. At all these points in the Kootenay district, and I believe also in the Atlin district, there are competent magistrates. who, with all due deference to the Superior Court judges and the county court judges, would in my opinion act judiciously and discreetly, and in such a way as to serve the interests of ail parties concerned. I am referring particularly to the province of British Columbia. There must be other provinces where the same objections exist. I am very strongly of opinion that this amendment, although it is an improvement on the old Act, yet falls far short of what we should have; and while we are amending the law, it would be just as well to go a little further and extend the jurisdiction to magistrates. I cannot understand why a magistrate may be considered competent to hear a case and yet not be entrusted with the power of issuing a summons and having an information laid before him. That seems to me a little anomalous. If the magistrate were shorn of his jurisdiction to hear the case, I could understand the philosophy of the government being afraid of giving him the power to issue the summons and take the information. I would strongly urge on the government to reconsider the advisability of extending the jurisdiction to magistrates. I assure them, as far as the province of British Columbia is concerned, that there will be the greatest inconvenience. In fact, in very many instances the Act will be altogether abortive; and perhaps after all that province

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

is more interested In this legislation than any other. I think we are not at all meeting the exigencies of the case by this amendment. So far as we are concerned, it is inconvenient and I think unworkable to confine the jurisdiction to the judges. In fact, I do not see why we should surround with these restrictions the case contemplated by the Act any more than those cases in which persons have a right to launch a grievance against individuals in any other case. With all due deference to the right lion. First Minister, 1 do not see any more danger of international complications arising under this Act than under half a dozen other cases in which the law is set in force by individuals with a free hand. There are numbers of cases that will occur to any lawyer, just as important as this, in which parties need not go to the Attorney General or get the consent of anybody, but they take the responsibility; and there are safeguards against the abuse of the process of the courts in those eases as in others. I do not look at all with favour on the omission to extend this jurisdiction to the magistrates.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Might I ask the right hon. gentleman what the provision is in the United States Alien Labour law with respect to the enforcement of the Act ?

The jurisdiction is limited to the district and county courts. We are extending the power beyond that.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

And as you are giving more extended jurisdiction, you wish to impose some safeguards ?

Tes.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Is it not probable that the judge to whom application is made for consent will require to hear the party against whom it is proposed to bring the action ? Looking at the practice which prevails in our province, that might probably be the result, and it would make the machinery for the enforcement of the Act rather cumbrous.