I am by no means sure that this is quite as complete as it should be. I observe that there are two forums under which a prosecution may take place. One is before any justice of the peace where the penalty does not exceed twenty-five dollars, and the other is before any two justices of the peace where the penalty exceeds twenty-five dollars. There are in some municipalities, in Ontario at all events, police magistrates who I am by no means certain are justices of the peace.
I think their commissions are given to them as police magistrates. If I am right in that- and I think I am-you would not have any opportunity of proceeding before the only tribunal now in existence in practically all the towns of Ontario and possibly other provinces. In my own town you never see a justice of the peace presiding now; he is a thing of the past. There are police magistrates appointed for various districts of the county and they sit as such. If in their appointment they are not described as justices of the peace they would not have jurisdiction to proceed under this clause. I suggest that a provision be inserted in the clause that police magistrates as well as these officers have jurisdiction; and the police magistrates would have to have jurisdiction as regards penalties under twenty-five dollars as well as over twenty-five dollars.
MJr. ELLIOTT: There can be no question that a police magistrate should have the same power that a justice of the peace has. Speaking from memory and offhand I think there is in the criminal code a clause which gives to every police magistrate the same power as that of two justices of the peace. It would seem advisable to permit him to exercise that jurisdiction in this particular case unless it be covered by the general clause in the code, and I think it is covered.
St. Lawrence Waterway