1924-06-26

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES


[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo) presented the second report of the select standing committee on National Railways and Shipping recommending that it be granted leave to sit while the House is in session.
On motion of Mr. Euler the report was concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JAMES MALCOLM (North Bruce) presented the second report of the special committee appointed to consider Bill No. 122, to provide for the superannuation of civil servants, as follows:
Your committee having carefully considered the bill report the same with amendments.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac) presented the seventh report of the select standing committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph lines as follows:
Your committee having considered Bill No. 145 (E3 of the Senate), have agreed to report the same with an amendment.
Your committee have also considered Bill No. 11 to amend the Railway Act, 1919, and have agreed to recommend that the bill be not proceeded with at the present time as in their opinion it is not in the public interest to do so.
AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION Mr. W. F. KAY (Missisquoi): I move, that the first report of the select standing committee on Agriculture and Colonization be concurred in.
[Stage Direction]
Questions
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Before this report is concurred in we should be told what it recommends.


Mr. KAY:: The report was presented on Friday last. It recommends the printing of certain evidence taken before the committee on the subject of wheat rust and potato diseases.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Frederic Kay: I move that the second report of the select standing committee on Agriculture and Colonization be concurred in.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will my hon. friend kindly tell us what the nature of this report is?


William Frederic Kay: The report recommends to the government that an appropriation of $50,000 be granted for scientific research into the subject of wheat rust.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I beg to lay on the Table a copy of the correspondence regarding the recognition of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.



HOME BANK DEPOSITORS

Mr. DAVID SPENCE (Parkdale):: I beg to present a petition from 175 depositors of the Home Bank in my riding praying to be indemnified for their losses.



PRIVATE BILLS FIRST READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 205 (from the Senate), for the relief of Janet Ferguson.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 206 (from the Senate), for the relief of Charles Whittaker.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 207 (from the Senate), for the relief of Arthur Robert Ascough.-Mr. Preston.
Bill No. 208 (from the Senate), for the relief of Albert Joseph Phillips.-Mr Harris.
Bill No. 209 (from the Senate), for the relief of Patience Oldfield.-Mr. Duff.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Having reference to question No. 18, answered May 7, referring to the sale of lots in Prince Rupert, owned by the National Railways, did the National Railways sell a large block of lots numbering upwards of one thousand about a year ago; if so, how many?

2.	Was the price at which these lots were sold $7 per lot; if not, what was the price?
3.	Were the said lots sold to a man named J. F. Duthie directly or indirectly; if not, to whom?
Hon. Mr, GRAHAM: The above questions were brought to the attention of Mr. Gerard Ruel, Vice-President and General Counsel, Canadian National Railways, at the meeting of the select standing committee on National Railways and Shipping on Tuesday, June 24, when Mr. Ruel made the following explanation of the transfer by the Grand Trunk Pacific Development Company of the property in question:
The property in Prince Rupert was assessed at a very large assessment. We appealed against the assessment for a number of years with the intention of getting it reduced, but were unsuccessful. We did not consider the property of much greater value -rather a lesser value than the actual taxation- less than the assessment against it. We tried to give that property to the city, to have them take the property in discharge of the taxes. They said no, they would not do that; the taxes were assessed against the company, and we had no remedy, no redress. We said " Will you take the property and sell it to anybody to discharge the taxes?", and they said, " No, you have to pay the taxes." We, therefore, paid all the taxes, and then transferred the property to Duthie. If the city wants to get that property to-morrow, we will give it to them, we will get it back and hand it over to them, but we do not want to pay taxes on property that should not be assessed.
Mr. Ruel proceeded to explain to the committee that a conference of provincial treasurers was being arranged in order that a uniform basis of taxation of Canadian National Railways property rights might, if possible, be reached. At that conference the question of municipal taxation would also be considered. A. P. FORSTER


Mr. HARRIS:: 1.	Why were the services of A. P. Forster of Welland, government inspector on section 5 and sections 8 and 9 since 1915, on the Welland canal, dispensed with?
2.	Who has been placed in charge of the inspection service in place of Mr. Forster?
3.	Is Mr. Forster's suspension permanent or temporary ?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	A. P. Forster was Inspector of Dredging, section 5, Welland Ship canal. His services were no longer required as dredging operations had ceased.
2.	No appointment made.
3.	Permanent.


BRIBE-TAKERS AND PERJURERS
Mr. DUNCAN:: 1.	Is the government aware that representations have been made to the Attorney General of Quebec in protest against bribe-takers and perjurers appearing before the Montreal courts as King's Counsel, and that the bar of Montreal and certain judges there, federally appointed, have also received a similar protest?
2.	Has the government received any protests of like nature? If so, when?
3.	Has any action been taken?

Questions


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	No.
2.	A printed letter from Brenton A. Mac-Nab was received on June 9, 1924.
3.	No.


COLONEL REID HYDE
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	What position does Reid Hyde hold in the High Commissioner's office in London?
2.	What is his salary and what allowances does he receive ?
3.	Was he appointed by or with the concurrence of the Civil Service Commission?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING:: 
INDIAN RESERVES-TIMBER DUES
Mr. SIMPSON:: What timber, and of what kind and quantity, has been cut since the year 1915, for which dues have been paid, on the Indian Reserves on Christian, Hope and Beckwith islands in the Georgian bay, and what dues have been paid annually therefor since the year 1915?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: An
item appeared in the press the other day to the effect that the government had decided to drop the proposed legislation in regard to the transferable or alternative vote. In view of the fact that hon. members in this part of the House are anxious that this legislation be passed at this session, has the government any assurance to give to the House that this measure will be carried through, or that a bill will be introduced this session?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Any intimation that the government has decided that this measure will not be proceeded with is wholly inaccurate. The government has been considering how best to arrange matters in order to conclude the session. As my hon. friend knows, the whips have been discussing with each other the question of the remaining programme for the session, and this particular piece of legislation has been considered in connection therewith, but no decision has been reached with respect to not proceeding with the legislation already introduced.
Inter-Allied Conference

ROYAL GRAIN INQUIRY COMMISSION On the Orders of the Day.


Mr. W. T. LUCAS (Victoria):: Has the government received any interim report from the Royal Grain Inquiry Commission, and if so, when will the said report be available for a member of the House.


Hon. T. A. LOW (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I expect the report will be in our hands in the next few days, and will be tabled early next week. I have had a communication to that effect.
INTER-ALLIED CONFERENCE On the Orders of the Day.


Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: Could the Prime Minister give us any further information with respect to the Inter-Allied Conference to be held in London in July. Has the attention of the government been drawn to the following statement in the Ottawa Citizen of to-day?
United States Ambassador Kellogg at London was instructed to-day to attend the forthcoming premiers' conference to discuss execution of the Dawes plan.
His appointment was announced in a White House statement which said that Mr. Kellogg would attend the conference "for the purpose of dealing with such matters as affect the interests of the United States and otherwise for purposes of information."
This action was determined upon after the state department had been advised by the ambassador that an invitation for the United States to participate nad been handed the United States embassy in Lon-ion. The White House statement declared that it was "the desire of the administration that the Dawes plan should be put into effect as speedily as pos-?ible."
Can the Prime Minister tell me if Canada has been invited to participate and is going to be represented, and if a day will be given us to discuss this matter in the House?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I imagine the article my hon. friend has read is a despatch from Washington which appears in this morning's paper.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have seen
the despatch, but the attention of the government had not been officially directed to it. Yesterday I received from the Secretary of State for the Colonies a communication directing my attention to, or rather intimating that I would probably have seen in the press despatches the remarks of the Prime Minister in the British House of Commons on the subject of the Inter-Allied Conference. The communication stated that the Prime Minister was absent from London at that time,

but that on his return to London a further communication would be sent to the government of Canada in reference to the matter. As I was coming into the House this afternoon I received from the Secretary of State for the Colonies a despatch to the effect that the Secretary of State hoped to telegraph again before the end of the week as to the Inter-Allied conference. Up to the present time however, the government has not received any official communication to the effect that a conference has been called, or as to the parties who are being invited to it, and until we are invited, I am afraid I cannot say to my hon. friend whether we will be represented or not.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: That communication is signed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Has the Prime Minister ever drawn the attention of the British government to the need of a more appropriate term than " colonies " for those who make up the associated dominions?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have never drawn attention to that particular title. It is an old historical title. Perhaps some day it will come up for discussion in this House, but I have not thought of making any intimation on the subject.



STRIKE OF POSTAL EMPLOYEES


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I beg to make the motion which I have placed in your Honour's hands.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have received from the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) the following statement:
I ask leave to move an adjournment of the House under rule 39, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely that the arrangements made by the post office authorities for the handling of His Majesty's mails are wholly inadequate and do not provide for the proper and sufficient delivery of mail matter.
Rule 39 paragraph (1) reads:
A motion to adjourn (except when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance), shall always be in order, but no second motion to the same effect shall be made until after some intermediate proceeding has been had.
Paragraph (c) of section (7) of the same rule states:
The motion must not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same session.
It is true that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) on the 17th June

Postal Employees
asked for leave to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the application or request of the postal employees. On reading that motion of the 17th June, one will see at once that it had reference to a strike to be, not a strike in existence. Since then the strike has taken place, and if I understand aright the purpose of the present motion, it is to discuss the arrangements consequent upon the strike. I call the attention of the House to section (4) of rule 39. Referring to the member who makes the motion it says:
He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to the Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the House. If objection is taken, the Speaker requests those members who support the motion to rise in their places and if more than twenty members rise accordingly, the Speaker calls upon the member who has asked for leave.
Personally, I have some doubts as to the raison d'etre of the present motion; but comparing the two motions, that of the 17th June aaid the present one, I see that the motion of the 17th June has reference, as I have stated, to a strike about to take place, while the present motion refers to the postal arrangements .taken after the strike has occurred. Certainly it is a matter which is of grave importance but I have strong doubts as to its urgency, and for that reason I will ask the members who support the motion to rise in their places in order that I may see if the hon. gentleman shall have leave from the House to proceed with his motion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I rise to object to this
proceeding. It seems to me that all the information that the House really desires to have on this matter can be obtained by a question on the part of my hon. friend and answer on the part of the government. We have set apart to-day to continue the debate on the church union bill, and I think it is the general wish of the House that we should carry out that intention. Apart altogether from the wording of the motion in its reference to the strike, I submit that ithe position in which the postal service is at the present moment is not one to be characterized as constituting a question of "urgent public importance " sufficient or such as to cause this House to change or delay the order of business for to-day.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If my right
hon. friend were at all familiar with the situation that actually exists, he would never say that this matter is not one of grave 234
public import. I have never yet heard any
one take the position that the carrying on of an important section of the business of the Crown and its cessation, or partial cessation, is not a matter of grave public import. I do, not think there is the slightest doubt that the motion is in order. The position on -the 17th of June was entirely different from the-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. Now that the
objection has been taken, no discussion can be had on this motion for adjournment. The only question to decide presently is whether there are twenty members supporting the stand taken by the hon. member for West York. If there are twenty members, he is entitled to proceed with the motion.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: What about those who are against it, if we have the majority?


Hewitt Bostock: I wish to be perfectly
clear. I desire hon. members to understand that I am not at liberty to refuse the motion even if I have a doubt-and I have expressed my doubt-when twenty members express a desire that the debate should go on.
The Clerk Assistant having stated that more than twenty members had risen:


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I rise to a point of
order. I want to know if according to your decision twenty members shall rule this House; and if there is any point of order, I am ready to stand by it. I say that we should consult the will of the House and have the majority one way or the other.


Hewitt Bostock: The rule is very clear.
There is no point of order in the point taken by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Gauvreau). Subsection (4) of rule 39 reads:
He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to the Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the House. If objection is taken...
And objection was taken.
...the Speaker requests those members who support the motion to rise in their places and if more than twenty members rise accordingly, the Speaker calls upon the member who has asked for leave.


Mr. VIEN:: I rise to a point of order. The motion presented by the hon. member for West York covers the same subject as that which was raised the other day when the adjournment of the House was moved. I should like to have a ruling on that point of order.


Hewitt Bostock: I gave my ruling at the
beginning, that, in my judgment, the first motion moved on the 17th June by the hon.

Postal Employees

member for North Toronto had reference to a strike to take place, whilst the present motion of the hon. member for West York is really quite distinct, it having reference to the postal arrangements made consequent upon the strike. Therefore, the question is not the same. I said, however, that I had my doubts as to the raison d'etre of the motion. But I have no liberty; I am obliged to follow subsection (4) of rule 39, that, if twenty members rise in support of the motion, the House must listen to the hon. member who moved the motion.


Thomas Vien: Can we not appeal from your
decision on the point of order?


Hewitt Bostock: Certainly, you can appeal from my decision.


Mr. CARROLL:: Did I understand the
Prime Minister to raise the point of order whether the motion was or was not a question of grave public importance at the time?


Hewitt Bostock: That is a question for the House to decide.


William F. Carroll: Is that not a question of order?


Hewitt Bostock: No.


William F. Carroll: I understood that you ruled out discussion on that question of order.


Hewitt Bostock: The rule says that when
objection is taken, the Speaker calls on those members who support the motion to rise, and if more than twenty members rise, the debate goes on. But you can always appeal from my decision and I would not be in the least offended by the vote given.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I want to speak to the
point of order. Before doing so, I should like the House to be informed that we on this side have no desire at all to withhold or to defer the debate on church union. A very brief time will suffice for our purpose. On the point of order: It is true that Your Honour has the ruling in the first place as to whether the motion is one that can be described as relating to a matter of urgent public importance. Your Honour has decided in favour of the mover. Then we proceed, and objection is taken. Thereupon twenty members rise to overcome the objection. That proceeding having taken place, it is too late now for any hon. member to appeal against Your Honour's ruling on the point decided some little time ago. The only time the appeal can be taken is immediately after the decision is given.


Mr. BELAND:: Does the leader of the
opposition say that His Honour the Speaker held that this was a matter of such urgent public importance as to justify a motion for the adjournment of the House?


Arthur Meighen: His Honour so decided.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I did not understand him
to do so.


Arthur Meighen: The question before the
Speaker in the first instance was as to whether or not in his view the matter was of such a nature as to come within the category of "questions of urgent public importance." His Honour having given his decision in favour of the mover, objection is taken, whereupon twrenty members overcome that objection. At that point it is too late to appeal from the decision of the Chair as to whether the motion is in order or not.


Mr. G. N. GORDON (West Peterborough):: May I be allowed to direct the attention of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) to section 5 of rule 39:
If less than twenty, 'but not less than five, members rise in their places, the question whether the member has leave to move the adjournment of the House shall be put forthwith, without debate, and determined, if necessary, by a division.
The next preceding section provides that the member who wishes to make the motion must hand a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to the Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order, reads it and asks whether the member shall have leave of the House to discuss it. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) failed to hand such a written statement to Your Honour and therefore has not complied with the rules governing this matter.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member for
West York has perhaps transgressed the letter but not the spirit of the rules. I must inform the House that the hon. member handed me the necessary statement before three o'clock, as soon as I reached the House.


William Findlay Maclean: Handed it personally?


Hewitt Bostock: Yes.


Thomas Vien: In view of what the leader of
the opposition has said I will withdraw my request to appeal from the decision of the Chair. We shall see, however, whether hon. gentlemen opposite will keep to their word and be brief.

Postal Employees


Henry Lumley Drayton: I regret with every hon. member of the House that it is necessary to make this motion at the present time; I am sure that this necessity must be a matter of regret to hon. gentlemen in every section of the House. However, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that. I shall not detain the House very long. In view of what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has stated, I want to point out that we have already tried in every way possible to have the solution of the present difficulty hastened. We have asked questions and have received no answers; we have done all that we can possibly do, but without avail. There is an appropriate way in which this question can be brought up, and that is in the consideration of the estimates of the department. We have not had that opportunity. In connection with those estimates my right hon. friend the other day said that the Postmaster General, was still away, ill. That is true; but it is also true that we have an intolerable situation in this country just now. We have mail which is accumulating in vast quantities; we have a situation in which it is impossible for business men to carry on their affairs; we have a situation in which families are utterly unable to correspond one with the other. In Toronto we have a situation in which business is being retarded through a practically complete cessation of the postal service. It is true that there are a few letter carriers in service at the present time; there are a few in the business section of the city. But as far as the city generally is concerned it is not getting postal accommodation. Now this is a matter of very grave moment to the city of Toronto and to every one there who has anything to do with business. And the situation is not improving; my information to-day is that the mails are not moving. Speaking for myself, I may remark that I am unable to get my Toronto mail; I have been writing to members of my family in that city and have received no replies, and over the long distance telephone I learned that they have not been getting my letters, either. It is idle to say that the business of the country is being carried on as usual; it is not. This is a matter which this government ought to look into at the first possible opportunity; for after all it is only this government that can deal with it. I say therefore that it is the absolute and the immediate duty of the government to take steps to provide some remedy for the present state of things.
Let me point out to the Prime Minister that this strike, which undoubtedly we all
234i
deplore and which it is true we feel was very unnecessary, was after all not a "Red" strike; there are some first-rate men among the postal employees who have gone out. I admit that these men made a mistake; they were misguided in going out. But cannot something be done to-day to bring them back? If my right hon. friend took a trip to Toronto and visited the post office in West Toronto he would see there for himself an utterly impossible situation, where people are unable to get their mail. I am sure that the Prime Minister if he saw things in that city with his own eyes would be convinced that the present intolerable condition of things demands an immediate solution. I am not exaggerating the gravity of the situation for a moment when I say that, and I want to appeal to the government to take action without further delay. I am not going to delay the House any longer; I simply want to urge upon the Prime Minister and his colleagues the existence of an urgent responsibility which it is incumbent upon them to discharge immediately.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil) (Acting Postmaster General):: I think in fairness to the House I should make some comprehensive statement with respect to this matter. On June 18 and on previous days we noticed from press despatches that a strike vote was being taken throughout Canada, on the part of all postal workers in the country, against the adjustment of the Civil Service Commission's scale of salaries. I am not going to go at length into the details of the matter because I do not want to detain the House, but I want to state the main facts. On June 18 I was in consulation with the executive of the Postal Workers of Canada in this city and discussed very fully with them their difficulties, and their chief complaint was that the minimum wage as provided for under that schedule was not adequate and that the scale of wages did not run high enough. I want hon. gentlemen to remember that the scale demanded by the postal workers was very much higher than that granted by the Civil Service Commission. The executive of the postal workers made no intimation on that occasion that they would be willing to accept any lower scale. In fact I told them, and I think they agreed, that it was useless at that moment to discuss wages.
We did discuss some of the difficulties that they complained of most bitterly, the principal one being that a portion of the bonus which they had been in receipt of since April 1 would have to be refunded on the lower grade salaries if the scale set by the Civil Service
Postal Employees

Commission was to prevail. We agreed that no man should suffer by that reduction, but that we would immediately put into effect an order in council to provide that the bonus adjusted in 1924-25 would be continued until final adjustment of the whole matter, that is, at the point where the Civil Service Commission would have completed their duties and filed a new scale for the entire Civil Service. Not only that, but, as I mentioned in the House some days ago, the executive of the postal workers objected very strenuously because they did not have an opportunity to discuss all their difficulties with the Civil Service Commission in an intimate way-and I want to emphasize that expression,-in an intimate way. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I had some sympathy with that contention. They also asked that the law be amended so that their particular case would be taken out of the hands of the Civil Service Commission. I pointed out that there was no necessity for any amendment of the Civil Service Act, that, as has been stated so often in this House, it already provides a course for dealing with matters of this kind, in that although the Civil Service Commission has jurisdiction over the adjustment of salaries and conditions generally in the service, yet the government of the day must either approve any action taken by the commission, or refer the matter to parliament for final consideration. I told the men that the government were prepared to appoint a committee as soon as the final adjustment was made, and that committee would sit around a table with them and discuss all their grievances, and that if the report by that committee to the government was to the effect that an adjustment was needed, the government would take the responsibility of recommending to parliament such adjustment. Those were the two things outlined in a letter which was handed to the executive of the postal workers when they returned to Toronto.
In the midst of the discussions the Toronto workers went on strike. Perhaps it is only fair to say that before the executive came here they had already issued a strike order to go into effect at five o'clock the following day. They did endeavour to get a twenty-four hours' stay, and, generally speaking, that request was heeded by the service, except in the case of Toronto and Windsor and a few other towns throughout Ontario. There never was any strike in western Canada, or any cessation of work, and there was very little cessation of work in eastern Canada with the single exception of the city of Montreal.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the history of the case up to date. I want again to say

what I said in the House on a former occasion, that in my opinion the Civil Service Commission is the proper body to deal with matters of this kind. Until their investigation is completed, I am not prepared to say definitely whether or not there are inequalities in the case of the postal workers which should be adjusted.
I will deal now with the strike itself. In the city of Toronto practically every man in the service, 1,600, walked out at 5 o'clock Wednesday evening, June 18. In the city of Montreal less than half the staff went out, scarcely 600 all told. The difference between Toronto and Montreal to-day is that in Montreal we have the nucleus of a trained staff to carry on business so that recruits can be taught much more quickly; but of course there is no such nucleus yet available in Toronto. As to Montreal, to-day mail is moving almost up to normal. Undoubtedly there will be difficulties for some time with a new staff hastily recruited and put to work under conditions such as prevail during a strike.
But in Toronto the situation is entirely different. The day after the strike took place we recruited 600 new men. There is no trouble in securing men for this work; there are more men offering themselves than we are able to take on, except in Windsor only, where there is apparently a disposition on the part of the citizens to back up the strikers in their attitude that their demands must be met before they return to work. I will deal with the Windsor situation in a moment or two because I think most hon. members will agree that I am not of a fighting disposition. In the city of Toronto up to the present moment, so far as I am aware, there has never been an offer from the leaders of the strikers to return to work; they insist that first of all their demands shall be met. They have insisted upon this from the start, and if the government must surrender to strikers, then those demands must be met. True, yesterday and to-day there is evidence that the strikers are not going to be so insistent.
With respect to moving the mail-and that is what my hon. friend dwells upon most- the government and the officials of the department have done everything in their power to move mail in the city of Toronto. What my hon. friend says is correct, there is a large amount of mail still undelivered, but we are sorting mail in this city in order to relieve congestion in Toronto, and we are delivering that to the large business and apartment houses in the centre of the city in bags for

Postal Employees
distribution by some individual in each building, and that distribution is going on throughout the central area of the city. It is true that in the outlying portions of the city we have not been able to reach business houses and manufacturers. But in the person of Mr. Lemon, the postmaster of Toronto, we have an excellent civil servant, a man who thoroughly understands his business, a man in whose hands we have placed the responsibility for the reorganization of this service, and a man who has shown that he is resourceful in meeting the tremendous odds and difficulties which handicap him at this time. These difficulties are indicated in a letter lying on my desk which I received a moment or two ago. It contains a report from substation E. It is pointed out that in that office there is a disposition on the part of the men who stayed on duty to delay delivery -which is what my hon. friend is complaining about-to hold up the public in line in order that they may be inconvenienced as much as possible in receiving their mail, although that mail is sorted and ready to be passed out through the wicket. I think the public ought to know this. I have no complaint to make about the police, I think they are rendering every assistance, but there are difficulties in places, and when you have a thousand strikers organized for the purpose of preventing delivery of mail, it is only natural to expect that they will do their best to create as much public inconvenience as possible.
As I say, no one wants trouble, and I am anxious to avoid it as much as possible. I hope that we shall soon be able to give a better service than we have so far been able to give. The key men, those who are the most valuable to the service, are the sorters in such large offices as that of Toronto. Every one of those men walked out, and it will take at least three or four raw recruits to do the work of one sorter who- is trained in his business. It takes days to teach a man to do that- work thoroughly. The trained sorter knows every street in the city; he can stand with a bundle of mail and sort it into the various bags for the different streets for delivery by the carriers, and he can do it much quicker than the man who does not know the city, who is not familiar with the streets, and who must proceed slowly in order to make a careful distribution of the mail. We are overcoming that difficulty as fast as we can. I am informed that Postmaster Lemon is recruiting a good staff, that he has obtained the services of men of intelligence and reasonable ability. I have no quarrel with the old staff; it was a splendid staff and very well organized. But they decided that they were going to take the law into their own hands and to proceed against the constituted authority of Canada, and by that decision they will have to abide. But it is my intention to give service and to give it as rapidly as possible. There will be inconvenience for some little time, but we now have almost 1,200 men recruited in Toronto. My hon. friend says there are men on delivery to-day. I question the advisability of starting a delivery before we have thoroughly organized the inside services; perhaps a delay of a day or two longer might have been advisable. But in his desire to restore the service as quickly as possible Postmaster Lemon has placed men out on delivery to-day, and I am willing to back him to the fullest extent in restoring the service in Toronto.
With reference to the strikers themselves, lest it be inferred that I have taken a position of intolerance with regard to theim I may say that I was visited yesterday by the mayor of Toronto and I gave him a copy of the letter forwarded to the strikers. I do not believe those men were advised of the full purport of the letter given to the executive; I do not believe it was fully explained to them. I thought it advisable to give a copy of the letter to the mayor. Three other gentlemen were here who represented themselves as members of a Liberal club-[DOT] Mr. Ross, Mr. Collins and Mr. Maguire. I gave those gentlemen copies of the letter, because 'they said they were in constant touch with the strikers and thought they could bring about a return to service of some of them. I noticed in the press this morning some statements that would indicate that again these men may not have been getting proper information, and again I hastened to get into communication with Postmaster Lemon and to tell him that my offer as made in the letter stood, and nothing else. We welcome everybody who will assist in a difficult situation like this, but I do not want it to be inferred that influence is being brought to bear in the matter by any section or any political party. Postmaster Lemon ,is in complete charge; he will remain in charge and will carry out the instructions contained in the letter which I delivered to the secretary of the strike committee when they left this city on Wednesday evening, June 18.


Mr. HARRIS:: Will the minister read the
letter?


Charles A. Stewart: It was
published in all the newspapers, but I will read it presently. This situation is a very
Postal Employees

serious one. For my part I do not think any government can countenance an organized strike among their workers. My letter is to the men on duty. I put no bar in the wa.y of any man returning, but I will not treat with a man until he goes back on duty. I take that stand because I firmly believe that no government can tafford to give way to a group of persons who undertake to dictate to them in a matter of this kind.


Mr. McQUARRIE :: If the minister will
permit a question, will he state the government's reasons for declining to agree to an arbitration board?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. My
letter makes reference to all that is involved in that connection, which was a conference with the strikers. What I want to make clear is that men who go off 4 p.m. duty, who leave the employment of the government as civil servants, breaking the oath that they took as servants of the Crown, cannot be dealt with until they return to duty.
Now, let me first read a letter sent by the strikers to the Prime Minister-and I may say in this connection that the executive of the postal workers did not get into communication with the government from the day on which they received the schedule from the government until they wrote the letter, when they arrived in Ottawa on June 18th, that I am about to read. Here is the letter:
Dear Sir:
Acting on the wishes of the membership of the organizations concerned, as expressed in a Dominionwide ballot, a general strike in the postal service has been called to commence at five o'clock this afternoon.
It is regretted that the late hour at which this decision was arrived last night, and the necessity for ftiaste in entraining for Ottawa in response to a call from the government, made it impossible to convey this information to you sooner.
The necessity for the action taken is deplored by all our officers and members who trust that immediate favourable consideration by the government may yet enable us to assist in averting the move called for by the postal employees.
To that the following letter was given to Mr. J. E. Archer in reply, at about 3.10 in the afternoon. We had spent considerable time in consultation with the committee. I quote:
Mr. J. E. Archer,
Secretary, Canadian Federation of Postal Employees, Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir,
This acknowledges receipt of a copy of your letter of even date addressed to the Right Honourable the Prime Minister advising him that:
[Mr. C. A. StewartJ
" Acting on the wishes of the membership of the organizations concerned, as expressed in a Dominionwide ballot, a general strike in the postal service has been called to commence at five o'clock this afternoon."
After discussion of this matter with the government, I am authorized to state that we regret the decision arrived at by your committee, and it is a matter of additional regret that your committee have not prior to this date officially indicated to the government your dissatisfaction with the recent salary revision for postal workers as authorized by the Civil Service Commission and the government.
Since the receipt of your letter of even date, a sub-committee of the cabinet has had the opportunity of discussing these matters at some length with your committee and have heard the views of your committee that further consideration should be given to the claims of the postal employees by the government.
In connection with this matter the Prime Minister in parliament yesterday stated as follows:
" We are prepared, when the Civil Service Commission has submitted its report upon the salaries of the entire civil service, to consider that report carefully in the light of all the material which we have before us and to make to parliament, if we think it advisable so to do, recommendations supplementing those which are contained in the report of the Civil Service Commission. But we do not feel that we are in a position to make any recommendations to parliament at the present time with respect to the postal employees; and I hope that the employees of the Post Office department will see that the position which the government is taking is one which is in the interests of the entire civil service of the country and in the interests of the taxpayers as well."
We also in discussion of this date learned of the dissatisfaction of the postal employees due to the fact that in certain cases the present salary plus 1924 bonus was higher than certain rates proposed by the Civil Service Commission for the same class of employees; and I am authorized to state that in the case of employees whose revised rates, as determined by the Civil Service Commission are less than the former rate plus 1924-25 bonus, such bonus shall be continued until salary revision for the entire service has been consummated.
I am further authorized to say that in carrying out the plan and action proposed by the Prime Minister in the above quoted paragraph that the government policy is that when the Civil Service Commission has submitted its report upon the salaries for the entire civil service, that opportunity will be given to the representatives of the employees in the postal department, or in other departments of the government who have objections to file against salary revision proposed by the commission to fully present their views to a sub-committee of the government, and to discuss such matters of differences as fully as may be necessary to ensure a thorough understanding, and it is hoped, a final and satisfactory agreement on the points in dispute.
I trust that your committee will at once take the necessary action to see that continuous operation of the postal service is maintained.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister answer this question? Embodied in his letter is there a notification that the government is prepared to restore last year's wage and bonus schedule?


Charles A. Stewart: No, it is
the bonus of this year that is mentioned here.

Postal Employees


Arthur Meighen: Does that mean the bonus of this year in addition to what is recommended in the Civil Service Commission's report on salaries?


Charles A. Stewart: No, only to the extent to which the salary in the lower grades may be below the salary plus this year's bonus. Does my right hon. friend follow me? There were cases amongst the lower-paid employees, those with salaries about $1,200, or under in which the revision cuts the salary below what the postal employee was receiving under this year's vote, to some extent at least. What we agreed to do was to maintain that bonus to the extent that has been approved by the House.


Arthur Meighen: Was the letter sent out
before notification of the strike was received?


Charles A. Stewart: It developed in the discussion that day that that was what had happened, and it was one of the serious complaints made by the executive. In order to overcome that we arranged to do what is proposed here.


Arthur Meighen: To do it though after
the notification of strike?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, or
rather I should say this. The first official intimation we had of dissatisfaction from the executive of the employees was received about twelve o'clock that day.


Arthur Meighen: Wednesday?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, in a
letter, stating-[DOT]


Arthur Meighen: It was the day before.


Charles A. Stewart: -that notice of a strike had been issued the night before. That is the point I was trying to make clear.


William Findlay Maclean: Will the
minister explain the statement which appeared in the Toronto press this morning?


Charles A. Stewart: That relates to a letter a copy of which I gave to Major Hiltz, to Mr. Maguire, to Mr. Collins and to Mr. Ross. I gave them this letter because each one of these gentlemen informed me that as citizens of Toronto they had been endeavouring to induce the men to go back to duty and are very keen to have them do so. I want to make it perfectly clear that personally I have put no barrier of any kind in the way of the men returning to work. The only condition is that if these men's places are filled we cannot overlook that circumstance; but they will have to go back to duty without any promise on my part. I want to make it
abundantly clear that that letter was written on the understanding that the men whom it affected were the men in the service, and that understanding will be carried out to the fullest extent. That letter was not intended for strikers.	[DOT]


Arthur Meighen: At the time it was
written all were in the service.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, all
were in the service when the letter was written, that is what I want to make clear. I also want to point out that the worst situation is in Toronto. There is, however, a serious situation in Windsor and the Border cities, and the mayor of Windsor is here waiting to discuss the matter with me now. In all fairness I must say that I have no two positions to occupy; I can only occupy one. It is that the men shall return to duty. As hon. gentlemen who have had to deal with matters of this kind know there is always a great deal of discussion about what shall be done but ever since this trouble arose I have invariably said to the men "Go back to your duty unconditionally." They have done so in Hamilton, and in Montreal, forty-five of them have returned in Toronto, and they are returning tc duty elsewhere. They have done so in Brantford, Kitchener, Belleville and Peterborough. I cannot say anything different to the striking workers in the city of Toronto from what I have said to the men who have returned to duty elsewhere. In conclusion let me assure the House that every effort that is humanly possible will be put forth to give s. delivery of mail in the city of Toronto. I regret, as every other citizen of Canada regrets, any inconvenience which has been taused, but at the earliest possible date service will be restored.


Joseph Henry Harris: I want
to assure hon. gentlemen to my left and hon. gentlemen opposite that I shall not occupy very much time in discussing this question. When some resolution on an academic subject rs proposed from either of those quarters there seems to be ample time for discussion, but that is not the ease apparently when a matter of vital importance to the city of Toronto, one of the largest industrial centres in the country, a matter which threatens to paralyze business operations there, calls for consideration. At this time some of these hon. gentlemen arise in their dignity and frown upon discussion of this vital question. We should have a thorough discussion of a matter which so seriously affects the industrial life of the country. The Acting Postmaster Gen-
Postal Employees

eral says that in this case he does not want a fight. The Prime Minister had a letter written to him on June 18, but where was he at that time? Was he here to receive that letter? I question whether he was or not. If he had been a big man-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Joseph Henry Harris: -if he had been equal to
the occasion he would have stayed in Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon.
gentleman asks where I was on June 18? I was fulfilling an engagement that I had made three months before.
Some hen. MEMBERS:	Withdraw.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member must
be aware of the well known rule that he must confine himself to the subject matter of discussion. The question here has reference to the arrangements made by the post office authorities, and the hon. gentleman cannot go beyond that, otherwise I shall be obliged to call him to order,


Joseph Henry Harris: Mr. Speaker, I bow to your decision. We will come right to the point, then. I will give the House an illustration. At 9 o'clock last night I went to the telephone desiring to telephone to Toronto. Do you think I could get through to Toronto? Not until twenty-five minutes to twelve last night could I get Toronto, because all the lines were busy. Doing what? They were carrying the communications necessary to hold together the business of the parties engaged. And why? Because in this country we have a postal strike. The telephone lines and the telegraph lines to Toronto are all tied up, because the business houses are trying to do itheir business by telephone and telegraph. I left Toronto on Monday night, and what did I see in front of the magnificent monument called the Union station? I saw a line of people four abreast stretching from Bay street to York street. WhaJt were they doing? Standing in line waiting for this government to have a little more action, to do something to give industries of the city of Toronto their mail. The minister admitted some three or four minutes ago that in this case it took four or five raw recruits to do the work of one man. He stated that he had about 1,200 in the service, and that it took about 1,500 men to do the work. What will happen in the course of seven or 
eight days? Multiply the four by the number of days and by the number of men, and what have you got? You have an aggregate of mail and material held up that is something appalling. It must appeal to the common intelligence of any man in this House when I say that this condition paralyzes the whole industrial fabric of that city, and as the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) would say when you paralyze Toronto you paralyze the whole of the province of Ontario.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Joseph Henry Harris: Do I hear some hon. members say no? I have great deference for my hon. friends from Quebec. I grant that Montreal is a very beautiful city. But as far as postal service is concerned hon. gentlemen will remember what I stated about a year ago, namely that the postal revenue in Toronto is equal to the revenue of Montreal and every town and city in the province of Quebec added together. It is the people of the city of Toronto who are producing this revenue, and this government says that the Civil Service Commission has jurisdiction. Is the Civil Service Commission responsible for this condition of affairs?


Thomas Vien: Where does the hon. member
get his statistics when he makes the statement that the city of Toronto brings as much money to the Post Office department as the whole of the province of Quebec?


Joseph Henry Harris: I take it from the Canada
Year Book, 1921, which I had in my hand at the time. Hon. members will find that is the fact.


Thomas Vien: Canada Year Book, 1975.


Joseph Henry Harris: I appreciate the hon. member's point. We will be there "with bells on" in 1975. I submit, Mr. Speaker, with all respect to the hon. minister that the government is responsible for the condition of affairs at the present time, inasmuch as they are not putting enough energy into the matter to see that the city of Toronto gets the mail service to which they have been accustomed. Any one in business knows that there is not very much done in a business house in the morning until the first mail is received. What do we do? We bring our staff down at eight or nine o'clock and wait for the mail. When the mail comes in we get busy. I could tell you a score of houses which have been paralyzed because the mail is not coming in. Some of them are getting it. I will give the House an example. On Saturday last week one business house got their commercial traveller to

Postal Employees
leave his home at seven o'clock in the morning, so as to be in line to get the mail. He waited there until twelve. When he got to the wicket they said: "Your mail was taken half an hour since." He went home with that for an answer. He got two or three letters which came in during the half hour. When he got to his place of business he found that no mail had been received by them. He went back to get into line, but he had to Stand in line till three or four o'clock before he could get in again, and when he got in he got two or three more letters. I have word from that house to-day that they had not received one-fourth of their mail during this last week.


Charles A. Stewart: If hon. gentleman who have inside knowledge of cases of that kind will give them to me, in twenty minutes I will have it transferred to the city of Toronto, and deliver the mail to these houses, as we are delivering to the inside circle of the city. If the hon. gentleman wishes to assist me he can do so very materially in that way.


Joseph Henry Harris: I submit that I have been trying to assist my hon. friend in this situation from the very beginning. I am trying to do so now, but I want the government to grasp the situation and feel the responsibility of it. I do not want them to sit here inert. I would like to see the Prime Minister stay here and do his best to cure the situation-


Charles A. Stewart: I object to the word "inert". I trust that in circumstances such as these there is something coming to a man. I defy my hon. friend to say that I have been inert in this matter. I have been up night and day since this trouble arose, and I intend to stay on the job till it is through. I say to my hon. friend as one of the members for Toronto, and I think I am safe in making the assertion-and I say it on the authority of the man who is handling the situation, Postmaster Lemon, in whom everyone has confidence, and on the authority of the officials who went through the same situation in Winnipeg and know something about striking conditions-that you are getting a much quicker service than you did under similar circumstances previously. These men say that and I say it. I have not been in bed very many hours during the night since this matter came up.


Joseph Henry Harris: No one would fail to appreciate the remarks of the hon. minister, but we might stay up night and day-the whole House might sit up night and day-and, if there is not some more action than we have been getting in the last week-


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: The hon.
member has been doing a lot of talking as to what ought to be done. Will he tell us just what should be done?


Joseph Henry Harris: I have been taking the minister's word for it when he says that it takes four to five raw recruits to do the work of one man, and he only had 1,200 enrolled to give the service which they require-


Charles A. Stewart: We could put 1,500 men on the work in Toronto, if we had the men to train them. Surely my hon. friend will be fair in the matter. We cannot take on more men than we have men to train. It is useless to have men standing round in the employ of the government if you cannot use them. As fast as these men can be trained for the particular job, we put them on. It is not lack of men. Lord knows, there are more men unemployed in Toronto than we can employ but the difficulty is in training them. I want the hon. member to be fair in that respect.


Joseph Henry Harris: I take the acting minister's word that he cannot train them any faster, but I think there is something radically wrong with the service and with the Civil Service Commission. In my opinion there is too much bowing down to the Civil Service examination and to Civil Service jurisdiction.


Charles A. Stewart: The Civil Service examination does not prevail. Men who have not yet taken their examination have been taken on and put right on the work when they pass the examination by Mr. Lemon.


Joseph Henry Harris: I submit the government is not making fast enough time to serve the industrial fabric of the province of Ontario, not so much in regard to settling the strike as in regard to getting the mail through in the different districts of the country.


Mr. MARTELL:: I beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. Hammell):
That the House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day.


Mr. CHURCH:: Is this motion debatable?


Hewitt Bostock: Rule 35 reads:
A motion for reading the Orders of the Day shall have preference to any motion before the House.
Under that rule in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms hon. members will find the jurisprudence of procedure. Section 329 reads:
This motion cannot be debated nor amended under rule 17A. If it is resolved in the affirmative the original motion is superseded and the House must proceed at once to the Orders of the Day.
Postal Employees


Arthur Meighen: I wish to speak to a
point of order. It is not- that I am certain that anybody cares to speak; I do not know of any one; but I submit that a motion to proceed to the Orders of the Day cannot be taken in the middle of a debate. It takes precedence over any other motion, that is true. That is, as between one motion and another, this motion has precedence. But if we are to say that any member during any debate can move that we proceed to the Orders of the Day and thereby put an instant closure to the debate, that has never yet been done in our parliament, and if it is done, all our closure rules go for nothing.


Hewitt Bostock: Rule 36, " Privileged
Motions," reads:
When a question is under debate no motion is received unless to amend it; to postpone it to a day certain; for the previous question; for reading the Orders of the Day.
That is exactly the case in the present instance. A motion made by the hon. member for West York is before the House, and now another motion is made during the debate by the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martell) under rule 35. I quite agree that under ordinary circumstances a debate cannot be interrupted by another motion. But this is a privileged motion, and if the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) will read rule 36 carefully, he will find that this motion is receivable at any time and is not debatable nor amendable.


Arthur Meighen: I just wish to lay before you the consequences of the decision. It is not that the significance now is very great; but if this motion is approved by the government and carried, under the interpretation given, it means that the government can, by the right of a mere majority, stop dehate at any time without notice of any kind. This is on the part of those who fought for weeks against a mild closure requiring two weeks to put it into effect.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is not capable of the interpretation my right hon. friend puts upon it. Once the Orders of the Day have been reached, this rule does not apply. The object is to get on to the Orders of the Day, the business which the country has decided to go on with.


Arthur Meighen: We have not yet
reached the Orders of the Day.



YUKON-LIQUOR IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Is the
treaty between Great Britain and the United States, signed at Washington on the 6th day of this month, which provides among other matters that liquors may be transported to Yukon Territory by way of Skagway across Alaska, now in force? And if not, what is the earliest date upon which it can be put into force?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The treaty is not in force and cannot come into force until it is ratified by both countries, and this will necessarily be after another session of the United States Senate.


Arthur Meighen: What was the idea of
Canada's minister hurrying down to Washington, either the day of the adjournment of the United States Senate or the day before, when the treaty could not have been ratified anyway?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He did not
go the day of the adjournment.


Arthur Meighen: The day before.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He was there
a day or two before. It was hoped that the American government would find it possible to ratify the treaty and it was their desire that it should be ratified; but there was so much business apparently at the last moment of the session that the Senate did not reach it.


George Black: I want to ask a
further question of the government in elaboration of the one I have already put.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member may
not do so except by unanimous leave of the House. This is the practice according to Bourinot; he should place his questions on the order paper. But with the indulgence of the House he may proceed to put a further question provided it is reasonably brief.
United Church of Canada


George Black: In view of the Prime
Minister's answer, would the government endeavour to obtain from the government of the United States an admission of Canada's right to import liquor into Yukon by way of the Yukon river? I asked the government this question earlier in the session and the Prime Minister replied that, in view of the fact that he hoped to announce soon that a treaty had been made between Canada and the United States on the subject, it was not deemed expedient to further inquire as to the interpretation placed on the Treaty of Washington by the government of the United States. Now that the treaty probably cannot be ratified until next December, an admission of Canada's right to import by way of the Yukon river is most important.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The matter
is the subject of communication between the governments of the two countries at the present time.



UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 24 consideration in committee on Bill No. 47, to incorporate the United Church of Canada,-Mr. Forke -Mr. Gordon in the chair.
George Newcombe Gordon: The committee has
under consideration section 2 and the amendment thereto moved by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown).


Mr. ALFRED STORK (Skeena):: This bill has been, before the House since the 10th day of April. I had the honour and privilege of being a member of the Private Bills committee before which the bill in question was discussed, and I think I am saying nothing new when I observe that we are facing a very difficult problem in the consideration of this measure. Three churches in Canada, the Methodist church, the Congregational church and the Presbyterian church, appear before parliament and ask that legislation be passed to incorporate them into one body. We should have a very easy matter to settle if all of these three churches were unanimous in this request. Unfortunately, however, only two of them are unanimous; one of the three, the Presbyterian church, is very badly divided on the question. I need hardly refer to the great number of petitions and protests which have been submitted to parliament on behalf of those Presbyterians who do not hold that this union should be carried through. I believe that Bill No. 47 has attracted more attention in Canada than perhaps any other bill which has been before parliament in the last few years. The difficulty that now faces us exists largely within the

United Church of Canada
Presbyterian church itself; a grave dispute has arisen in that church, a large proportion of the members and adherents being apparently in favour of the proposed union while a large percentage have declared their objections to it. There appears to have been no way of settling the matter except by appeal to law. When a dispute arises over any question the logical conclusion is to try it in the courts; the courts are established for that purpose and in this particular instance I believe that no other course was open. It becomes more evident every day, at least to me, that the attempt on the part of the Presbyterian church, or of those who are in control of its affairs, to force that body into this amalgamation was an ill-timed one. I believe that the proper course would have been to let matters take their own logical course. But others thought differently and forced the issue, with the inevitable result that we are now faced with a tremendous split in the ranks of the Presbyterians.
It is not my intention to indulge in vain recriminations, because I do not think that any good purpose can be served in that way. We are faced I say, with this grievlous trouble; and the way to approach the matter if we hope to secure a settlement is certainly not by aggravating the situation and tiying to prove which side was right and which wrong. The discussion of this bill in the Private Bills committee has disclosed problems for which apparently no reasonable solution can be offered. No question can be settled, Mr. Chairman, unless it be settled right. I am confident that our friends the Methodists and the Congregationalists have no desire to force any unfair bargain on the Presbyterian church;
I believe that they want to do only that which is based on right. One of the principal objections raised in the Private Bills committee was that there would be no finality in the court proceedings which had been instituted, that they were likely to be prolonged, and were started merely for the purpose of delaying the union.
I purpose, Mr. Chairman, to move an amendment to provide for definite action in the shortest possible time. I believe that a judgment handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada will be accepted by all parties concerned. This is a sincere effort on my part to reduce the friction, bitterness and hostility which have grown up over the proposed union. The division in the membership of the Presbyterian church is in itself a tragedy. My only purpose in presenting this amendment is to secure a definite verdict to clear up the question of legal right, for when this question is settled I am sure it will do away with the 
present controversy which is so ruinous to the best interests of the whole church movement. I trust that the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff), and the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) will find in this amendment common ground for a basis of settlement. I therefore move, seconded by Mr. MacLaren, in amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Lisgar:
The the amendment moved on June 24 by Mr. Brown that section 2 of bill No. 47, being an act incorporating the United Church of Canada, be amended by adding thereto the following words immediately after the words, "tenth day of December 1924":
"Provided that as respects the Presbyterian Church in Canada, the provisions of this act shall apply only when all doubt has been removed as to the power of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada under its constitution and rules to agree to a union of the Presbyterian Church in Canada with the Methodist and Congregational Churches upon the basis of union as set out in schedule A of this act: "Provided further, that this question shall be submitted for decision to the Supreme Court of Canada by a reference by the Minister of Justice."


Mr. HAMMELL:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I submit that this amendment is out of order by reason of the fact that the necessary notice as required by rule 112 has not been given. This rule states:
No important amendment may be proposed to any private bill, in a committee of the whole House, or at the third reading of the bill, unless one day's notice of the same has been given.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the committee has not had the requisite one day's notice of this amendment.


George Newcombe Gordon: Does any other hon.
member desire to speak on the point of order before a ruling is given by the Chair?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I desire to point out, Mr. Chairman, that Votes and Proceedings of yesterday contained notice of this amendment, and I submit that that is compliance with the rule quoted by the hon. member for Muskoka.


Alfred Stork: Mr. Chairman, I submitted this resolution in an endeavour to find a solution for the difficulty which confronts us. Although we have wrestled with this problem for three or four months, I regret to say we have not got very far along the lines of compromise. I was convinced that I had got something that would at least bring us together on common ground. I trust that mere technicalities will not be allowed 5 p.m. to upset this amendment, because, if so, we will be compelled to fall back upon the Duff amendment, which perhaps will not be altogether as acceptable and agreeable. I have no desire to utter any

United Church oj Canada
threat. I earnestly implore the committee to accept my amendment in the spirit in which it is offered as a sincere effort to effect a solution of the problem before us.


Mr. IRVINE:: What is the essential difference between this amendment and the amendment of the hon. member for Lunenburg.


Alfred Stork: Time is the essence of the agreement.


William Irvine: How much time?


Mr. DUFF:: At least a year.


Mr. PUTNAM:: The hon. member for
Skeena (Mr. Stork) has implied that his amendment would probably lead to a solution of our difficulties; that is to say, that everybody would accept the bill as so amended. Have I correctly interpreted my hon. friend?


Alfred Stork: I think that the whole question before the court deals very largely with property rights. So far as I am concerned personally, I would accept the verdict of the court, whether it be for me or against me, because I believe in the kind of fight where the winner takes all.


Harold Putnam: My question practically
was whether the hon. gentleman is guaranteeing that the decision of the court, whatever it be, would be accepted by all parties concerned. He used the strong word "solution" in commending the probable success of his suggestion.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I rise to a Doint of order, Mr. Chairman. I understood that the Chair desired to hear hon. members is to whether the point of order raised by my hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. Hammell) was correct or not. My hon. friend from Colchester (Mr. Putnam) is proceeding to discuss the merits of the resolution.


George Newcombe Gordon: Undoubtedly the point or order to be dealt with is whether the notice of this amendment given in Votes and Proceedings of yesterday, and delivered to hon. members this morning, constitutes the one day's notice required by rule 112.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, before you make a ruling, may I direct the attention of the committee to the fact that only on the ground of a technicality at most would the amendment be ruled out? Should it be ruled out by your decision, the hon. member who presented it will not be prevented from moving the amendment at a later stage of the debate. As the Minister of National Defence has pointed out, notice does appear in yesterday's Votes and Proceedings, and a broad interpretation of that notice would indicate that the rules of the House have been complied with. This notice was given yesterday, and it appears in printed form in the Votes and Proceedings of yesterday. If that time is not sufficient, certainly this amendment would be in order to-morrow, and I cannot see that the time of the House would be saved in any way by our taking up this amendment to-morrow instead of disposing of it immediately. As the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Stork) has just pointed out, this amendment is more likely, in his opinion at all events, to bring the parties as near toge her as they can be brought in view of the u.ifortunate difference that exists between them. In any event it will serve to determine quickly the fate of the amendment and the clause now before the committee. All parties are anxious that a decision on this question be quickly reached, and I should hope therefore that the committee would agree to allow this amendment to stand. The only effect of my hon. friend's objection if sustained will be to have this debate continue for a longer time; it will not assist the argument one way or the other, while it may occasion a little more acrimony in discussion and, generally, serve no useful purpose. If we can in this matter, which is of great concern to all of us and to the country, take any step of a conciliatory character, one which will expedite a final settlement, I believe it is the will of the committee that we should do so.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I was looking in Beauchesne's book for the purpose of finding out whether there was any statutory definition of the word "day." The rule says that a day's notice of a resolution or amendment to a private bill shall be given. Now, in the record of the Votes and Procedings of yesterday, Wednesday, the 25th of June, there is contained a notice of this motion, and that, I submit,, is substantial compliance with the rule. The Votes and Proceedings, which record what was done yesterday, contain this notice, which was filed with the clerk the day before its proposed consideration by the committee. The night before last when we were discussing this question, I rose to a point of order which, I was then satisfied, as I ajn satisfied now, was a proper point to raise and should have been decided in accordance with my contention. As was suggested, however, we were dealing with a measure which the committee desired to consider in the broadest and fairest possible way to all parties concerned, and notwithstanding the fact that I was buttressed by authorities

United Church oj Canada
of the strongest kind, in deference to the suggestion of the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Boys) I did not appeal from the decision of the Chairman to the whole House. I do not know what view you hold, Mr. Chairman, in regard to this matter, but I submit that for the Chairman to rule in accordance with a rigid compliance with -the rules would be to assume an attitude entirely diffrent from that which the Chair adapted two nights ago when we were dealing with the question I brought up, because upon 'a rigid interpretation of the rules and 'having regard to the authorities cited, the point was decisively ini my favour. In dealing with this question we must listen to any reasonable suggestion that is made by hon. members in good faith, having regard to the importance of the matter involved, touching as it does the interests bf a large proportion of the people of this country more intimately than 'any question I have known of in my parliamentary experience. I have not the least douibt that the rule has been substantially complied with, and I think it would be in the interests of the promoters of this bill if the hon. member (Mr. Hammell) would withdraw the objection he has raised.


Mr. COOTE:: I do not know very much
about the rules of the House, and I must say I am no stickler on rules. But this notice which has appeared in the Votes and Proceedings should not be considered a day's notice to hon. members. Speaking for myself, I never saw the notice, and I think the same would apply to the majority of members. It is a matter of some seriousness that hon. members should be asked to pass on an amendment of such great importance without having notice.


Mr. CALDWELL:: May I ask the Chairman when the copies of yesterday's Votes and Proceedings were placed on the files, yesterday or this morning?


George Newcombe Gordon: I do not know.


William Findlay Maclean: I may not be
quite in order, but may I ask when this debate is to be finished? I think the committee is ready to settle the question, and if we can come to some understanding as to this amendment I think we should do so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Rule 40 of
the House, requiring two days' notice for certain classes of bills and motions, is as follows:
Two days' notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a bill, resolution or address, for the appointment of any committee, or for the putting 
of a question; but this rule shall not apply to bills after their introduction, or to private bills, or to the times of meeting or adjournment of the House. Such notice shall be laid on the table before five o'clock, p.m., and -be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of that day.
I understand the custom has been that where the Clerk of the House has received notice in time to have it appear in the Votes and Proceedings of the day following, the two days' notice has reference to the appearance of the notice in the Votes and Proceedings of the day previously. Where one day's notice is required of amendments to private bills, the rule is:1	.
No important amendment may be proposed to any private bill in a committee of the whole House, or at the third reading of the bill, unless one day's notice of the same has been given.
I think, Mr. Chairman, the same interpretation should govern with respect to one day's notice. I understand that the Clerk of the House is quite prepared to state that he is following exactly the same practice with reference to the one day's notice in this regard as he follows with reference to the two days' notice in other cases.


George Newcombe Gordon: Objection is made by
Mr. Hammell that the amendment moved by Mr. Stork is out of order under provisions of rule 112, which says:
No important amendment may be proposed to any private bill in a committee of the whole House, or at the third reading of the bill, unless one day's notice of the same has been given.
It seems to be agreed that this is an important amendment and therefore requires notice.
While it is true that Votes and Proceedings in question, number 77, bears yesterday's date it was delivered to hon. members in the regular course of events at about ten o'clock this day. The rule requiring notice for private bills puts those bills in a different position from that of any other bills, or resolutions or motions. Notice is required of this particular matter and the object of that notice is to permit publicity and prevent surprise. The Votes and Proceedings were delivered this morning, and the fact of whether or not notice of the amendment was sent in before five o'clock last evening cannot, I think, influence my decision in this matter. The day, notice is handed in, is considered the first day, the day the notice is printed the second day, and on the third day following the matter dealt with may be debated. I cannot bring myself to the view, notwithstanding the arguments which have been so well presented, that a notice of motion of an amendment to

United Church oj Canada
a private bill, filed with the Clerk last night, or at any rate before five o'clock, and delivered to the members on the morning of this day, is a sufficient notice under rule 112. For that reason I must rule that the amendment moved by the member for Skeena (Mr. Stork) is not in order. It has been said that if the debate continues the amendment will be in order. It would be, of course, operative to-morrow and on each subsequent day its regularity would be as strongly established, but I feel that I am acting according to the requirements of rule 112 to-day when I rule that the notice of motion in question is out of order. The debate therefore continues upon the amendment of Mr. Brown to section 2, and the hon. member for Swift Current has the floor.


Mr. A. J. LEWIS (Swift Current):: As a member of the select standing committee on Private Bills and one who has been vitally interested in the subject that is being debated at the present time I wish to make my position plain. We have heard many views expressed by members of this House and by members of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, but it is not as a minister of that church that I wish to place my views on record. Of course I am not speaking ex-cathedra or exofficio but as a member of parliament.


Mr. CANNON:: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman has just stated that he was addressing this House as a minister of the church. He is therefore interested in this question.


Mr. CRERAR:: No, no.


George Newcombe Gordon: I am afraid the point of order is so highly technical that I have failed to grasp it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The hon. member stated that he was not speaking as a minister.


Arthur John Lewis: In my opinion arguments for or against union-


Lewis Herbert Martell: I rise to a point of order. I think the point taken by the hon. member for Dorchester is absolutely correct. No hon. gentleman has the right to address the House as a minister of any denomination; he must address it as a member of this Chamber.


George Newcombe Gordon: Of course an hon. gentleman must address this body as a member of the House, not as a minister of any particular denomination. I did not quite catch what the hon. member said and therefore do not entirely comprehend the objection raised by the hon. member for Dorchester.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The hon. member for
Swift Current stated explicitly that he was speaking as a member of this House not as a minister of the church.


Arthur John Lewis: The report in Hansard tomorrow will clearly indicate what I said. I made it quite plain that I was speaking as a member of this House.
Now, in my opinion the arguments for or against union do not or should not enter into this discussion. This is a religious prerogative over which no parliament under the British flag has any jurdisdiction. Moreover it is conceded by the chief counsel of those opposing the bill that those Presbyterians who wish to unite with the other bodies have a perfect right to do so. What they object to, is the taking of the whole Presbyterian church into organic union with the Methodist and Congregational churches while a considerable minority are opposed to it-and they have attacked the promoters of union on the following grounds:
1.	That the church has not the power to change its constitution.
2.	That it exceeded its constitutional authority in negotiating with the other churches with a view to organic union.
3.	That the bill would cause a violation of the church's trusts.
4.	That it destroys the doctrine of the church, the Westminister Confession of Faith.
5.	That it is clercial coercion.
These arguments have been advanced by various members and in divers ways, and it is my intention if possible to prove the falsity of their claims. Quite a number of speakers have suggested to the committee that it is not a wise thing to reverse the judgment of the standing committee. It has been claimed that the committee who listened to the arguments both for and against union is the best judge of the situation and they have quoted Bourmot and May in support of their argument. Now, I do not think that the argument presented in support of such a position is well founded, for the following reasons. In the first place, when any amendment is proposed to the preamble of a bill that has been accepted by parliament and sent to the select standing committee, it must be specially reported to the House, so that the members may know that such an amendment has been added. Why do the rules of the House demand that attention be drawn to the amendment, if it is not for the purpose of giving the committee the opportunity of rejecting or accepting an amendment that has been added to the bill? In the second place, it is well for this committee to know that

United Church of Canada
the. promoters of the bill do not agree to have this clause inserted in the preamble, and it was only inserted by a majority of the committee at an opportune time, when those opposed to the bill had a majority in committee. The same can be said of the section under discussion.	Anyone who reads the
original bill that passed the first reading in this House and was referred to the select standing committee, will know that it is entirely new, and was placed there in spite of the opposition of those who supported the measure. Under these circumstances, it seems to me to be one of those exceptional cases mentioned in Bourinot and May, and which was quoted at least twice during the course of this debate, by those opposed to the amendment of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown). Therefore, in my opinion, this committee have a perfect right to reject this added section and to accept the proposed amendment that is before them.
Another argument advanced against the repealing of this clause is that the General Assembly is not the church; neither does it represent the people. Well, one might ask the question; "If it is not the church or the government of the church, and does not represent the people, what is it, and whom does it represent?" The people who are opposed to this bill, and who claim to be the stalwarts who champion the perpetuation of the Presbyterian Church in Canada by their arguments are striking at the very foundation of Presbyterianism. One member in his zeal for the church declared it clerical and official and ecclesiastical. Well, it might be well for such members to adhere a little more closely to that precious but much abused document, called The Westminster Confession of Faith. Let us see for a moment what this document says in regard to it. Section 31 of the Westminster Confession of Faith deals with the government and edification of the church. These assemblies are called synods and councils.
Section 3 reads as follows:
It belongeth to synods and councils ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government to His church; to receive complaints in cases )f maladministration, and authoritatively to determine ,he same:	which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in his word.
7 shall have occasion to refer to this question again when dealing with another argument which has been advanced against the

constitutionality of this bill, but for the present I am endeavouring to show to this committee that the assemblies and synods are peculiar to the Presbyterian form of government, and in the Westminster Confession of Faith have specific functions in regard to matters of faith and public worship. And, the conclusion reached by these same assemblies, if consonant with the Word1 of God, must be received with reverence and submission of the faithful.
So far, I have never yet heard the statement by my hon. friends and brethren that the union of the churches is inconsistent with the Word of God, and if this is not so, upon what ground do they attempt to oppose the union of the churches?
I, myself, as a Presbyterian minister was opposed to union during the early negotiating stages, but after the church had spoken with no uncertain sound through her courts, presbyteries, synods and assemblies, I acquiesced in the judgment of the majority, and as an obedient servant of the church and true to my vows at ordination, I could not conscientiously do otherwise.
The statement was made that: "If another vote was taken 75 per cent of the people would vote against it"; This is a mere guess and at least problematical, and the recent vote in the assembly does not bear out the argument.
It was further stated that the vote of 1916 is eight years old, and therefore, its value as a criterion of what the people want to-day is useless. Now, at the first glance this argument seems very plausible, but, on the other hand, I think it was clearly shown by Dr. Pidgeon in the committee that since that vote was taken, the church has proceeded just as fast as it was constitutionally possible for the Presbyterian church to do. I do not wish to 'take time to explain this, but let me say that a compromise was made at Winnipeg that the union question should be laid over until after the war and, when that time had elapsed, the assembly again took up the question of union and you are all familiar with the results.


Harold Putnam: My hon. friend stated
that formerly he was opposed to the union, and that when the judicial attitude of the church was for union, he as a follower of the church fell into line for union. Does he support this bill on his personal view of the merits of the bill or for the mere reason which he has advanced?


Arthur John Lewis: It must be remembered that this question has been before Canada for at

United Church of Canada
least twenty years, and my own experience as a missionary of the church goes back twenty years. In the early stages I was against it, as I admit, but in view of my experience as a missionary in the West I am heartily in favour of union. It has been stated by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) that the personnel of the assembly is much the same. For some mysterious reason or other the commissioners chosen are always in favour of union. It may be true that a certain number of prominent members who are officials, are usually found at the assembly, but as regards the personnel of the assembly, seven-eighths of the commissioners are changed every year. Let me give this statement in regard to the vote of the General Assembly which met at Owen Sound in 1924.
Principal1 Fraser's motion approving the Duff amendment to the union bill was defeated by 444 to 92 in the assembly. Dr. Pidgeon's first motion was adopted by 427 to 96, and the names were recorded. Of the 523 voting 431 had not voted on union at the assemblies at Winnipeg in 1916, Toronto in 1921, or Port Arthur in 1923, where decisive votes on union were given and the names recorded.
In these four assemblies 2,094 votes were cast on union by 1,883 different persons as follows:
Not Voted For Against Previously
1916	
404	90	4941921	
414	107	4601923	
427	129	4981924	
427	96	4311,672	422	1,883
The percentage of duplication is less for those voting for union than for those voting against. Of the 1,672 votes for, 1,504, or 90 per cent, were given by different persons. Of the 422 against, 369, or S7i per cent were given by different persons. Two were privileged to vote at all four assemblies-a venerable leader of those opposing, and a missionary superintendent favouring union. The duplications are largest in the Presbyteries of Halifax, Montreal and Hamilton,
I think I have stated that the members of the assembly, in the four assemblies that have voted for church union, are not the same each year the vote is recorded. I think it is well for this committee, especially those who are not familiar with the Presbyterian system of government, and who perhaps belong to different churches, to weigh very carefully the appeals that are made by those who are opposed to the bill when they speak of the vote of the people. That people have be-235
come Presbyterians instead of belonging to some other denomination is due to the fact that they believe in the system of government which is peculiar to the church. Surely no member of this committee would seriously say that we must adopt another method or form of government, in order to pass this bill. To me, it is preposterous that any body of men should say that the church, through her courts, presbyteries, synods and assemblies has not the right to change or control the destiny of the church
What would the Anglicans and Roman Catholics say to a body of men, whether members of parliament or otherwise, who dictated to them in regard to the rules and regulations governing their church, or who declared, when a bill was brought before parliament that before it could pass its promoters must prove that it had a majority of the members of the church behind it and. on top of that, declaration, insisted that it should be sent to the courts?
How would you expect us to act if the situation was reversed? That is the question we have to consider, and if it can be proved that the church has acted constitutionally from the beginning to the time this bill came before parliament, I see no reason why this bill should not get the unanimous consent of this parliament.
The argument was raised by the chairman of the committee that the settlement of the union question is not for parliament but for the courts. I count the hon. member who was chairman as one of my most personal friends in this House, and his conduct during the very trying session was beyond reproach. I do not, however, agree with him, when he stated on Wednesday night that the matter of faith and doctrine was not for this parliament, but for the courts, to settle. I do not think the hon. member, on reflection, would repeat the statement. It surely is not for this parliament, or any parliament, or the Supreme court, or the Privy Council, to judge in matters of faith and doctrine. It is distinctly stated in the section which I read from the Westminster Confession of Faith that, the matter of faith and doctrine, as well as matters of conscience shall be settled, not by civil courts but by the courts of the church, and it is a privilege and prerogative that every church claims in Canada. Thus parliament to my way of thinking would be very unwise to force such an issue in the courts at the present time.
The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) also made the statement that the bill before parliament was not the same bill that



United Church of Canada
had been presented to the General Assembly at Port Arthur in 1923, and in support of his argument he read the two preambles. I will admit the church did not ratify the amended preamble as in the present bill before the committee, but the original preamble that was introduced into the House by the hon. member for Brandon was essentially the same in principle, but possibly couched in different language.
This bill, as we all know, was repeatedly amended by the committee and that, of course, is their prerogative. But, with two exceptions, the bill has been agreed to by the lawyers and officials, who. have been here representing the church. And moreover, the bill, I understand, with the two exceptions-the amendment to the preamble and the new clause added by the committee-has been ratified by the last General Assembly with an overwhelming majority. Therefore, there is really no value in the hon. member's claim.
The statement has been made during the debate that the bill is coercing a substantial minority into a united church to which they are opposed. Now, I understand from the committee that the present bill had been amended by the committee and that that difficulty had been overcome to the satisfaction. of both sides. It is now understood that any congregation has the right to vote on the subject, before the bill becomes law, and if the vote is against union, it is understood that it never became a part of the united church. The same is true of nonconcurring members, if hon. members will read section 4 (e) of this bill.


Mr. MacLAREN:: In reference to compelling people to go into a church into which they do not wish to go, how does the hon. member explain the action that the bill would have on the minority of a concurring congregation? That is to say, in a congregation in which the majority is in favour of union and in which there is a minority against union, how does he regard the treatment of the minority?


Arthur John Lewis: It is not my intention to discuss the details of the bill; but if the hon. member will read section 4 (e), he will find that provision is made for non-concurring members of a congregation that decides to go into union. When we come to that part of the bill, that will be the time to discuss the question.


Murray MacLaren: This is not a detail. I am referring to a principle-the treatment of the minority of a concurring congregation.
(Mr. Lewis.]


Arthur John Lewis: I think it is perfectly right to say that any member of any church has a right to withdraw if he so desires, and unite with another church.


Murray MacLaren: According to the hon. member, he has two options, one of remaining in a church which is forming a union into which he does not wish to go; the other of leaving the church.


Arthur John Lewis: The hon. member has a right to draw his own conclusions, and since he was on the committee and knows that the committee endeavoured to adjust this question satisfactorily-and I believe did to all intents and purposes to the satisfaction to all in the committee-I do not think it is wise for me to discuss this matter any further. When the details of the bill are up for consideration that is the time to discuss that question.


Murray MacLaren: I thought it would be a rather awkward question to answer.


Arthur John Lewis: It may be awkward for the hon. member who takes the position he does, but for me it is a very simple matter.
The hon. member for Lunenburg made the statement that the West is not favourable to union, as the committee was given to understand, and in support of his claim, he stated that only 32,000 out of a total of 80,000 membership of the church had voted for union. His figures may be substantially correct, but the hon. member did not give us the number that voted against union, so for that reason, unless he supplies both figures, it is difficult for anyone to make a comparison.
It is further stated that only 51 per cent of the total membership of 'the church has voted either for or against union, with the other churches. That is true. But how can we gauge the public opinion on any subject, unless it is by those who have interested themselves sufficiently to make it worth their while to vote? In an election of any kind, whether upon prohibition, the election of a member of parliament, or any other great public question, it is the actual vote that counts, and the governments of our land act accordingly.
The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) waxed quite eloquent in his appeal for the minority to have the right to go to the courts for redress, and he said that if only one member was against union, he should not be denied that right of redress by this parliament. I certainly agree with him, but surely the hon. member is not serious in such a statement with respect to this bill. There is quite a difference between parliament giv-

United Church oj Canada
mg the individual the right of redress through the courts of our land, and, on the other hand, forcing the issue and making the bill dependent upon a decision of a court of law. This bill does not deny the right of any minority to proceed to get redress from the state, but it does ask parliament to exercise its prerogative, and assume that responsibility in the case of this bill that it is doing every day of the session in regard to other legislative acts.
I wish to say a few words in regard to the amendment made to the bill by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) because that is the one we are speaking against, and we are speaking in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown).
I was one of those seven members who were appointed a sub-committee to inquire with three representatives from both sides of this question. The hon. member for Lunenburg was quite frank and correct in his statement to the House, that the representatives failed to agree. The result of the deliberation, however, was a clarified amendment. Now there is one very grave weakness in the amendment. It has been claimed that if we are sure that the church acted in a constitutional way we should have nothing to fear from the action of the court. There may be a certain force in that argument; but let me say that the church through her constituted courts does not believe that the civil courts have the right to say what is the constitutional power of the church. The assembly is the sovereign power of the church.
For support of that statement I refer to the Westminster Confession of Faith and also to the documents and authorities given in the Blue Book. Section 122 says:
The General Assembly being the supreme court of its church, its decisions are final.
It seems to me that the church has a right to say what its constitutional power is in regard to this bill.
The weakness of the amendment, however, is this. The proclamation of the act depends upon a final judgment of the court or courts-the Supreme court and finally the Privy Council. It makes no provision, however, if the courts refuse to make a decision either one way or the other.
The result of a non-decision would be disastrous to all the churches and could only bring turmoil to her people and a general chaotic condition on her frontiers.
The Scottish Wee Free case has been quoted very extensively by those who are opposed 235*
to the bill in support of their claim. Now I do not wish to enter into any extended arguments about it but I think it is unanimously agreed that the case holds good only if it can be proved that the Presbyterian church had not the power to change its doctrine.
The learned counsel, Mr. Lafleur, of those opposed to this bill admitted that, in the case of the House of Lords decision of 1904, if the doctrines and governments had been identical no case could have been made out against the promoters of the union of the Free and the United Free Churches of Scotland. But no one has proved so far that the Presbyterian church has not the constitutional right to change its own doctrine and order. Even the Westminster Confession of Faith in the sections that I have quoted gives it that power, and the Blue Book, which lays down the regulations and rules of the Presbyterian church, assigns it that authority; and in two cases at least, the Westminster Confession of Faith has been amended so as to conform to the changing times. There is, of course, protection against any ill-advised changes; and before any radical change, either in doctrine or procedure, becomes the law of the church, certain rules and regulations must be complied with. To those familiar with our churches this is known as the Barrier Act. But when the Barrier Act has been removed then the assembly has the constitutional right to proclaim the doctrine submitted to the presbyteries, under the Barrier Act-the doctrine of the church.
Now it is a fact well known to the committee that the basis of union was submitted to the presbyteries, under the Barrier Act, for their approval and that it received the almost unanimous consent of the presbyteries. And the General Assembly since that time have acted accordingly. Therefore in my judgment the basis of union is the real doctrine of the Presbyterian Church in Canada and of the other two churches which have approved it. So that the doctrine and policy of the three negotiating churches being identical, the argument of the Scottish case falls to the ground, as not applicable to the Presbyterian Church in Canada.
The arguments for the trusts of the church fall into the same category and thus the conclusions reached in my former arguments have the same force here; that is to say, the trusts of the original church have not been violated by the entrance of the Presbyterian church into organic union with the Methodist and Congregational bodies.


Harold Putnam: Does the hon. gentleman
believe that the basis of union brought into
United Church of Canada

being with the consummation of the union of the three negotiating churches is some tangible change from Presbyterian doctrine as it has been hitherto?


Arthur John Lewis: I do not know that that has very much bearing on the subject; as I have endeavoured to prove, the Presbyterian church has the constitutional power to change its doctrine.


Robert Forke: There is no conflict anyway.


Harold Putnam: I am interested in the
hon. gentleman's argument but I gather that he has doubts as to that constitutional power.


Arthur John Lewis: I have absolutely no doubts
or I would not take this position to-day.


Harold Putnam: I cannot say that I am
entirely free from doubt on that point.


Arthur John Lewis: Well, the hon. gentleman
may have his doubts. As one who has attended church courts and who has sworn in his ordination vows to respect those courts I say that in my own opinion, in my own conscience and in my own belief in religious liberty, the church has that power and there is no doubt about it.
In closing, let me say this. I think the members on both sides of this question are to be congratulated on the way in which they have carried on the debate. They have manifested a high degree of sincerity and fairness. The debate has reached a high level, worthy of the best traditions of the church and the honour and dignity of this parliament. Let us as we vote on this question remember that we are living in a strenuous age. Time is rapidly moving onward; many great changes are taking place around us; it is an age of progress; and if there is one thing that we as a parliament should remember it is that old Latin proverb, "Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis"-"The times are changed and we are changed in them." What therefore we claim for ourselves we should concede to the three great living churches which have presented to us their request for incorporation, that as a united church they may better accomplish the great work for which they exist.


Mr. G. C. WILSON (Wentworth):: I did
not intend to take part in the debate, but on reflection, having been a member of the Private Bills committee and having given considerable attention to this matter, I feel it incumbent on me to express my views on the bill before the committee. In the first place let me state most emphatically that I have never been opposed to church union; I agree that those who are in favour of

union should have the right to join any church to which they might wish to belong. But I also reserve the right to any minority, or any majority for that matter, to remain in the church of their fathers. It has been stated, and it was stated in the committee, that the object of this amendment is to kill the bill. Having voted for the amendment that was submitted by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) I want to make it clear that it certainly was not my intention in supporting that amendment, to destroy the bill, which I think ought to be passed. I believe, however, that technicalities should be brushed aside; and it should be realized, as I believe it is realized, by the people of the Presbyterian church and those of the Methodist church as well, that, we have come to a parting of the ways. In my opinion there are two factions in the Presbyterian church that are irreconcilable and you might as well meet the issue now as at any other time. I regret very much that the hon. member (Mr. Lewis) objected to the amendment of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Stork). In hurriedly glancing over the amendment since I saw it this morning I believe it is in the right direction; I think it must meet the view of every hon. member who is anxious to see the matter settled rightly and justice done to all parties concerned. Minorities have their right just as majorities have, and I think it is the duty of this parliament to see that those rights are respected and that justice is meted out to every one. The hon. member has said that if a vote were taken 75 per cent of the people, it bad been asserted, would vote against the union. Whether that is correct or not I am not in a position to judge.


Arthur John Lewis: I rise to a point of order.
Mr. Chairman. I did not say that. I said it was stated by the other side that if another vote were taken 75 per cent of the members would vote against the proposal. I said the matter was problematical at best.


Gordon Crooks Wilson: I did not make any statement so far as the hon. member himself was concerned, I was just saying exactly what the hon. member repeated himself, that it was stated that if another vote were taken at least 75 per cent of the membership of the Presbyterian church would vote against church union. Whether that is correct or not, no one can prove, but I do say that there has been a large and growing feeling in the Presbyterian church against church union, and the votes taken during the past year go to prove that the feeling has been growing.

United Church oj Canada


Mr. WOOD:: Did the vote at the General Assembly at Owen Sound very recently bear out that idea?


Gordon Crooks Wilson: I am glad the hon. member brings up the question of the vote at Owen Sound. Far more importance apparently is attached to that vote by members who do not understand the Presbyterian Church in Canada than it deserves, and they imagine that that vote carries a greater amount of weight than it really does. We maintain that the Presbyterian Assembly at Owen Sound does not represent the Presbyterian church and, furthermore, that the delegates at the assembly did not vote in accordance with the wishes of the congregations which they represented. I wish to take that up a little later, and I will therefore ask the Chairman to call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Gordon Crooks Wilson: I am not in favour of
prolonged litigation; the sooner this matter is settled the better for all concerned. If the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Skeena would have had that effect I believe it would have been in the best interests of the church union cause; therefore I regret that I shall not have the privilege, at this time at least, of voting for such a resolution.
The previous speaker (Mr. Lewis) referred to the recent vote at the assembly and suggested that that assembly was representative of the Presbyterian Church in Canada. In other words, he as a minister of the church, would lead us to believe that that assembly did represent the feeling and the views of the Presbyterians of this country. To that statement I take exception. During the last year at least, many people have turned from the views they formerly held; a considerable number of those who had been unionists are now in favour of remaining within the Presbyterian Church in Canada.
As I have said, I regret that so many technicalities have been raised in connection with this discussion. I think the matter should have been settled without ever coming to parliament; the Presbyterians themselves should have settled it before applying to parliament. Of the three bodies, the Presbyterian church, the Methodist church, anti the Congregational church, the last two are not so much interested, or are not interested
in the same way as the Presbyterian church seems to be; very little opposition to the proposal is offered by them. But it has been stated to me by leading Methodists in my own locality that had they known this movement for church union would bring about a disruption of the Presbyterian church, they would never have voted for it. I think that is the opinion of every sane and thoughtful person in the Dominion of Canada to-day. In my opinion, it is not in the interests of Christianity, it is not in the interests of religion, that the scenes that have been witnessed within the precincts of this House during the last few weeks should have taken place. Personally, I regret the matter was not settled. I still think there is time foi reconciliation. I still think that if those leaders, or those so-called and self-appointed leaders, would listen to the views of the people *_f their churches they would realize that a settlement should be made in the best interests of Christianity.
The last speaker argued that the vote at the General Assembly meant a great deal. 1 take issue with him. I am not considering the present situation in political terms. 1 wish to keep the question out of politics, although some members of the cloth are very anxioas to bring it into the political arena and have so threatened. In the present instance I do not believe the assembly represents the thought of the people of the Presbyterian church; in other words, it is not a people's movement. I will prove to you by figures that the vote taken there, which was largely one-sided although practically in the same proportion as it has always been, does not represent the church, and I mean by the "church" the adherents and the communicants of the Presbyterian church. Take the assembly of last year and what do we find? We find that Toronto which voted 7.565 for union and 7,829 against was represented at the assembly by a vote of 24 for union and
5	against. The presbytery of Barrie, which voted 2.418 for and 2,252 against was represented by 6 to 4. The presbytery of Guelph, which voted 2,171 for and 2,886 against, was represented at the assembly by
6	votes for and by 1 against. Linsday, where the vote was 1,329 for and 1,192 against, was represented by 4 for and I against. In Peterborough, where the vote was 1,835 for and 1,990 against, the representation was 4 to 4. In the presbytery of Pictou, where the vote for was 1,884 and the vote against 3,364, there was a representation of 11 votes for the union and none against. In St. John, where the vote was 2.066 for and 1.922 against, there
United Church of Canada

was a representation of 8 votes for and 5 against. These figures go to show that the commissioners to the assembly do not represent the views of the people.
Take the last assembly to which the preceding speaker referred. Although the list is not complete, we find that circumstances such as these took place:	For instance, the
lists contain the names of 11 ministers whose churches had recently put themselves on record against union and also 17 ministers who voted for union but, who represent no congregation at all. Therefore, I do not think it is fair to spread the idea throughout the country that the assembly at Owen Sound represented the views of the people of the churches. Let me take what has happened in the district from which I come; let me refer to the vote taken in the city of Hamilton, and see if the vote there is coming out more strongly for union, whether the people there are to a great extent in favour of union or against it. I will only cite one or two instances. In St. Andrew's church in 1915, there were 279 for and 140 against. In the vote taken this year there were 176 for and 572 against. In St. John's church, in 1915, there were 67 for and 244 against. The vote has now changed to 106 for and 552 against. In Knox church the vote was 78 for and 368 against in 1915. In 1924 the vote stood 54 for and 745 against. In Central church, 1916, the vote was 142 for and 169 against. In 1924, the vote was 125 for and 476 against. In the town of Dundas, from which I come, the vote on the first occasion was in favour of union. On the second occasion the vote was in opposition to union.
When they tell you that this is a fair representation of the voice of the people, let me state that the vote taken nine years ago does not in any way represent Presbyterian sentiment to-day. Why? Because the people who voted then are not there now. I contend that in that congregation half of the members who were there when the vote was taken are not there to-day. Yet it is said we must give up our church in response to the vote that was taken in 1915. I remember when the union representatives were before the committee as witnesses I suggested to one of them:	"If it is a fair proposition to
abide by the result of a vote taken in 1915, are you willing to accept a vote in the case of the temperance plebiscite or referendum on the lists of that same year?" The reverend gentleman in question at once said, "No." I say myself, it would not be fair. What we want to-day, and I think we will get it, is an expression of the views of the people of the 
Presbyterian church, or of any other church for that matter, obtained through the medium of an up-to-date list and the vote should be by ballot, and not by having a meeting called at which the vote that particular night will decide the fate of the congregation. In the election of elders in the Presbyterian church in the past, there has never been any suspicion as to what would happen; and I was surprised to hear counsel for the unionists say that a vote by ballot might lead to a scandal. I never heard of any scandal in connection with the election of Presbyterian elders. The ballots are distributed perhaps for two weeks previously, and they are signed ballots. I believe that when a vote is . taken all communicants and adherents should be allowed to record their opinion. If there is a sincere desire to ascertain what the opinion of the people of the church, not only in the province of Ontario but throughout Canada, is upon this question, a vote should be taken by ballot and the session of the church should see to it that every person is given a ballot and afforded an opportunity of expressing his views on this most important subject.
What has brought about this serious and regrettable condition of affairs in the Presbyterian church?


Harold Putnam: When the hon. member
says there should be a vote by ballot, does he mean ballots should be cast at a meeting called for the purpose of voting, or does he mean that ballots may be marked at home and sent in?


Gordon Crooks Wilson: I have such implicit faith
in the people that I would distribute the ballot, either by mail, or by the members of the kink session, deliver it to all the members of the church, and let them return that ballot within one week or two weeks, or whatever time the session fixed. I consider that would bring about a decision in the congregation and give every person the right to vote.


Harold Putnam: Does the hon. gentleman
see any reason for that procedure which would not also be a reason for taking a vote in a general election in that same way? And secondly, if there were a general election, and the vote were taken upon the direct question of whether the bill should pass, would the hon. member be content with a vote taken in that way? I give this supposition only by way of illustration and apprehending a barely conceivable possibility.


Gordon Crooks Wilson: Certainly not. In the
Presbyterian church the vote for elders is by ballot.. No exception has been taken to

United Church of Canada
it in the past, and I do not see how exception can be taken now. I would further agree, that as on the occasion of the last vote, there should be an expression of opinion by the adherents of the Presbyterian church. I believe they should be given the right to vote. In the discussion of this bill we were told by counsel for the union committee that the adherents would not be given the right to vote, although they may be some of the principal subscribers to the funds of the church. Personally I still think that the subscribing adherents should be given the right to vote.


Harold Putnam: Does the hon. member
see any reason for that suggestion which would not also be a reason for changing the system of voting in a general election in Canada and allowing the people to vote at home?


Gordon Crooks Wilson: Under the present election
act we make provision for travellers, sailors and other classes. The idea of the act to-day is to see that every man has the right to express an opinion, and that should be carried out as far as possible in church affairs as well as in state affairs.


Harold Putnam: Is the hon. member going the full length of saying that he would go in for the same reform in election contests?


Gordon Crooks Wilson: I do not know whether 1
am going to be drawn into a controversy with the hon. member, but the first thing I will be asked, I suppose, will be whether I am in favour of open voting. We will be going back to the days of the past.


Harold Putnam: The hon. gentleman will
not be asked that question by me.


Gordon Crooks Wilson: No, but the hon. gentleman is asking me questions which may lead to some other controversy. I say the vote by ballot should be the vote of the people of the churches and everybody should be given the right to express his view one way or the other. That is the position I take and I am prepared to stand by it.


Murray MacLaren: Is it not a fact that in
the two previous plebiscites in 1911 and 1915, the method adopted was by signed ballot, extending over a period of ten days or two weeks?


Gordon Crooks Wilson: It certainly was. If the
basis of union brought about by a vote taken
in 1911 and 1915 was satisfactory at that time,
I do not know why a vote taken in the same way would not be satisfactory again. I asked the question, what has brought about this unfortunate position in the church? I am speaking now principally as to the Presbyterian church, because I am not as well known in or associated with the other churches, and I would not wish to express an opinion in regard to their organizations.
I ask what has brought about this regrettable position in the Presbyterian church? It is largely brought about because the leaders of that church have failed to fulfil the promises they made to the people, and I wish to prove that. I have a great deal of respect for the men who made the statements they did, but I regret that they have not carried out the principles to which they gave expression at that time. Principal Patrick, speaking at the assembly in 1905, said:
They wanted to carry all the three churches into the union. From first to last the question must be a people's question.
President Falconer in 1906 is reported as follows:
From the commencement he had put in the forefront that it would be utter madness to go forward to a union that did not carry a whole church with it. It was absurd to think that the assembly could force its will on the people.
The next quotation is from Dr. W. J. Clark in the assembly of 1914, as follows:
The Reverend Mr. Clark said he thought a second vote of the people ought to be taken. He declared that if it was proved by such a vote that a considerable minority was not in favour of union he would regret the fact, but he would not force the issue. He went on to say, that there was no such thing as attempting to force union on the church.
I have a great deal of respect for the Reverend Dr. Clark, because he happened to be my Sunday school and Bible class teacher. I know that no man stands higher than he does or did in the counsels of the Presbyterian church and I regret to learn that he is not in as good health as he formerly was.
I made the statement that the condition we are in to-day was brought about because some of the so-called and self-appointed leaders of the Presbyterian church had not lived up to the promises they had given to the people. Now what was the vote? The vote was:
For union Against union 1911	 113,000	50,733
In 1911 the Presbyterian Assembly and the members of it thought the opposition was too great and they would not proceed with union. They took another vote in 1915, and what was the result? It was as follows:
For union Against union
1915	 113,600	73,735
United Church of Canada

There was an increase of 600 in favour of union, and an increase of 23,000 against it. Now look at the history of the case. In 1911 they said the opposition was too great and they would not proceed. But in 1915, with a vote of 23,000 more against union, they decided to go on with it. Now that is regrettable, and I say that the so-called leaders of the Presbyterian church have largely brought about the condition of affairs that exists today.
If this matter is to be settled-and I claim it can be settled-there are one or two ways of doing it. In this so-called union what takes place? The Presbyterian Church in Canada is taken unto the union. The name is not going to be used; but the unionists will not allow those who do not want to go into the organization to call themselves the Presbyterian Church in Canada. I maintain that if they allow those who wish to remain Presbyterians to stand and hold the name, one of the greatest difficulties will be removed. They say "What is in a name"? What is the difference between "in" and "of"? It means practically all the difference in the world. It means that when they take the Presbyterian Church in Canada they take their record, they take their trusts and everything with it, and then they say in their generosity afterwards, "You can call yourselves Presbyterians, but it must be the Presbyterian Church of Canada, because we have absorbed in the United Church of Canada the Presbyterian Church in Canada." What is in a name? There is a great deal in a name, although some people do not think so. Some people that were formerly called Smith, now call themselves Smyths. Some people that were formerly called Gander now call themselves Gandier. The new idea, modem thought, modernism, has brought this about. But some of us are satisfied to remain known by the name that we received and we are proud to try to uphold the honour of that name.


Harold Putnam: Will the hon. gentleman
permit what I think is a correction, and I would ask him to take my motives as entirely artless? He stated a moment ago that the United chuTch would prescribe for the dissentients a new name, the Presbyterian Church of Canada. They do not arrogate any such thing to themselves. They give that merely as an example of a name that might be used, very closely allied to the present name. The word "of" is substituted for the word "in." They say: You may use any name in heaven or earth except the name the Presbyterian Church in Canada.
IMr. Wilson.]


Gordon Crooks Wilson: If there is no difference,
why do the unionists not allow us to use the name the Presbyterian Church in Canada? If the matter is of minor importance to the unionists, why do they not leave that name to those of us who wish to remain in and to uphold the traditions of the Presbyterian Church in Canada? Why have they adopted the policy of taking the name in and abandoning the child on the door-step?


Harold Putnam: Is that question to me?


Gordon Crooks Wilson: I do not know. I am making the statement. If the hon. member wishes to interrupt me again, I am prepared to answer any question provided that I am able to do so.


William F. Carroll: What is the present
name?


Gordon Crooks Wilson: The Presbyterian Church
in Canada.	.


William F. Carroll: You want that to remain?


Gordon Crooks Wilson: Yes, and I do not think
any good reason can be given why, if this new church does not intend to use that name, the name should not rest with those who want to remain in the Presbyterian Church in Canada. The Presbyterian church is not a national church, it is an international church. It has its branches in all parts of the world. It has a proud record, and those of us who have been associated with it for years are satisfied to remain in it. We have no objection to others taking any other name they like; but we think that the doctrines which we have been taught in the church of our fathers should be left to us and to us alone and not given to those who intend to take the name in merely for the purpose of destroying it.
It is stated that this question has been under discussion for about twenty years and also that it is regrettable that a year or two years' delay is proposed in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff). It is a strange thing that while they have been considering this question for twenty years and we have been told that it is being done in the interest of economy, all through the hearing-and I do not think I missed five minutes of all that hearing-I never once heard any of the witnesses put forward the argument in favour of economy. In fact, they know better. Although they try to tell us that this has been in the air for twenty years; that we have to keep our pledge with the other churches; that this and that should be done, and that it is all in the in- [DOT] terest of economy, they know that we have

United Church of Canada
found the different churches-I do not refer to any one in particular-building a church right under the eaves of another church. There is no question about that. Yet they would lead us to believe that this is all in the interest of economy. I have heard some of the advocates of union, speaking on behalf of this movement, state that they were so much imbued with the idea that the union movement was the correct thing that they were prepared to leave the Presbyterian church if they did not take a stick of property with them. But that situation is entirely changed when you come to the Private Bills committee of this House. As far as I have seen those who want to remain in the Presbyterian church, no one is opposed to a fair division of the property; and if any bill can be introduced into this House or any amendment drafted whereby the minority, or the so-called minority, because I doubt very much if to-day it is a minority, of the Presbyterian church may be allowed to use the name the Presbyterian Church in Canada if the churches are allowed the right to vote themselves into the union, and if provision is made that a commission shall be appointed, not of nine men, because that is simply adding to the expense, but of one, I am satisfied that the Presbyterian Church in Canada will abide by the decision of that commissioner. All that they are anxious for is to retain their name, because they believe in the traditions and the history of their church, and they are proud of the record of the Presbyterian Church in Canada.
One of the most regrettable incidents that I have ever experienced or ever expect again to experience is to hear the so-called leaders of the Presbyterian church do what before the Private Bills committee? Ridicule the doctrines of the Presbyterian church, say that they took the vows with a mental reservation. When that statement was made by one of the leaders of the church, it could not help causing indignation in the breast of everybody that was at that meeting, because if it is modernism, for men who take a vow to uphold the doctrines of the church into which they were ordained, to come before a committee and ridicule and, for other reasons, make light of their vow, then I prefer to stand by the religion that I was taught at my mother's knee rather than to follow the leaders of the Presbyterian church who appeared before the Private Bills committee.
It is said that a minority in the Presbyterian church is opposed to union. We do not agree that such is the case, but for the sake
of argument, let us admit that there is a minority. If one of the contracting parties to this union is less in number than the so-called minority and if they are looked after, why should this minority not be looked after?
I looked up the records of the Congregational church, and so far as I can obtain them, there are about 32,000 members. Yet their rights are to be protected, and rightly so, in going into this union; but those that form the so-called minority are much greater in numbers, and I do not think any one would gainsay that the Presbyterians in the Dominion of Canada far outnumber those who belong tc the Congregational church.
I maintain that the minority has its rights, and you cannot force anyone into a church to which he does not wish to belong. To-day I happen to be a Protestant. Why? It is a question of environment; I am one because my people happened to be Protestants. Similarly, I happen to be a Presbyterian beoause my people were Presbyterians and largely because I was taught the doctrines of the Presbyterian church. I am not one of those sticklers who believe that it will be a question of the church to which people belonged when it comes to the final summing up; I do not believe that. I certainly do believe however that every person should enjoy civil and religious liberty. I do not deny that right to anyone and I demand the same right for myself; and I defy any church court, any legislature or any parliament or individual to take it from me. It cannot be done. You may pass all the laws you like but you can never take away my liberty of conscience. I owe that to no earthly potentate.
I saw in a newspaper this description of a meeting:
Inter-party intrigues by crafty strategists; crosscurrents of racial origins and creeds; propaganda reduced to its most subtle, insidious and consummate ends; excited, turbulent delegates.
When I read that I thought that possibly it was a descriptive introduction to a report of one of the meetings of the Private Bills committee, but as I read further on I discovered that it was only a description of a Democratic convention in the United States. It is a well known fact that you cannot make two clocks run alike; nor can any state or church compel people of different qualities and different calibre of brain to think alike. It is impossible. I say, therefore, to those who are insistent upon this church union that while they have a perfect right to exercise their own will in
United Church oj Canada

matters that concern themselves, while they have an undoubted right to enter the United church, they have no right to attempt to coerce me or anyone else into joining that church. I cannot see what objection there can be to referring this matter to the courts. We struggled with the bill in the Private Bills committee and heard the viewpoints advanced by the different factions; and having considered the whole subject I have come to the conclusion that the report of the Private Bills committee should be approved by this House and the bill as submitted adopted. I do not believe that any organization should come to the lawmakers and ask them to become lawbreakers. I say that the law of trusts is one of the most sacred laws which this or any other country can possess; I do not think it is right for anyone to come and ask parliament to pass a law to provide that property which John Brown left to the Presbyterian Church in Canada should be handed over to the United Church of Canada. This church union proposal will have far-reaching effects, and it is a matter of regret to me that so many things that should not be done are being done in the name of religion. Those who are anxious to see the movement consummated should abide by the law of trusts in so far as it relates to this matter. Let me read to you the Act of Incorporation of Knox College:
I* sha!I be lawful for the synod of the Presbyterian -diurch of Canada, at its next ordinary meeting after .he passing of this act, to declare, by a resolution or a by-law to that effect and record in the register of proceedings of the said synod, the theological doctrines and principles which shall be taught in the said college, or what are the books and documents in which the said principles and doctrines are contained; and such declaration so made and recorded shall be irrevocable insofar as the said college shall be concerned, and shall be held at all times thereafter to contain the theological doctrines and principles to be taught in the said college, and for the propagation of which the property now held for the said college, or hereafter acquired for the same, shall be appropriated, and to no other.
"And to no other." Yet we have them coming before parliament and asking us to change the law of trusts-asking the lawmakers to become lawbreakers. Let me refer once again to the regrettable fact of the ridiculing of the doctrines of Presbyterian faith. Does any hon. gentleman think that this will have any good effect in the missionary work of this or any other church? When the missionaries come to knowledge of the fact that men who have taken vows to uphold the doctrines of the Presbyterian church declare that they look those vows with a mental reservation, T am sure the heathen world will be edified to learn

that the so-called leaders of the Presbyterian church have stultified themselves before the Private Bills committee of this House in making a declaration in the hope-of what?-in the hope of getting votes. We have been threatened; unquestionably. Here is the threat, which every one has seen, that members of parliament at the next general election will find this question made an issue.


Harold Putnam: Who made that threat?


Gordon Crooks Wilson: Dr. Chown.


Harold Putnam: Will the hon. member
read it?


Gordon Crooks Wilson: Yes. Referring to the
action taken at Toronto he said:
We appreciate Mr. Nickle's zeal for union, but we cannot forget that fifteen out of seventeen Anglicans were opposed to it, and at present there is a prospect of one of the liveliest religious controversies being thrown into the political arena, and fought to a finish at the next election. The unionists are not seeking this, but if it is forced upon them they will certainly not decline it.
Any leader of a religious denomination is ill advised to make such a threat. Let me tell you what happened forty years ago, when I was a lad, when the chief magistrate in the town tried to prevent the Salvation Army from holding its meetings on the street. One of my forebears took part in that controversy, which was made a political question at the next election. The result was never in doubt; the men who wanted to deny the minority civil and religious liberty were simply cast out; the people would not stand for any such thing. I believe in the rights of minorities and I believe, as we all believe, that under the Union Jack we have every right to enjoy and in fact do enjoy civil and religious liberty.
I am proud to live beside friends who do not believe in the same doctrines I hold. I may not believe in theirs, but probably they are more devout than I am, and possibly their views may be right. Only in the final analysis let us all remember that no one has ever come Lack. You may be right, I may be right, but I certainly will say to the minority or to the individual:	You have a perfect right to worship the way you wish, and I for my part will always respect your viewpoint.


Harold Putnam: If I may interject an
observation-it is important that Dr. Chown should not be misrepresented. I take it that the true interpretation of the passage which the hon. member read a moment ago is that if somebody else made this an issue in the next

United Church of Canada
election the unionists would meet the issue; but it is no threat from Dr. Chown that he will precipitate the issue, as my hon. friend inadvertently represented.


Gordon Crooks Wilson: I do not wish to inadvertently misrepresent any one. The same threat has been made by others,-it has been made by members of the Presbyterian church.


Harold Putnam: I ask that that passage
be read. I submit that it does not bear the construction which my hon. friend places upon it.


Gordon Crooks Wilson: An incident took place
right in this city after the meeting of the Private Bills committee, when a reverend gentleman made a threat of the same nature. But they are all idle threats. I have more respect for the intelligence of my constituents than to think that any of them would be carried away by a threat that at the next general election church union will be introduced as an issue. This is a question for every one to decide as his conscience dictates. As far as I am personally concerned, I do not care who makes such a threat in my constituency, I am prepared to stand by the rights of the minority, and to give that minority freedom to worship in the way they wish.


Harold Putnam: Will the hon. member
retract or again read the statement by Dr. Chown which he interprets as a threat?


Gordon Crooks Wilson: I read the statement which is said to have been made by Dr. Chown. I am not putting it up to him or to anybody else.


Mr. BIRD:: Was the reference by Dr.
Chown to a Dominion election or a provincial election in Ontario?


Gordon Crooks Wilson: It would not make a bit
of difference what election he was referring to; the issue was certainly to be brought into the political arena.


Thomas William Bird: The statement was not made
in reference to the Dominion at all, but to a specific instance in Ontario.


Gordon Crooks Wilson: He was making a reference to what took place before the Private Bills committee of the Ontario legislature, but it is the same thing.


Thomas William Bird: He made the threat after the
committee had met and decided to amend the bill.


Gordon Crooks Wilson: Yes.


Thomas William Bird: In what way was it a threat,
then?


Gordon Crooks Wilson: Any man who will say that how I voted on church union is going to be an issue in the next general election is making a political threat. What has that got to do with the government of the country or with politics?


Thomas William Bird: The Rev. Dr. Chown is a
very responsible person, and I am sure he is not given to making foolish statements. I have read quite frequently the statement attributed to him, and I ask the hon. gentleman to give his opinion as to whether that was not fair comment upon something that had been already decided.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What did
Ralph Connor say?


Gordon Crooks Wilson: You have had an opportunity to speak, and you heard this man in committee as I did. My reference was to a statement issued by the Rev. Dr. Chown. He is wrong in his statement of facts, because he refers to Mr. Nickle as an Anglican, although that gentleman as a matter of fact is a Presbyterian; he comes in for blame all the same. I do not care whether Dr. Chown, Ralph Connor or anybody else made this threat-and there are others who made it; it has been made throughout the length and breadth of this country-it will not make a particle of difference to me personally, for I believe in the intelligence of my constituents and that they will judge according to the facts. Therefore I am not afraid of the issue in any case. I believe that conciliation is the proper procedure. I believe, and I said so in the Private Bills committee, that any course that would bring about a settlement of this matter should be adopted, I still believe it is the right course to follow as regards the Presbyterian church. I would say to the members of that church, quoting the words of a text that I once heard preached from Genesis 13, verses 8 and 9:
And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren.
Is not the whole land before thee? Separate thyself, I pray thee, from me:	If thou wilt take the
left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left.
That is the spirit of conciliation in which this bill should have been framed, and if the bill had been framed in this spirit, with equal rights to all and special privileges to none,
United Church of Canada

we would not have been in this turmoil today, and we would not have brought disgrace upon Christianity and religion in this country.


Robert Forke: My hon. friend will notice
that in the passage of scripture he quoted Abram gave the opposition the first and the best choice.


Gordon Crooks Wilson: I would remind the- leader
of the Progressive party that there are two irreconcilable factions in the Presbyterian church, and that the only way out is for those two factions to agree to separate and to say to each other: Let the separation be fair, and let us part as friends. That is the stand I take.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre) :: Mr. Chairman, I very much regret the circumstances which make it necessary for me to state to the committee the reasons why I propose voting contrary to the report of the Private Bills committee in so far as the clause now under consideration is concerned. As a general rule, 9 p.m. when an important bill such as this is referred to a committee of the House, I am inclined to accept the decision of the committee, especially when, as in this case, the committee has given very intimate and close study to the subject matter of the bill. However, on this occasion I find myself in a position where I cannot agree with the findings of the committee in some respects, indeed I think only in regard to this clause, and it is my intention to make clear the reasons why I shall support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown).
Before doing so I desire to say a word or two in reply to the observations made by my hon. friend from Wentworth (Mr. Wilson).
I very deeply appreciate the intensity of feeling and the sincerity of purpose which actuated him to take the stand he does, and to me if is most painful to find myself in any sense in a controversial position with relation to him. But I do not wish to accept his final dictum that we must part company, one going to the right hand and the other to the left. I want to sit beside him here with all the cordiality that has characterized our companionship during the past, and at the same time exercise the privilege of differing with him-and perhaps several others-in respect to this matter.
My hon. friend refers to the desirability of another ballot vote. This I conceive to be within the po'ity, within the jurdisdiction of the church itself; I do not think it is the function or the right of parliament to interfere

with the method of handling the church's own business. I take a very clear stand in that regard:	It is the right of any organized
religious body to determine within itself just what form of procedure it shall follow with respect to its action in any given matter. So I cannot agree with my hon. friend that this parliament is called upon to decide whether or not another ballot should be taken, nor would I arrogate to myself even the passing of an opinion upon the course pursued by the Presbyterian church in that regard.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Is the hon. gentleman
aware that already the Private Bills committee have directed how ballots shall be taken in this same church?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I assume that that
question has reference to something made necessary in order to give effect to the bill itself.
Another question arose in connection with my hon. friend's observations, to which I wish to refer. I earnestly and heartily concur in his desire to preserve inviolate the religious liberty which has characterized the practice of all sections of our Empire for many years.	That right of personal religious liberty was bought some centuries ago, and I will step forward with my hon. friend in preserving it.
Now let me turn to the question itself. I have before me the bill as introduced to parliament. The question before us is section 2 of the bill, which is an innovation introduced by the committee having the bill in charge. In amendment to that is the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) which simply states that-
This act shall come into force on the 10th day of June, 1925, except the provisions required to permit the vote provided for in section 10 being taken, which shall come into force on the 10th day of December, 1924.
Now, Bill No. 47, introduced into this House and given a first reading on April 10, 1924, has a certain preamble which sets forth the principle of the bill. I wish to quote this preamble:
Whereas The Presbyterian Church in Canada, The Methodist Church and The Congregational Churches of Canada have by their petition represented that, believing the promotion of Christian unity to be in accordance with the Divine Will, they recognize the obligation to seek and promote union with other churches adhering to the same fundamental principles of the Christian faith, and that, having the right to unite with one another without loss of their identity upon terms which they find to be consistent with such principles, they have adopted a basis of union which is set forth in schedule A to this act and have agreed to unite and form one body or denomination of Christians under the name of " The

United Church of Canada
United Church of Canada;" and have prayed that it may be enacted as hereinafter set forth; And whereas it is expedient to grant the prayer of the said petition: Therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:	,
That was the preamble, and in passing the second reading of the bill parliament placed itself on record as accepting the principle of the bill. Let us examine this matter a little more minutely. Parliament by the second reading has formally adopted the principle that the Presbyterian church, the Methodist church and the Congregational church have the right to unite. That being the case parliament cannot further consider whether that right exists; we have already definitely disposed of that question by the adoption of the principle.


Murray MacLaren: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the Private Bills committee could either accept or reject the principle of the bill as stated in the preamble?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, the Private Bills
committee could have rejected the preamble and could have reported to this House that they had done so.


Murray MacLaren: Could they have modified it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: They could. But let me pursue my argument. My point is that we have adopted the principle of this bill.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Was it not agreed that the bill should pass its second reading without discussion as to principle?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think that was agreed.


Arthur Edward Ross: Then why say that the principle has been accepted?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think it was agreed not only by this House but everywhere; not only in parliament, but universally throughout the country it was recognized that this union should be brought about.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Will my hon. friend permit me-


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would like to complete my argument on this point.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not
wish to interrupt my hon. friend but may I be permitted to ask him whether he is attempting to assert that parliament committed itself to the principle of this bill, when it was distinctly understood by every one in the House that the bill was simply going to committee for consideration without any commitment as to principle?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think my hon. friend
will recognize in my next point an answer to his question, if I may be permitted to pursue it for a moment. I have stated that the principle of the bill was accepted by the House.


Murray MacLaren: I challenge that, Mr. Chairman.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Perhaps we might admit
it for the sake of argument.


Murray MacLaren: No, I challenge my
hon. friend's statement on that point.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is quite all right;
my hon. friend has a perfect right to differ.
I think, however, that I am arguing from a sound parliamentary basis. My next point is this:	This is a private bill. It is not a
bill that found its origin within parliament as a public bill, brought here for a public purpose. It is a private bill; it is exactly the same as a bill brought into this House to amalgamate three industrial concerns, three commercial concerns, three insurance companies, three banks, or three railways-any industry that you choose to name. It is a private measure brought here by three recognized bodies. Let us for a moment leave the question of religion and church out of it.


Murray MacLaren: Will	my hon. friend
permit a question there? I will not ask it unless he is quite agreeable.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Quite all right.


Murray MacLaren: Is it not the case in the matter of private bills that the second reading does not involve an acceptance of the preamble?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not a final authority, but subject to correction by those who are better versed in the matter than myself I would say this:	Whether it is a private bill or a
public bill, the second reading of the bill by the House is an adoption of the principle of the bill.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I submit that is sound.
I should like some much older and more experienced parliamentarian than myself to offer the correction. Let me pursue my point. This is then a private bill brought to this House as it is the right-I want this point to be made perfectly clear-brought to this House as it is the right of any private citizen to bring legislation here. That is, the public have a right to bring to this House their petition, in the form of a bill, and ask that this
United Church oj Canada

petition shall be given consideration and shall be made law by parliament. Now then, what is the duty of parliament in considering the petition? In connection with private bills it is not the duty, it is not the function, of parliament to take that private bill and'change it and make out of that whatever it likes. I assert that it is the duty and function of par-lament to scrutinize sudh private bill and to iscertain that there is nothing in it that violates the rights of others not included in the petition. Now, that is the function of parliament. But let me get this point clear in the minds of hon. members: It is not the duty or function of parliament to take a piece of private legislation and change it or mould it to suit itself. It can do it, it has the power, I do not deny that; but I say in dealing with private legislation the function of parliament is to take that private legislation and examine the petition. If the petition is in order, if it is constitutional, if it does not violate the [DOT]ights of the people or the constitution of the country, then it is the duty of parliament to grant that petition.
This bill comes before us in that form. It comes from three recognized bodies. Let us leave the churches alone for a moment; it comes from three recognized bodies. They present the bill to parliament. It is read a first time, then a second time by common consent, it, is true. Then, recognizing that the detailed features of the bill are perhaps controversial it goes to a special committee for consideration, but here is where I challenge the right of the special committee. Not that they are not empowered to scrutinize every word, every line of the bill and see that it is in harmony with public interst and public right, but I do say that I question the right of the committee to so alter the bill as to change the principle and the intention of the measure itself. Now, let me explain what I mean.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: Does the hon.
member think that the bill of an industrial concern coming to parliament and being referred to the Private Bills committee in the form that this bill was, and in the face of so much opposition, would be considered for one moment by the Private Bills committee?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Undoubtedly it would. In my brief experience of some fourteen years in this House I can recall many bills which, while perhaps not arousing the general interest that this bill has, did evoke the most intense opposition and controversy. Other members who have sat here for many years will particularly recall many instances in the years gone by where bills have been fought most 
bitterly and over long periods of time. Let me say to the hon. member who asked the question that I am not for one moment disputing the right of anyone to attack or resist the passing of legislation in this House private or public.
Now, let us come to the amendment. I have cited these three bodies, now I must name them-the Presbyterian church, the Methodist church and the Congregational church, long recognized as three great religious bodies; not religious bodies only, but groups of citizens banded together for religious purposes and also possessed of large property rights and interests in the country. Because of this it was necessary that they should come to parliament in order to secure this legislation. What for? In order that this united body might be put in a position-shall I say socially as related to the rest of the people?- where it can function as a body, not only as a church but function as a body-receive moneys, spend moneys, hold property, dispose of property, carry on social welfare work, carry on missionary institutions, and all these various appendages of a religious organization. So they come to parliament and ask parliament, a well recognized necessity-to clothe them with certain powers and with certain rights. Now, then, the amendment injected into this bill in the committee to my mind attacks the very principle of the bill.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is my hon.
friend aware-seeing that he is endeavouring to draw an argument from the proposition that this bill is just the same as if we were dealing with three companies who desired to come together-that under the laws of the Joint Stock Companies Acts before any such combination as asked here can be brought into effect in regard to these incorporated companies there must be a vote of two-thirds of the shareholders?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not necessarily.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Absolutely, that is the law.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend will pardon me for a moment

I do not want to be too dogmatic, although he appears to be pretty dogmatic himself-not necessarily. We will assume there are three railway companies. I recall instances-I cannot recall the names and the dates, but I do recall the instances- where the Railway committee, not necessarily, have in their private acts so clothed these companies with powers to transact their business and conduct their affairs in a certain way. Now, I deal with my hon. friend's in-

United Church oj Canada
terruption in this manner. My contention is that we have no business to go back into the polity or the rights and the procedures of any of these churches. All we have to ask is: Have these organizations come before parliament clothed with proper authority within their own constitutions? Have I made myself clear? I happen to be more familiar with the Methodist church than xwith the Presbyterian. I am not going to argue anything about the internal polity of any of them but I say that the Methodist church come before parliament and say "We have done thus and so. Our constitution, our church laws, demand that we should pass certain resolutions and that we should go through certain procedure." All that parliament is called upon to do is to say to them "Have you gone through that procedure"? They say "Yes, here is the procedure." The Congregational church says the same and the Presbyterian church. Now, what I contend is this-


An hon. MEMBER:: That is disputed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the hon. member will let me complete my argument. I claim it is not my business as a member of this House to go into the question whether the Methodist church in its method was wise or unwise. That is not my business. All I have to do is to see whether or not these applicants come before parliament in the proper manner. I contend that so far as I am able to judge they have done so in this case. I do regret, just as profoundly as my hon. friends who take a different view, the schism that has grown and developed in the Presbyterian church over this question. Furthermore I have the profoundest sympathy with any minorities whether Presbyterian, Methodist or Congregational. I say further-coming back to the interruption of the Minister of National Defence-whether it is a church or a private company, if it can be shown that there are certain minority rights that appear not to be safeguarded then it is the duty of parliament to safeguard those rights.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Undoubtedly it is the duty of parliament to safeguard those rights.


Murray MacLaren: While the hon. gentleman is on that point I will ask a question. Is he aware that the authority of the General Assembly to proceed to union was disputed strongly before the select committee, that there were many representations made before the Private Bills committee to the effect that the General Assembly had not this power or authority?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am quite aware that
there was undoubtedly criticism of the method and so forth within the Presbyterian church, but I cannot say that evidence has been brought forward to show that the Presbyterian church acted contrary to its own constitution.


Murray MacLaren: Was the hon. gentleman present during the taking of the evidence?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Only at times. I heard a very brillant and able address by Mr. Lafleur of Montreal, who, I thought, with his usual brilliancy, presented a case that was certainly very, very fine and sound; but I did note in that very excellent address, which I think everybody admired, that Mr. Lafleur made the declaration that it was unquestionably and undoubtedly the right of the Presbyterian church to change its doctrine, and he went so far as to say, when asked the question, that it was their right to change the doctrine to the extent that it might harmonize with or adopt the doctrine set forth in the basis of union. I am quite certain of that.


Murray MacLaren: Is the hon. gentleman
quoting from the evidence?


Henry Herbert Stevens: From my own memory
of it.


Murray MacLaren: I think the hon. gentleman's memory is very defective.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am quite clear on the
matter, because I followed Mr. Lafleur's address with intense interest. However, I only interjected that remark. I do not think it is essential at all, but I still claim it is not the duty of parliament to inquire into it. I merely interjected that statement in response to an interruption a moment ago. I want to point out to the committee that we have adopted, and I still insist that we have adopted, the preamble of the bill. We sent it to a committee. What was the preamble? That these three bodies claimed the right to unite. We accepted the position. We said, "Very good, we adopt your bill, and send it, so far as the details of the measure are concerned, to the Private Bills committee to work out". I find that that committee inserted a clause to this effect:
This act shall not come into force until the first day of July, 1926, and not then unless the courts shall have finally decided the action now pending in the Supreme Court of Ontario that the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada had the power under its constitution and rules to agree to a union of the Presbyterian Church in Canada with the Methodist church, and Congregational church upon the basis of union, including the appendix on law as set out in schedule A of this act.
United Church of Canada

I quite appreciate that there are those who will differ with me, but I want to put my position clearly that we are not called upon to determine whether the Presbyterian church as a church had this right or that right within itself; but the question of its polity, or the question of its procedure, is something which it must determine itself; and furthermore the applicants for this measure representing the Presbyterian church undoubtedly show that they did follow the constitutional procedure of the Presbyterian church. That is my contention. Therefore I contend that this committee had no right to insert in the bill a clause that virtually declares that only two of the churches are right, and that the whole bill must be suspended until certain things are determined in the courts. My answer to that is that the right of appeal to the courts exists without any doubt, just the same whether this clause passes or not. They have the right of appeal just the same whether this clause is inserted in the bill or not, and no such right is being taken away from them.
I would like to say a few words about another feature of the bill. When this measure was introduced one of the things that appealed to me very strongly was the contention made by those opposed to the bill that the bill as it was introduced brought in the Presbyterian church-becoming specific for the moment-and gave a right to a minority to vote itself out. This minority claimed that this was an unfair advantage to take of them In other words, they claimed that we were legislating to put them into the new United church, and that they were called upon tc vote themselves out, and they contended-and to my mind contended properly-that they ought to have the opportunity of voting on the question as to whether they should come in or not. When that point was conceded it removed from my mind perhaps the most important obstacle that I saw to the passing of this act. When that was granted and first incorporated in the bill, the principle was reversed. and it w'as provided that before the Presbyterian church was incorporated in the United Church of Canada, they must do so by a vote, of their own volition, bringing them mto that body. That, Mr. Chairman. seems to me to meet the more serious opposition that was presented to this House.


James Dew Chaplin: The way the evidence was taken does not appear to my hon friend as being unfair?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think not, no. I think rhe manner in which the evidence was taken is fair, indeed I would go to the extent of
TMr. Stevens.]
saying that it is not only fair but generous. I want to make clear to my hon. friend that this is not a light matter to my mind It has been a very serious matter and I might say a painful matter to witness the dispute that is going on. I am simply trying to make my own position clear.
The suggestion is made that the passage of the bill will result in schism and division. Unfortunately I am afraid it is necessary to agree with that suggestion, and I regret to say that it is so. On the other hand, I want parliament to understand that that is not a fair appeal to parliament. It is not necessarily a ground upon which parliament should reject a bill. If that is to be presented as an argument for the rejection of the bill, then I am justified in presenting the argument that the rejection of the bill will undoubtedly work far greater hardship, and induce greater schisms than the passing of the bill. I do not admit that either one is a sound argument for or against the bill. We must not blind our eyes or be diverted from the path of duty which I think parliament should pursue by an argument of this kind.
An amendment was suggested a moment ago which virtually means this:	The Methodist and Congregational churches to be joined, but that reference of the Presbyterian church and its dispute be made to the courts for further consideration. I appeal to the committee, let us give consideration to this matter. I think too little emphasis has been laid upon the fact that the Methodist church and the Congregational church have hitherto, throughout this whole matter presented themselves consistently and steadily in favour of this bill. They are applicants for this bill just as much as the Presbyterian church, and it would not be treating them with fairness to reserve one section, a very important section, for further consideration, and to say to the other two:	You go ahead and join. I
want parliament to remember that the basis of the whole matter is the union of these three bodies.


Mr. HOEY:: Will the hon. member say
that the Methodist and Congregational churches have the legal right to unite, seeing that the vote was taken on the union of the whole three? I do not think they have.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would not like to express an opinion offhand on that; but as my hon. friend raises the question, it is one that might very well engage the attention of parliament. It would appear to me, at least offhand, that this suggested amendment must inevitably result in the withdrawal of the bill from parliament. I cannot see how the promoters of the

United Church of Canada
bill, having in mind and working for years for the consummation of an ideal, that ideal being the union of these three bodies, could possibly carry on with, perhaps, one-half of it held in abeyance indefinitely by an action of this parliament.
My hon. friend (Mr. Wilson) a moment ago said that no evidence had been brought forward regarding the question of economy. I cannot speak so thoroughly for eastern Canada, but for thirty-one years, I have been passing through this Dominion from the East to the West very frequently. I know conditions in the three prairie provinces and in British Columbia, I think, fairly well, and I know that there are literally hundreds, and I believe I can say thousands of places where this union is and has been functioning. Why has it been functioning? Because the recognized authorities, within their own right, and constitutionally within their own right, declared that they were going on to the consummation of union; that they were going on to bring this union about, and these bodies found it necessary, for the sake of economy if you like, for the sake not only of economy, but of a better spirit in those isolated communities, to go ahead and unite. Throughout the whole of the West, in British Columbia and the three prairie provinces, you can find hundreds and thousands of places where the one pivotal point for religion and morality is to be found in a union church functioning under the basis of union, functioning by mutual agreement and arrangement between these three great bodies. This is what I want to impress once again on the committee. Is parliament, because of an internal dispute regarding, not the correctness, but the wisdom of a certain course of action on the part of one of the bodies, determined within their own rights, to reject this bill? That is the question which this committee must decide. I cannot bring myself to that viewpoint at all, and therefore I shall support the amendment and vote against section 2 of the bill as it is reported by the committee.


James Dew Chaplin: Has the arrangement that the hon. member spoke of in regard to the churches working in harmony been due to this union movement, or was it in operation for years before, by mutual agreement?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think I can claim the
right to answer that with a fair degree of definiteness, if my hon: friend will permit me to take a moment or two to do so. Any one acquainted with conditions, not only in the West, but in any new section of this country, northern Quebec or northern Ontario, but particularly in the West, knows that conditions them-236
selves forced the churches to the consideration of this problem many years ago. It was the impetus of conditions, the impetus of the needs of the people from a monetary standpoint, from a standpoint of Christian unity, that made the parent bodies, the head offices at Toronto, recognize the need of getting together, and it was impelled by that that the officials, the leaders of the church, who from time to time, were brought together in connection with conferences, assemblies and congresses in various parts of the country, came to the conclusion that the only solution was an organic union of the whole of the three bodies. That is my answer to my hon. friend's question.


James Dew Chaplin: That is not an answer.


Arthur Edward Ross: Was that same
union arrangement not in existence in Ontario and in the eastern provinces long before the question was broached?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot speak of Ontario. I can speak only of my personal experience. For the last twenty years, to my own knowledge, this has been a live issue in the West.
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac):As a member of this House who has no special interest in the bill other than to do what seems to be the right thing by all parties concerned, I cannot support the amendment of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown). The hon. member, in proposing his amendment, suggested that there were only two points that should be considered. The one was whether the contracting parties had' the right to enter the union, and the other was whether the minority in each of the congregations was being protected. From my point of view there is only one question to be considered, namely, whether the three parties had the right to contract the union, and whether the organization of the Presbyterian church as constituted had the right to agree to the amalgamation.	I cannot
surely be accused of voting against my hon. friend's amendment and wanting to support or promote the Westminster Confession of Faith. I cannot be accused of supporting those who are opposed to union on the ground that I may lose votes in my constituency. But I do not feel that it has been proven, either in the committee or in the House that the elders of the Presbyterian church had the right to consummate the amalgamation.	No hon.
member here has presented anything to show that the Presbyterian elders or the assembly had the right to consummate the amalgamation of these churches. That seems to me to be the only question to decide in the mind of a

United Church of Canada,

member who is not directly interested in the subject outside of his obligation as a member of parliament. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) contends that the assembly had the right; members of the Presbyterian persuasion contend that the assembly had not the right, and I would rather take the opinion in this case of members of the Presbyterian church than that of a member of one of the other. contracting churches.


Arthur John Lewis: Will he not take then the
opinion of members of the Presbyterian church at the last assembly, if that is what he is after? They have claimed for the last four years by an overwhelming majority for the last four years that they have that right.


Mr. CAHILL:: My difficulty is exactly that. Had the Presbyterian Assembly the right to consummate the amalgamation? Can my hon. friend say yes?


Arthur John Lewis: Most decidedly.


Mr. BROWN:: Does the hon. member consider that the Presbyterian church has any right at all or any other way of expressing itself? Perhaps he might indicate some other way by which the Presbyterian church could express itself, than through its courts.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: With the
permission of my hon. friend I wish to say on that point in order to relieve any doubt:	As
regards my own constituents, a majority of the Presbyterians are opposed to the union of the three churches and three-fourths of the representatives who went to the assembly voted in favour of union. That did not represent the people.


Frank S. Cahill: The hon. member for
Wentworth (Mr. Wilson) made the statement, as I understood it, that the assembly had not the right to consummate this amalgamation.


Gordon Crooks Wilson: That is what we claim
and that is what we want to have settled by the courts.


Frank S. Cahill: The contention was made
in the committee and it has been made in this House that it is well nigh impossible for any hon. member to come to a decision in this matter in view of the fact that members of parliament themselves hold contradictory views in regard to the powers of the General Assembly; some say that the assembly has the right to consummate the amalgamation while others are of the opposite opinion. Am I qualified then to sit as a judge in this
(Mr. Cahill.]
matter? I am not, and what is more I contend that very few members are able to arrive at a really satisfactory conclusion. After all this is not a national question; it cannot be so considered by any stretch of the imagination. The next question is, so far as I am concerned, what will be the attitude of my constituents? No matter how interested a member of parliament may be in any question, when that question is not of a purely national character and one in regard to which he is in honour bound to take a national point of view, he is most apt to take the point of view of his constituency. I do not say that hon. members will necessarily do that, nor that the vote will be taken on that basis. So far as my constituency is concerned I do not think that it will make any material difference, and I do not say this because there are not a number of very estimable people in my constituency who belong to all of the churches concerned. I do not feel however that I am competent to sit as a judge in this matter and to determine whether or not the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church has the right to consummate this amalgamation. The bill as reported from the committee provides for judges in properly constituted courts to determine the question, and I should much prefer to take the judgment of those courts than that of members of parliament, especially members whose knowledge of the subject, like my own, makes it impossible for them to come to a sound decision. I therefore propose to vote against the amendment of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown).


Robert Forke: Had my name not been attached to the bill I would not venture now to offer any remarks on this subject. It has been so well and ably debated by hon. members both in the committee and in the House that I do not think I could add anything that would be of any great service in helping hon. members to come to a proper conclusion in the matter. Before I go any further I want to pay a tribute to hon. gentlemen on the character of the debate which we have had in the House on this measure, and I also desire to acknowledge the great respect I have for the sincerity of those who are opposed to the union. When I consider the zeal and the earnestness with which my hon. friend (Mr. MacLaren) advocates the retention of his church I can assure him he has my sympathy and my respect; I do not know whether he wants my sympathy but at all events he has my respect.

United Church of Canada


Murray MacLaren: I should like to have
your co-operation.


Robert Forke: During the past few weeks,
ever since this matter has come before parliament, most hon. gentlemen have been in receipt of numerous letters both for and against the bill. As my name has been coupled with the bill I think possibly I have received as large a number of letters as any other hon. member in the House. All through these letters from those who are opposed to the bill, and more especially I think from the women, there has run the one refrain-why cannot we leave things as they are, seeing that we are doing all right under present conditions? That seems all right, but it is impossible to go back; you cannot turn the wheels of progress backward and begin things anew. This might have been possible twenty years ago, but it is not possible to-day. I agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Wilson) that there is a division in the Presbyterian church at the present time, and we have tried to settle the matter in the best way possible. I only hope that when the present situation has passed and when we have reached a decision there will be no hard feelings and that we shall each settle down to the work which is best calculated to advance the coming of the kingdom. But, let me emphasize, things cannot be left to drift; we have settled this question up to a certain point, and we must have it disposed of according to the dictates of justice.
In listening to the remarks of my hon. friend opposite (Mr. Cahill), I was struck with the difficulty which they must experience who are outside the bounds of these three churches in trying to understand the position in which the parties concerned find themselves to-day. Those who are familiar with the Presbyterian church and its doctrines and who have examined into the rights and wrongs of the case will no doubt conclude at least that the matter has gone through the different courts of the church in a regular manner. My hon. friend (Mr. Lewis) speaking this afternoon made a good argument to show why this decision had been reached by the Presbyterian General Assembly in a regular, constitutional way by the pursuit of Presbyterian procedure all through the various stages of the discussion until the question came to the supreme court of that church and was finally decided in favour of union. And this decision wa3 arrived at after years of consideration. Sometimes those who are opposed to union talk about taking a plebiscite. Well, one of the things that has surprised me during the debate-and I want to speak 236i
with all due caution and without hurting the feelings of any one-one of the things, I say, which has surprised me has been the fact that those who are opposing the union, the ultra Presbyterians as we may call them, are the very Presbyterians who are finding fault with the courts of their own church and the decision that has been arrived at. It seems strange to me that those Presbyterians who are willing to enter into a union with the other churches admit the constitutionality of their course while those who desire to retain the church as it is question the right of those courts to legislate in the interests of the Presbyterian body. A good many statements have been made regarding the delegates who attended the General Assembly, and any one who has followed the argument advanced by the hon. member for Swift Current this afternoon will be convinced I am sure that the personnel of that assembly had been changed year by year and that it was not the same people who were voting. Another point that has been emphasized is that the same members went back year after year. But, Mr. Chairman, what fact strikes us most in human history? Is it not the fact that the older people grow the more conservative they become and the more opposed they are to change in any direction? Are not the older people more opposed to change than the younger folk? Naturally one would have supposed that if the same people were going back year after year the older people in the Presbyterian church, the conservative element, would be most opposed to making the change.
I want to say just a word touching my experience in my early years. An hon. mem ber, I think my hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Duff), told us that he ate porridge in his youth and learned the Shorter Catechism. I can shake hands with the hon. member so far as that goes; I got the same sort of training, having been brought up in all the tenets and the doctrines of the church. My father was an elder of the church for over forty years, and there is not an hon. gentleman in this committee to whom the traditions and all the past history of the Presbyterian church are more dear than they are to myself. I can think of a little church at the foot of the Lammermoor hills in Scotland, the Free Church of Scotland, over the door of which there was an inscription telling that in the years gone by the minister had gone out from his church to gather with his congregation in the open air because they wanted to worship God as they saw fit.
These are some of the traditions of the Presbyterian church of which we are all proud. However, listening to the speech of the hon.
United Church nj Canada

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), I could not but be impressed by some of the remarks with relation to our experiences on the prairies. I admit, Mr. Chairman, that when I allowed my name to go on this hill as its sponsor I did not anticipate the strong opposition that it was going to meet with in this parliament. My experience had been that of the West, where I now r.ealize that the sentiment for union is very much stronger perhaps than in other parts of the Dominion. But what happened in the little village of Pipestone where my home is -may be interesting to hon. members. There we had a Methodist and a Presbyterian church, and during the war years the women met together to do war work, as all the women of Canada were then doing, working together patriotically for their country. From them came the first talk of union. They said: If we can work together for patriotic purposes, why cannot we unite on the great and wider field of religious tolerance and religious help. As a result a union of the two churches was brought about there.
We have denied the right, and I think every church has denied the right of the civil authority to interfere in any way with church polity or doctrine. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre that that is not a subject for this parliament to take into consideration, thajt the three churches came as three bodies seeking merely for power to carry on their business as a single corporation. Now to refer this matter to the courts will lead to religious chaos and political confusion. All over the country to-day we have hundreds of churches where Presbyterians have been worshipping with Methodists, and Methodists with Presbyterians, looking forward to the time when this union would be accomplished and so bring about that greater union to which they all earnestly look forward.


William Duff: My hon. friend said a few
minutes ago that there would be political confusion. How does he make that out?


Robert Forke: I think if this matter was
once settled all our political difficulties and religious confusion would disappear.


William Duff: I can understand religious
confusion, but where would political confusion come in? How is this a matter that can be dragged into politics?


Robert Forke: If the hon. member does
not want to drag it into politics, I am sure I do not.
[Mr. Forke.l


William Duff: You just mentioned it, you spoke of political confusion.


Robert Forke: That probably was not an apt term. I hope the matter will not enter into politics, and I believe it will not. I realize that those who took part in the Private Bills committee and heard all the arguments both for and against are in a much better position to discuss this bill than those of us who are only taking it up now on the floor of the House, but I want to refer to two or three points. A good deal has been said about the traditions of the church and how dear they are to us. There are some grand things in human history; no great man belongs to any particular country; no great and noble traditions can be claimed by any individual, corporation, church or country: "We are the heirs of all the ages." If the Presbyterian church were to pass out of existence to-morrow, its traditions which we admire so much would still be the heritage of those who follow us. We have a Presbyterian hymn book, and naturally we think it is the best. But look over its pages, and you will find that its most beautiful hymns were written by members of all churches-one by a Roman Catholic, another by a Unitarian, and so on. We sing the hymns of Methodists and of Lutherans, and they express our feelings in the very best way possible. We talk about our doctrines and our beliefs and what we are ready to sacrifice for them, but, Mr. Chairman, the great and broad principles of religion are pretty much the same. To do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your Maker: That is the basis of any religion.


Harold Putnam: Am I to understand that the hon. gentleman who is sponsor for this bill has no doubt in his mind that the General Assembly had power to seek this union?


Robert Forke: I have no doubt in the least, and I think I know something about the government of the Presbyterian church. The Blue Book of the Presbyterian church has been in my father's house ever since I remember the world. I think I know something about the government of the Presbyterian church, and I believe confidently that the General Assembly had full power to consummate this union.


Harold Putnam: But suppose the hon. gentleman had a doubt, and believed that the suggested legislation would supply the "missing link", would he then want the bill passed? Because that is my attitude at present.

United Church oj Canada


Robert Forke: If there was any doubt,
of course it would have to be settled. I have no doubt as to the power of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church to bring about this union. But I am perfectly convinced that to get this matter settled in the courts is not quite so simple as some people think. There is no question that the taking of this matter into the courts would lead to endless confusion and waste of time. If you read the bill carefully you will find that by certain manipulation court proceedings could be prolonged for years. But while the decision of the courts is pending what is going to happen to those union churches that are now functioning by hundreds and by thousands all over the prairies? Settlements by resort to the courts seems all right in theory, but in practice I claim it would be a failure.
I hope there is no bitterness in this controversy. I thoroughly respect those who are opposed to the union. I believe all are sincere and all are working for what they believe to be best for our common country.
But I would remind those who are
10	p m, opposed to the union that the history of Scotland has been a history of fighting for lost causes. It fought against political union with England years ago, and it lost, but that apparent defeat turned out to be a great victory. I have no hesitation in saying, Mr. Chairman, that even if those who are opposed to church union lose their cause, I believe that in the years to come they will realize that through defeat they won a great victory, in that eventually there will be one united protestant church in Canada.


William Duff: The hon. gentleman stated
that the history of Scotland is the history of fighting for lost causes. Is it not true that Scotland is still Scotland, and perhaps one of the greatest countries of the world9


Robert Forke: It is Scotland still, but it
is part of Great Britain. You will notice that the three churches will retain their identity in this union and that the Presbyterian church will still be the Presbyterian church inside the United Church of Canada, just as Scotland is still part of Great Britain. So I think my hon. friend's analogy breaks down.
Mr. DUFF.:	But is Scotland known as
Great Britain?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It is par*: of the British Empire, but still Scotland.


William Duff: Absolutely; and the Presbyterian church would be part of the protestant church but still the Presbyterian
church.


Robert Forke: Mr. Chairman, I have tried
to express why I believe in the union of the three churches into one united Protestant church in Canada. I am aware that it has been better argued from both sides than I could argue it. However, as a closing thought I want to say that I do believe good will come from this controversy. Some people have thought that there would be a schism among these great religious bodies of our country and that each one was going to suffer. I do not believe that is the case. I think the future will bring forth a renewed interest in religious life and that, union or no union, no harm will result from the steps that have been taken.


Mr. WILLIS KEITH BALDWIN (Stan-stead):: As I have listened to the discussion of this church union bill in the Private Bills committee and in this committee, I have thought that we should feel ourselves on consecrated ground. Indeed, the present circumstances are analogous, in a sense, to those surrounding the crucifixion of our Lord. His mental anguish in the Garden of Gethsemane was as great as His physical suffering when nailed upon the cross and when the spear entered His side. I believe the mental anguish of some hon. members has been great in listening to the discussion of this subject. We cannot forget the tens of thousands of people throughout Canada who have been hoping, waiting, and praying, for the uniting of these churches; that is something that we cannot treat lightly. I have been a church unionist for a long time. I was a church unionist long before the organic union of these three churches was discussed. The greatest sermon I ever heard on church union was in the city of Winnipeg nearly thirty years ago. It was the time of the great Silcox when you could not get into the Congregational church, when you could not get into the Methodist church, unless you got there long before the service started. I was invited to go to the Anglican cathedral. It was filled to overflowing, and had I not gone with friends I could not have entered. A young man stepped on to the platform dressed in tweed, who I believe is now Dr. Symonds, while the dignitaries round about wore their robes and surplices. Such a sermon for church unity I never heard. Through the mist of tears in my own eyes I could see the wet eyes of others, those who believed
United Church of Canada

in comradeship and fellowship, who believed there was one Saviour and one Heaven, if we could ever be so unspeakably happy as to get there.
We are laying the foundations of one of the greatest countries on earth, that is Canada, and this church union movement is something that will promote the unity of our people. More than two millions of people are awaiting the consummation of this proposal. Let me paint a picture from the country to the south of us and see if we are not on the eve of one of the greatest advance movements in the history of the world. In New England there are many places with six churches and four hundred people. There are places in Pennsylvania with sixteen churches and less than a thousand people. There are places in Colorado, Idaho and Montana, where hundreds of people are asking for religious services that cannot have them. They are amalgamating in New England by calling themselves Community churches.
I heard a man say that there could be no United church in this country, that it could not be worked out. Now, I am not here tonight for controversy; I have no desire to be harsh with those who differ from me. But I want to tell that man that in a certain place in California there was built within two years a large Congregational church, because some wealthy people settled there, a Methodist church and an Anglican church. Subsequently they closed the Methodist and the Anglican churches, and joined up. That is only one instance among thousands in that great country to the south. They have in Alaska twenty-six missionaries of different denominations ministering to 50,000 natives. There is tremendous overlapping, tremendous waste, and the result is that the young men of our country will not take up the greatest work in the world, that of the glorifying of God. If this House was filled with ministers of the Gospel to-night and I asked them what they were created for, they could not give a better answer than that we were created to glorify God.
Some one has said that there would be no economic advantage in the unity of the churches. But think what a blessing it would be to have these churches united all over the country, with one head and one management. People have thought that the Christians of the world could have saved the Great War with its loss of nine million people on the battlefield and with its thousands of people broken hearted. Let me point out that the United States are seeking to disarm their

churches so that (they will not be proselytizing and working one to snatch from the other. They believe in the disarming of the churches, just as there is a growing 'belief in the disarming of nations in the interests of peace.
Now, some things have been said here that would make a person's blood run cold. If an hon member spoke with any spiritual ardour it was said that he hurt the cause. We know that we are in a materialistic age, and we should take heed lest we forget. Let us remember the fall of the Roman Empire, of Tyre and Carthage, and Babylon, and the dark ages which followed. Some hon. gentlemen smile, but if we cannot talk to-night as we feel, then the whole thing is a farce, and our having the Speaker at the opening of the day's sitting supplicate the Throne of Grace to guide us in our daily deliberations is also a farce. It seems to me terrible if the churches cannot unite, because I believe that when these people can unite it is an evidence that all who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ can unite.
A matter such as this should be discussed in a conciliatory spirit. I have heard six different members who had been anti-unionists declare that they now believe in the union of these churches. God help the churches unless there is a real spirit of unity abroad. I cannot see how you can have real unity if you argue -against it. There is an amendment now before us to subordinate 'this parliament, the highest tribunal in the realm, to the Supreme Court of Ontario. So long as I occupy a seat in this House I shall never agree to a court of law overriding this legislative body. Notice has also been given of another amendment proposing to turn the question over to the Supreme Court of Canada for decision. I cannot see the wisdom of any such proposal as that. This movement is only the beginning of a united church in Canada. It is an exemplification of the spirit that is abroad throughout the world to-day. I ask -hon. members to take notice and mark how this movement will grow. The spirit of Christ will eventually predominate in the hearts of men to the same extent as thie waters stretch from continent to continent. May we all live to see the day when not only churches but nations will be united, when there shall be an international disarmament, in the real sense of the word and when race hatred and national hatred shall have passed away forever.


James Dew Chaplin: I did
not intend to take part in this debate but the rather unique position assumed by the

United Church of Canada
hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has brought me to my feet. He has told us that if the House passes the second reading of a bill it immediately adopts the principle of the measure. Let me read what Bourinot has to say on that point:
The second reading corresponds with the same stage in other bills, and in agreeing to it, the House affirms the general principle or expediency of the measure. There is, however, a distinction between the second reading of a public, and of a private bill, which should not be overlooked. A public bill being founded on reasons of state policy, the House, in agreeing to its second reading, accepts and affirms those reasons; but the expediency of a private bill, being mainly founded upon allegations of fact, which have not yet been proved, the House, in agreeing to its second reading, affirms the principle of the bill, conditionally, and subject to the proof of such allegations before the committee.
In respect to this particular bill the hon. member did not seem to be familiar either with what transpired in this House or in the committee. When the measure was introduced the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) spoke as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member agreed with me that there would be no discussion at this stage of the bill, on condition that I did not speak. The hon. member came across here and agreed with me' that there would be no discussion on the second reading.
After some passages between the hon. member for Brandon and the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) the hon. member for St. John and Albert (Mr. MaeLaren) spoke as follows:
There is a great deal to be said on this bill, but I consider it more suitable to have the diseussion at a later stage, and this is the reason I do not propose to discuss it just now, because as this is a private bill the second reading does not concede the principle of the bill.
One point I wish to mention is this:	I do not
think that there is objection to the incorporation of the United church, provided that the church is for those who wish to go into it, and provided further that those who do not so desire may remain in their mother churches.
In the face of this the hon. member for Vancouver Centre tells us that when the bill has passed its second reading we have adopted the principle of the measure and therefore, forsooth, cannot change it; we cannot change the preamble or the principle of the bill. Well, any change that has been made in the bill does not change the principle; it is practically only postponing the coming into effect of the measure until the courts have decided the legal questions involved. And yet my hon. friend comes in hurriedly from participation in a political contest in the West, immediately gets busy upon the bill, and proceeds to enlighten us as to what has been going on in the committee and in the House for many days. Of course, he is not troubled
with temerity on the subject of the church union bill. The hon. gentleman also made some remarks as to what happened in the Private Bills committee. I am rather surprised at what he said because I have been at the committee when bills of a commercial character were considered and were so cut up that when they emerged they did not in the slightest degree resemble their original character. Yet the hon. member says we cannot change the provisions of this particular bill; we cannot, as another hon. member suggests, lay our unholy hands upon it. Let me tell my hon. friend that while he has been absent from the House this matter has been discussed and we have absorbed some information in regard to it. Of course it may be that while he was away in the West, he, himself, obtained some information that he did not tell us about.
I have heard the remark made by hon. gentlemen around this House two or three times that the church majority should rule; they have argued that right from the beginning. Yet after this bill came to the House from the Private Bills committee it would seem they would not want a majority at all. I even doubt whether they want the wishes of a majority of hon. members here to prevail. The effort is being made here to upset something that the Private Bills committee have recommended after weeks and weeks of consideration.
There is only one more thing I wanted to draw attention to and that was in respect to the inquiry of the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill). I want to read a sentence from an argument that was used, because it is put in language much better than I could employ. I read first from the bill the following:
That the union has been formed by the free and independent action of the said churches through their governing bodies and in accordance with their respective constitutions.
And the reply of Mr. Lafleur was as follows:
Now my submission is that that declaration is not proved. Not only is it not proved, but I submit with deference that it has been actually disproved here. I do not profess to know what the constitutional powers of the Methodist and Congregational churches are. I am not concerned with that because there is an apparent unanimity on their part to join this United church. But what I do assert with confidence is that within the Presbyterian church there is no power given to the church court and to the highest of the church courts, the General Assembly to put an end to this church.
Mr, T. G. McBRIDE (Cariboo):	One or
two things have struck me very forcibly in the discussion in this House. One in particular is that hon. members who claim
United Church nj Canada

themselves to be Scotch fail to realize that they are now living in a civilized country and they seem to try to impress upon the House that they are responsible for establishing the Presbyterian Church in Canada. Allow me to tell them that they can claim no such credit as it was the Presbyterian Church of Ireland that established the Presbyterian Church in Canada. The Reverend James Murdock of the county of Donegal was the first permanently settled minister in Canada. His parish was the whole of the province of Nova Scotia. But the pioneer work of the Irish Presbyterian Church did not end in Nova Scotia; for while the Church of Scotland was hesitating and debating the advisability of undertaking missionary work in the far West, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland sent the Reverend John Hall, a licensed minister of Bailiborol, as a missionary to Vancouver Island, and to him is due the honour of planting the Presbyterian church west of the Rocky mountains. Not only so, but when the great rush of people left for the Yukon the call of the wild was heard for the Gospel, and again a member of fhe Irish Presbyterian Church was ready to answer the call. The Reverend Mr. Dickie, of Kildare, was the first to leave for the Klondike to carry the church work into that far north land.
Another matter I desire to draw to the attention of the committee has reference to the way this amendment was brought before the committee when the bill was under consideration. We had the bill before us for some three weeks. We had every opportunity to study it but this amendment was brought in, and inside of an hour after jt was submitted it was put to a vote. It has been said by the chairman that it was an understood thing that counsel should not be heard with regard to the amendment, but the fact remains that counsel were heard on every other item in the bill from start to finish, with the exception of the preamble. I had understood the counsel could be heard and asked for this but the chairman ruled that he would not allow counsel to be heard. I maintain that the committee did not have the opportunity to study the amendment that they should have had, and that it was forced through that committee without giving those in charge of the bill a fair chance to consider it.


Arthur John Lewis: In fairness to the chairman,
I think it ought to be stated that the committee decided against hearing counsel before he ruled that counsel should not be heard.


Mr. McBRIDE:: Can the hon. member
point that out in the evidence?


Mr. LEWTS:: I understood it was stated the other evening.


Thomas George McBride: In connection with
remarks which have been made that 75 per cent of the Presbyterians are opposed to church union-


James Dew Chaplin: The hon. member says
that the chairman was unfair in the committee in regard to the matter he was discussing. I object to that statement. The chairman is not here. The records will show an entirely different situation. If Mr. Mason had a certain time and was not allowed to speak, it was because of a pre-arrangement, and the records will show that. I want to correct the hon. member.


Thomas George McBride: I have no apology to
make for the statement I have already made. I state that in my opinion the amendment was rushed through the committee, and the proof of that is that it was carried in less than an hour after it was brought in by the hon. member for Lunenburg. It was read, handed to the chairman and read by him. What time did they give the committee to study that amendment? We had the bill before us under consideration for about three weeks.
It has been said by hon. members that 75 per cent of the people of the Presbyterian church are opposed to church union. I state here to-night that not one per cent that I know of, in the constituency that I represent, are opposed to church union. If any hon. gentleman will stand up in this House and say that 75 per cent of the Presbyterians are opposed to church union, that is enough to discount any evidence or anything else he may have to present to the House. He has no right to make such a statement. The action of the General Assembly has proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that that is not correct, and the vote taken proves the same. I do not think it is the business of this House to work contrary to the action of the General Assembly, the head of the church. I ask those who are opposed to this union and who favour the continuance of the Presbyterian church, what government they want in the church? Do they recognize the General Assembly as the head of the church? If they do not, what authority do they place at the head of the church? What other organization is there that has not a head? The General Assembly is the head of the church, and I think it is up to this parliament to vote down the amendment and pass this bill as originally introduced.

United, Church of Canada


Mr. T. H. McCONICA (Baittleford):: We have heard a good deal since this debate began about the rights of the minority and doing justice by the minority, and it comes from our Presbyterian brethren. I have perused with some care the rules and regulations governing the Presbyterian church, and I do not find that those rules and regulations recognize that there is such a thing as a minority. If the minority have rights they fail to show it in the regulations of the church. The rule of that church as that the majority govern, that I think is the rule in every Protestant church, and the rule is absolutely necessary to the continuance of any Protestant church. Otherwise, what have we? If the minority can impose its will upon the majority, what will be the result? Why, we may have half a dozen or a dozen minorities and each one will be ruling the roost. The only method by which a Protestant church can survive is for the majority to rule. When a man becomes a member of the Presbyterian church, he does so voluntarily. He does not acquire any property right in that organization. It is not like going into a business enterprise. The arrangement is purely voluntary on his part. He continues his membership and he retires when he sees fit. He is accepted if they see fit to take him. He is expelled if he does not behave himself according to the rules and regulations. The whole arrangement is an association at will. As I have said, he has no rights in the property. When he retires he takes none of it with him and, therefore, I say that he is merely there subject to the rules of that church. AVhen he joins he agrees to be subject to the rules of the church, and those rules provide that the majority shall rule in the election of officers and so forth.
The hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) is distressed because he cannot tell whether the proper procedure has been followed by the assembly of the Presbyterian church, and he, therefore, proposes to submit the matter to the courts. Let us go back of that a little. The hon. gentleman will find upon examining the records that two elections have been held and a very pronounced majority of those voting in both cases voted in favour of union.


Arthur Edward Ross: Why was the
second vote taken?


Thomas Henry McConica: Because there was some complaint about the first. That is all there is about it. When a man joins the Presbyterian church he has the right to vote upon matters of that kind. He can vote which way he chooses, or if he feels so disposed, he may stand aside and let others determine the question for him. He is under no obligation to
vote. He may feel that he is not competent to decide the proposition, or he may feel that he is not sufficiently interested to take the trouble to vote. But the point is that a very pronounced majority of those voting favoured the union. Whether that has been carried through in all respects regularly or not is not so important. What we want to know is: Did the Presbyterian church want the union? The vote taken upon two occasions, with ample opportunity for the members to exercise their right, shows that they did. Whether they exercised it or not, they acquiesced in it, and the union has been effected. The doctrines of the Presbyterian Church in Canada to-day are set forth in schedule A, and they will continue so to be, no matter whether this bill passes or not.
What is the proposition? We shall take this thing to the courts. They say:	There
is a serious division in the Presbyterian church. I am sorry to say that there is a good deal of division, and1 the longer this thing keeps up the more serious it will become. There is no question about that. P it goes to the courts, will that cure it? Supposing the court decides that the proceedings have been regular; that everything has been done in order, and ratifies the union, and some four or five years from now the union is perfected. Will that cure the wounds of hon. gentlemen who are complaining to-day? Certainly not. There will be a more serious division then than there is now. The sooner we get this thing consummated, the sooner we wind it up, the better it will be for the church, both the majority and the minority, in my opinion.
The hon. member (Mr. Wfilson) complained that one minister made fun of the doctrines of the Presbyterian church, and he is seriously distressed about that. If this union fails and that gentleman continues as a minister in the Presbyterian church, will that heal the wounds of the hon. member; or, will the situation not be just as serious if he continues as a Presbyterian minister as if he goes with the union? I do not think that is a thing that could be settled one way or the other by the result of this vote. This matter has been hanging fire for twenty years. Everything has gone along with due deliberation. The Presbyterian church has voted upon two different occasions, and the terms of union have been agreed upon. It has been ratified by the General Assembly; it has been referred back to the presbyteries and ratified by them. It is to-day the doctrines of the Presbyterian Church in Canada and it will continue to be so. What will be the result if we do not pass
United Church of Canada

this bill? We shall have the union. It will be a crippled, disordered affair; but it will be in existence, and when the courts have threshed the matter out, it will ultimately come to its full fruition.
But the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) is distressed about his constituents. He says that they are against union. That is quite probable. He says that they voted against union. I quite agree with him. But what of it? If this bill goes through, they will still be Presbyterians. They will still worship just as they have been worshipping. They will still have their church. They will carry on their affairs as they have in the past. And I suppose they will continue to elect him to parliament just the same as they have done in the past. It is the proper thing that they should do so. But if a resolution should be introduced there that the minority candidate should go to parliament, there would be trouble in Pictou.
No one goes into this union unless he seesj fit to do so. If they remain out, they keep their church; they keep their share of the general property; they go on as they have been doing. But one hon. gentleman says:	They cannot use the word
" in " in the name. The name must be the Presbyterian Church of Canada instead of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, and it is an international church. The Presbyterian church is international, but the Presbyterian Church in Canada is not international. It is a Canadian affair and it will be a Presbyterian Church in Canada whether the word " in " or the word " of " is used in connection with it. I hope that we can bring the matter to a decision now. Do not let us hang it up in the courts indefinitely because a church matter must be settled by the church. I seriously doubt whether any court will take cognizance of the proceedings that have gone on in the Presbyterian church looking to the consummation of the union.
Mr. LEON .1. LADNER (Vancouver South'): I do not propose to take up very much of the time of the committee.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. LADNER:: Hon. gentlemen say "hear, hear," but that is an easy and cheap way of shirking responsibility. This is not a matter that can be treated lightly, for it concerns nearly three million Canadian people who are adherents and members of the churches which are parties to this proposed union. In my own constituency there are a number of *these people and I am going to express what I consider to be their prevailing will in this 
regard. There is not the slightest doubt in 'the mind of any one who reads (the brilliant address delivered by Mr. Lafleur to the com-'mibtee that the main objections of that 'gentleman to the bill are of a legal and tech-'nical nature: the loss of the identity of the 'church, and the powers of parliament, are 'what concern him most. I think there comes a time when parliament, which is the lawmaker in the country, must function without too much restriction by consideration of the technicalities of the case.
' Some three million people concerned in these churches have been considering the question of church union for about twenty-two years, and during a considerable part of that time they have struggled to find a common ground of agreement on this question. We as members of parliament are asked now to face the responsibility of passing this legislation. What are we to do? Are we to express the prevailing will of the people who are concerned in the proposal, or shall we be impelled to a course of action by our own personal ideas and prejudices? We know that the Congregational and the Methodist churches and a large proportion of the Presbyterian body are desirous of having a union 'upon a certain basis. I think most members of the committee have heard much of the *evidence and have read the propaganda which has been circulated in this matter; they have also seen authoritative data and are 'consequently in a position to consider and determine the fundamentals of the question Ijust as well as the Private Bills committee Iwhich divided in -the proportion of 27 to 23 after a consideration of the whole subject. Borne hon. members say they will support ithe committee; that may seem the dignified thing to do. They say that -the committee heard the evidence and know more about it [DOT]than they do. No doubt the Private Bills committee heard the evidence, but apparently they were about evenly divided in their decision; and that is not the sort of verdict that will determine me in coming to my conclusion on .this question.
We know that in 1915 a general vote was taken-no doubt the figures have been put on Hansard-and a conclusion was reached at that time as to -the will of the communicants. I have here a paper containing the basis of union and all the essential facts relative to the events which would ensue upon a vote which should prove favourable to union. This document cites the basis of union which is now the basis of this bill. That vote was taken in 1915 and in an appendix there appears the following:

United, Church of Canada
When a basis of union has been agreed upon by the negotiating churches the union shall be consummated and the United church incorporated by special act of parliament of Canada.
So that due notice was given of the procedure which would be adopted. What happened? There was a popular vote in the Presbyterian church favourable to union. There was unanimity on the part of the Methodists and the Congregationalists, and pursuant to the vote an agreement was worked out satisfactory to the committee of each of the churches concerned. The action of these committees was endorsed time and again by the constituted authorities of the Presbyterian church, and from 1916 until the present time they have been considering the matter and now have reached a conclusion. A certain number, the minority, do not agree with the decision and they come to parliament and say that although the petitioners ask for union they should be handed a 'lawsuit; because that is what it amounts to. Not only that; the bill is so framed that if the courts should declare that there has been some irregularity in the procedure of the General Assembly, then the whole legislation falls and those interested in the union will be unable to-consummate their purpose without coming back to parliament again and going through the whole procedure which we have witnessed during the past few months.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Is it not true that litigation is pending at the present time and does the hon. member think that it would be fair for parliament to pass an act in such a way as to put out of court the other people who have begun action?


Leon Johnson Ladner: In my opinion the writ
is merely an excuse.


Gordon Crooks Wilson: That is not a fair statement and the hon. member should withdraw it.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I will not withdraw it.
That vote was taken, the agreement was arrived at during the war and there was a postponement of the controversy. At the next General Assembly following the close of the war the General Assembly met and pursued a course of action which was clear to all concerned. Why was that writ not issued in June of 1921 when it was known what was taking place? Why was it not issued in 1922 or 1923? Why did they wait until the last minute and then issue the writ and make it the basis of their opposition before the committee?


Murray MacLaren: If the hon. gentleman
will allow me I will try to answer his question. The General Assembly can repeal, or change, or modify the decisions of the previous year as much or as little as they see fit; and there was no final decision until the application was made to parliament. Therefore no action could be taken. I would ask my hon. friend as well as others to read the letter, which I read the other day, from the learned counsel in the case, giving a full statement of the matter.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Well, I submit that the
principles and the basis of the agreement were determined about 1916. And how can the General Assembly change an agreement to which three churches are parties? I never heard of such a legal doctrine as that before. When three bodies, be they corporate or not, come to an agreement and execute it, and actually form unions among three thousand churches throughout the Dominion, surely there can be no authority in the General Assembly to alter the agreement without the consent of all parties concerned.
I return again to the writ issued in this matter. Some of the opposition to this measure comes from my friends sitting near me, and perhaps they will be interested in giving a satisfactory explanation of this significant fact, that a man having the power of the courts in his hands, and knowing the course of events, knowing that legislation was going to be sought to carry the union into effect, waits until parliament sits before he takes this remedy which he believes he has. He had three years to think over it.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is it not a good
time for him to do so now?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Yes, but it does not carry the weight of a man who is really sincere in his motives. It reminds me of a man who fails to pay his notes for about five years, and then when he is sued comes back with a counterclaim which perhaps you never heard of before. I really think we must get beyond the technicalities of the law. Parliament is here to carry out, if it can, the prevailing will of the people, with due regard to the rights of the minorities concerned.


Gordon Crooks Wilson: Should litigation be the
first or the last resort in a case of this kind?


Leon Johnson Ladner: For my part I do not
think there khould be any litigation at all. There is no doubt that if these institutions are to be run in a practical and common sense way the democratic rule must be accepted-the rule of the majority, with fair treatment of the minority.
United Church oj Canada


Gordon Crooks Wilson: Was there not a majority
in the committee?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Not when the majority is
27 against 23, and about 14 members rushed in at the last minute who did not know much about what they were voting for.


Gordon Crooks Wilson: I draw the attention of
the committee to the fact that that statement is not correct.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I am afraid my hon.
friend is getting too serious about this.


Gordon Crooks Wilson: It is well to be serious and to stick to facts.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Mr. Chairman, my opinion regarding the vote is based upon information which I readily and willingly accept. I do not think I shall have any very serious dispute with my hon. friend as to that. The real objection to the proposal contained in this bill is to be found in the very able and brilliant legal address of Mr. Lafleur. He says that the church is losing its identity, and because of that the minority have a right to be heard. On the other hand, those urging the adoption of the measure contend that the identity of the church is not lost, that it is merged into a bigger organization in order that it may the better carry out the purpose for which it was founded. Mr. Lafleur also contends that it is beyond the power of parliament to enact certain legislation dealing with the question of property and of indemnity involved herein. That contention was answered conclusively by Mr. Tilley and by others to the effect that the bill proposes to deal only with property under the federal jurisdiction, so far as the federal powers apply, and with property under provincial jurisdiction so far as provincial powers apply. The argument of Mr. Lafleur is largely legal and technical, and I submit that the real point which concerns us as public men having the interests of all these people at heart is,-what the great majority of those interested in the churches concerned wish done. If there is fair and reasonable treatment of the minority, I think we must show the courage of our convictions and the sense of our responsibilities and make a conclusion of this matter before the controversy reaches a degree of bitterness that will bring neither respect nor good to the religious institutions of the country.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a word or two in reply to the remarks of my hon. friend who has just sat down (Mr. Ladner). He undertook to dispose of Mr. Lafleur's very learned argument before the committee by saying that it 
dealt entirely with technical points. I am sure that his description will not be borne out by any hon. gentleman who were present before the committee, nor by those who have read the printed address. Because my hon.
friend does not happen to belong to
11	p.m. any of the religious bodies which are affected by this bill, he assumes to take a detached view, but I would point out to him that one of the essential features of the whole controversy is that the Presbyterian church with its century-old traditions is held by its adherents and members in great respect and devotion. After the distinct undertaking given in the General Assembly during the war that nothing was to be done until after the war was over, to contend to-day that because a vote was taken nine years ago, parliament should assume that the opinion then expressed indicates the exact views of the men and women who compose that church to-day is, I submit, a very weak argument.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the minister take
into consideration the fact not only that the vote was taken but that pursuant to the vote an agreement was made in 1916?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If my hon.
friend will read the statement of the events in regard to this matter, submitted by me to the committee, from Rev. Dr. Gordon, former principal of Queen's university, he will find those events detailed with accuracy and he will be better informed in regard to what the real situation is. Suppose two companies with vast commercial interests had taken a vote nine years ago upon some question looking into the consolidation of their interests; would anybody seriously suggest that parliament could be expected, in view of the changes which have taken place in the business life of this country and of the other events that have occurred during the last nine years, to treat that expression of opinion as being the view of the shareholders of today? A great deal has been said about what the majority of the church said. There was a distinct resolution after the vote of 1915 by the assembly to the effect that nothing would be done on account of that vote.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Where is that resolution
to be found?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend will find it in a letter from Dr. Gordon that I quoted two nights ago. The assembly refused the request of those who wanted to maintain the Presbyterian church that another vote should be taken in order to determine what the views of the members and adherents

United Church of Canada
of the church are to-day on this question. There has been no means of ascertaining what the real opinion of the church is today. Much has been said on all sides about the majority being in favour of this action,, but there is no evidence that there is such a majority. If those who compose the assembly felt that the majority of the church were in favour of union, why should they not take a plebiscite as they did in 1915? It may be said they did not have to do so. but if they did not have to do so, why did they do it on two occasions before?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the minister say
that the constitution of the church is such that a popular vote is required?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend is getting away from the main point. The last vote was taken in 1915, and following that the assembly decided they would take no action. Since 1915 there has been no expression of opinion on the part of the members and adherents of the church upon this question.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Is it not a fact that those
opposed to union have stated even within the last year that if another vote was taken and that vote was in favour of union, they would not consider themselves bound by it?


John Livingstone Brown: And is it not true that
the responsible officers of the Presbyterian Church Association have taken that stand?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am not acquainted with the views of everybody who is opposed to action in this matter. I am simply arguing that it is not reasonable that an opinion expressed by a plebiscite in 1915 should be regarded as the opinion held by members and adherents of the church in 1924. At least 100,000 persons have come to manhood and womanhood and have joined the church since that time. Many changes have occurred as a result of the war, and I say that those who argue that a decision arrived at in 1915 is an indication of the view held at present is basing his argument upon very weak premises.


Leon Johnson Ladner: What would the minister say with regard to the agreement or arrangement arrived at by the three churches following that decision? What would he do with regard to that agreement? What would he do with respect to the action taken by these three churches on the strength of that agreement?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend is evading the point.
Mr. LADNER' I am asking a question based on pertinent fact. The minister always says I am evading the issue.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: At the
moment I am arguing that the assertion that a majority of the Presbyterian church is in favour of this legislation is not based upon any evidence. Those who are promoting this bill, the basis of which is supposed to be a spirit of true democracy, say that they come to parliament with legislation which has behind it the views of the majority of people. Why, then, did they not ask the people to express their views as they did in 1915?


Robert Alexander Hoey: How would you make provision for taking the vote of those who have actually effected a union of the churches in different parts of Canada during the last ten or fifteen years and who are neither Presbyterians nor Methodists?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The great mistake that has been made by those who are promoting this measure is the attempt to coerce the alleged minority. In Western Canada they tell me there has been co-operation, not so much union.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh yes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Well, under what statute?


Robert Forke: No statute, but it is a union all the same.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What is the basis of it? It is a question of the different churches agreeing to co-operate and have only one church in the locality concerned.


Robert Forke: That was never the basic idea. It was simply a question of getting together, of uniting while awaiting the consummation of the greater organic union that they were looking forward to.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Well, my
hon. friend misses the point that I make in that regard. I say that the action which has been taken was based upon mutual cooperation and understanding. If you have either co-operative churches or union churches in localities in the West, you have them by reason of the fact that men have respected each others views and have agreed to cooperate. The trouble with the measure now before us is this:	There came a time when
certain men who wished to dominate the whole situation, ignoring the views of an undoubtedly large number in the church who did not desire union and the decision of the assembly not to take steps to proceed
United Church uj Canada

to union-these people, without taking a . vote in 1923, as they did in 1915, without taking any intervening step to ascertain the views of the people of to-day, now come to parliament and ask parliament to coerce the minority and to take their rights away.


Murray MacLaren: Is it not a fact that
in the early stages when union was proposed it was agreed officially that in order to enter into union there should be practically unanimity?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend states what is actually correct. I read an extract from the minutes of the Assembly recorded in the very beginning of this discussion on union in which it was stated that it was universally recognized that a union of the churches to be real and lasting must carry with it the consent of the entire membership.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The minister has not ans-swered a question which I put. It is this: What would he do with respect to the arrangement or agreement made between these three churches following the vote and the action of the committee-not only the arrangement but the carrying of it out in many respects? Would he allow one of the churches to abrogate that agreement and back out of it?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What
occurred in the matter was that in 1917 the assembly agreed to suspend further action in connection with union until the year after the close of the war. Consequently, if any action was taken without going to the people the parties with whom tihey were dealing knew very well that such a course was adopted without obtaining the necessary expression of opinion from the people as to whether they were in favour of union or not.


Mr. D. A. MACKINNON (Queens, P.E.I.):: I was a member of the Private Bills committee which had this question before it for six weeks. The chairman of that committe in his address to the House expressed the conclusions of the committee in a very fair way, and I must say that in his conduct as chairman throughout the whole time the bill was under consideration he discharged his duties admirably and to the satisfaction of the entire membership. For my part however, I have come to the conclusion that we should not by legislation compel our brethren to go into the courts to have a matter like this decided. If we do that it seems to me that we demonstrate one of two things; i Mr. E. M. Macdonald.]
that we are incapable of deciding this matter ourselves, or that there is a danger of perpetuating strife. If we can avoid litigation I think there is a peaceful and prosperous future ahead of both the Presbyterian and the United churches. I believe it is not generally known that under the bill as first introduced Presbyterians were 'practically legislated into the union whether they are willing or not. None of us cared to see such a course as that adopted. Accordingly the clause was amended in such a manner that every Presbyterian congregation from sea to sea has the right and the privilege to vote itself into union or to continue Presbyterian as it wishes. The last speaker urged the importance of 'caving th:s matter to the votes of the people. Let me point out that the bill in its present form does leave it to the vote of every congregation in Canada to decide whether they shall or shall not join the union. That is the result of the amendment made to the tenth clause of the bill, and I consider that was the fairest thing that could be done. In this matter there has been a proposition to refer this matter to the Supreme court or to the Privy Council. Supposing that were done and a decision favourable to the minority was rendered; is it contemplated in that event that the minority shall hold all the property o' the church? Is that their position?


William Duff: That is not their position.
A fair division is proposed.


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: Is not that what the bill proposes? We have gone into that matter as a committee very carefully and I for one would not agree to any .proposition that did not extend fair treatment to all concerned. Personally I do not care for a reference to the courts on such a matter as this. Getting into litigation means the creation of enmities and not friendships. Recourse to litigation means the continuation of the present ferment. There may be a delay of six months or a year or more if the case goes to the Privy Council. Contention may have an attraction for some Scotchmen but it does not appeal to me, and I am as full of the Scottish spirit as any man. I am speaking here to fellow Canadians and I plead for the display of a broad and generous spirit. I think that those who do not come in under this bill will be treated generously and that is the right Canadian sentiment.
A great misunderstanding has arisen over the disposition of property. This legislation does not touch a church or a manse from ocean to ocean; that is a subject for the provincial

United Church of Canada
legislatures. What is dealt with here chiefly are the funds of the churches. To listen to some arguments that have been advanced one would imagine that these funds were the property of the minority, whereas they belong just as much to the majority of the General Assembly as they do to those who are opposing union; in fact the unionists have a greater right to a share of the funds when it comes to the question of division. These moneys certainly are not owned by the minority. As to the appointment of a commission what is the situation? The membership might have been chosen on the basis of five to one. But a fairer decision than that was made. Those in favour of union, said "We will only appoint three and the minority may appoint three. These six will choose the remaining three." What fairer arrangement, as between Presbyterians, could be arrived at.
I regret some of the remarks which have been made this evening with respect to some of the distinguished clergymen who have been here supporting church union. They have been working incessantly for a fine ideal, and they have not merited the criticism that has been passed with Tespect to them. They are men of vision, they look out and see the church of the future and they hope that their anticipations will be realized. But we shall not get very far along the path of progress in this country if we have strife where there should be unity, if we have discord where there should be peace. Only by working together in a spirit of amity and goodwill can we proceed in this country towards the goal of prosperity and success- Not by might or by power but by the spirit of conciliation and love may Canada be regenerated religiously, socially and nationally. Let us pass the bill and allow the Presbyterians and United churchmen to go forward to their duties courageously and with good cheer.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: My hon. friend has stated that the question at issue relates to church property. If the courts provide a true and impartial method of settling disputes, why do you fear the result of an action in the courts? Would it be fair for parliament to take a position that might be contrary to the decision that might be given in the courts?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals): I feel that I cannot conscientiously give a silent vote on this great question. To my mind we have been discussing a great deal to-day, matters that should have been discussed in the church
courts. We have been discussing the question of union and whether we are in favour of union or not. That is not the question before the House. That is a question to be decided by the church courts. There has been a division of opinion as to whether that has been decided by one of the churches or not. Again I say that is the business of that church; and we as a parliament have no right, though we can exercise the privilege, to trespass upon the ground of any of the churches that wish to become a party to this union. The questions to be decided by them within their own jurisdictions are the questions of union, and we are here as a parliament, not to say whether we are in favour of union or not, not to say whether union of the churches would be a good thing or not, but we are here to give a decision which means that we say to these churches, either "You can unite as you agreed to unite," or "You cannot unite"; because this union cannot take place without legislative sanction of this House, even though its provisions may be somewhat restricted.
Have the proper courts of these churches decided? In other words, have the courts of the churches formed by the members of the churches themselves given their decision? The question is not for parliament to decide whether the General Assembly represents the views of the people of the Presbyterian church or not. That is the church polity of the Presbyterian church. If the machinery that church has provided through which to express its views is imperfect, that is the misfortune of the Presbyterian church, and this parliament has nothing to do with it. There must be some head, some mouthpiece, if you care to use that expression, some court through which the Presbyterian church can legally express its opinion. What is it? The General Assembly of the Presbyterian church. This parliament has nothing to say about how it is formed. That is the prerogative of the membership of the Presbyterian church, and I say it in all kindness, if during the twenty years since this matter has been inaugurated and discussed the membership of the Presbyterian church has been satisfied to allow the General Assembly to remain the legal mouthpiece of that church, then we ought to take the expression of view and opinion of that mouthpiece as the expression of opinion of the Presbyterian church. I do not possibly see how we can do anything else, unless we propose to pass a bill to reorganize some of these churches. Take the Methodist church: it has its quarterly official boards. Then it has its districts with their district meetings. It has its annual confer-
United Church of Canada

ences, then its General Conference. If we are not to take the voice of the General Conference of the Methodist church, what voice are we to take as the voice of that church?


Robert Alexander Hoey: We cannot take any.


Mr. GRAHAM:: There is no voice and no court to which we can appeal for an opinion, if it be not the court set up by the members of the Methodist church itself. This parliament did not set up that court, it had no right to set it up; but within the jurisdiction of the Methodist church itself has been created a tribunal called the General Conference. That General Conference, in the name of the Methodist church of Canada as its official mouthpiece, said "We want to go into this union". Can we go behind that, even though a number of Methodists said they did not want to go in? It is for the churches themselves to reorganize their own organization and get a proper mouthpiece to express their views, if they have not got it at the present time. The Congregationalists have the same method to which I will not allude, because I am not as familiar with it.
We are in a very grave and responsible position to my mind.	We are not here
voting as unionists or anti-unionists, we are here to adhere to the prerogatives of parliament and not to encroach on the prerogatives of the churches. These churches have said, through the only organizations that we as a parliament know of; through the organizations that they have erected, constructed and maintained themselves from time immemorial, that they desire this union. We are here to ask ourselves, should vve allow these three great churches to carry out their own expressed wish, or are we as a parliament to interfere and place a barrier in the way to prevent those churches doing what they have asked us to allow them to do? If it had not been essential to have legislation here, these three churches would have been united, and we are only an incident in the machinery provided to allow this union to take place. I say it is a difficult situation. Perhaps I should not say that, but it is an important moment, not only in the history of the churches, but it is an important moment with reference to the constitution of our parliament and the definition of its rights. If we are going to take the position that we can legislate to encroach upon the rights which we in Canada have given to the various churches, and which is one of the bulwarks of our freedom in this country, then we are taking a new stand and we are taking the position that we have the right to create a state church in the Dominion of Canada.

I have not said whether I am in favour of union or not but I do maintain-and this is the only position I take-that as a member of parliament it is my duty, I believe, to respect the rights of the Presbyterian the Methodist and the Congregational bodies in this country, and they, through their courts instituted by themselves, have decided that it would be a good thing for the great cause which they represent that they should be united in their efforts instead of being divided. I believe I am doing my duty as a member of parliament by keeping myself aloof from the differences between the churches and saying to these churches:	I am prepared
to support you in carrying to a consummation through this bill, the objects for which for years you have striven, and which in your considered judgment are best for the churches and best for humanity.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the
vote is taken, may I say a word with respect to the attitude of the government and my own attitude on this important measure?
It is hardly necessary again to draw the attention of the committee to the circumstance that this bill is in no sense a government measure. It is a private bill introduced in this House by one of its most respected members, at the instance of the governing authorities of three great churches that have asked for the right to be united into one church. Prior to the present moment, only two members of the government have spoken, and each of them, I think, has spoken emphatically. They have not been on the same side in the controversy. When the division comes later in the evening, I have no doubt hon. members will see that the government itself is very much divided on this question. I should like to make this clear, because throughout the discussion of the last month it has come to roe that rumours were being circulated that 1 was taking a certain attitude and requesting members of my party to adopt likewise a similar attitude. At other times, rumours have come that my attitude being otherwise, the difference of view expressed by some members of the parly was due to that different attitude. I wish to make it perfectly clear, that in this matter, from the beginning of the discussion until this moment, I have not desired that any member of parliament and particularly any member on this side of this House should in this matter vote other than as his conscience and sense of duty and right impel him to vote. I cannot make it too clear that the government as a government is assuming no attitude in this matter.

United Church oj Canada
has no responsibility for the outcome; and tnat as I speak here to-night I am voicing my opinion only as one member of this House, and on this question I wish to express that opinion with the utmost humility.
May I say first of all that the bill having come to the House in the manner described too first question we are obliged to ask ourselves is:	Is the purpose one which commends itself to parliament? The object of union of churches, the incorporation of churches for the purpose of union, is a great purpose, and if incorporation is needed to give effect to that purpose, I think all hon. members will agree that in accordance with what is legal and right we should further that object in so far as it is possible for this parliament so to do.
We have next to ask ourselves the question: Has this parliament jurisdiction in this matter? And have the churches that are applying to this parliament for incorporation jurisdiction or power to consummate the union which they have asked this parliament to give effect to by the bill which is before us? Having considered these points, we have also to ask ourselves: Have the churches complied with their own constitutions and established procedure in the steps they have taken to effect union; and, in the bill which we have before us, has due regard been had for the interests of minorities that may be affected? As to the last question, whether the riglhts ofi minoritiesi have been safeguarded, we can deal with that when we come to the sections of the bill in reference thereto. I think it will be found that if in other particulars the bill is satisfactory, those who have had to do with the measure, have endeavoured to consider in a broad and generous way, the rights of minorities. As to the question of compliance with procedure in seeking union, as nearly as I can gather, there is pretty general agreement, that' the procedure so far as it relates to matters other than the power of the Presbyterian church to ask for union, or rather to form the union contemplated, has been regular and in accordance with the constitution and polity of the respective churches.
As to jurisdiction, it is important that the interested parties not less than parliament should understand clearly that, under the British North America Act, certain rights of exclusive jurisdiction are assigned to the provinces; others are assigned to the federal parliament. The well known section of the 237
British North America Act, section 92, under the heading of the exclusive powers of provincial legislatures, reads as follows:
In each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated, that is to say.
Then follows an enumeration of the classes of subjects and number 13 is "property and civil rights in the province." Therefore, this federal parliament has no power whatever to legislate in regard to any matters concerning property and civil rights within the different provinces. This bill necessarily concerns property and civil rights in many particulars, and I think it is important, we should make it perfectly clear, in any legislation that may be passed, albeit such a clause be but declaratory, that in the provisions of this measure, this parliament is not going beyond the scope of its jurisdiction in any particular. I have, as possibly hon. members may have noticed, drafted an amendment which I think will be sufficient to cover that point and which I believe the House will accept without question when we come to the later stages of the bill.
As to the one remaining point, the power of the churches to effect the consummation of union, from what I have heard and read of the committee's proceedings, from what I have gathered in communications that have come to me, not by tens or hundreds, but I might say almost by thousands from all parts of this country, and from what I have gathered from the discussion in this House during the course of this debate, I believe there are two extreme positions, neither of which is deserving of support. There is one extreme which maintains that, under no circumstances, under no conditions, should union of these three churches be permitted. There are those who as respects one of the churches concerned take the position that its constitution concerning principles is such that its members, those in authority, have not the right to effect a union with the other two churches. They say that that is a condition that cannot be changed. Let me be quite plain. That question has not arisen with respect to the Methodist church nor with respect to the Congregational church. It has arisen with respect to the Presbyterian church. There are some who take the position that the Presbyterian church, even by the will of the authorities duly constituted, has not the power to ask foi union, to form a union with the other two churches. Those who support that point of view seem for the most part to be unwilling to permit that question

United, Church of Canada

to be decided except in the courts, and as the result of litigation which, to appearances, might extend over a number of years.
Personally I have little sympathy with such a point of view. Personally, I do not see why it should not without litigation be possible to decide whether or not that power exists in the Presbyterian church. If such a power does not exist, I cannot see why, knowing the nature of the disability, unless it be of a character which commends itself to parliament, a means should not be found by parliament of speedily removing that disability. That is the reason why, having regard to what is customary in such references, much to my regret, I find it difficult, indeed impossible, to support the amendment which has been made to the original bill by the committee of this House to which it has been referred. That amendment provides that this question must be settled by carrying a particular case, which is in the courts at the present time, through the Supreme court and if need be, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and by mentioning the first of July, 1926 as a possible date at which parliament might deal with the question again suggests a period of litigation seemingly interminable. Who is there in this House this evening who can believe it to be in the interests either of church or state that a great religious controversy should be carried on in this country for the next three, four or five years? I think such a controversy would oe the greatest misfortune for our national life, and certainly a very grave misfortune, for the religious life of the churches concerned; and for my part I am not willing to support any proposed legislation which contemplates litigation over a term of years. I think the gentlemen who in the name of their churches asked us to enact this measure are right in the position they take in regard to the amendment suggested by the committee, not so much on the ground of principle, as on the matter of time and the amount of litigation involved in what it proposes. They say, "We came to you for legislation and you are giving us litigation." I do not think we should give litigation. I think we should find means of settling this controversial point without the necessity of prolonging controversy in the courts.
What is the other extreme position? At the other extreme you have a number of gentlemen who say, "We wish to have this union consummated, and we ask the parliament of Canada to consummate it whether

or not the Presbyterian church has the power to form a union with the other two churches." They ask us to use the might of parliament- because parliament, they contend, is all powerful-to consummate the union irrespective altogether of whether the Presbyterian church as at present constituted has the power to form such a union with the other churches. They ask us to compel the Presbyterian church to enter that union. Now, speaking again in all humility, may I say that such a method of proceeding does not appeal to me at any time; and it appeals to me less with respect to matters concerning the Christian religion and the Christian faith than in regard to anything else. My hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Raymond) last night, speaking in this House, said very truly and wisely that the more of power we have the more careful we should be in the manner in which we exercise it; and when I am asked to use the might of parliament, regardless altogether of whether the power does or does not exist in the Presbyterian church to unite with the other churches, to compel that great historic institution, while a large proportion of its following say and believe the church has not the power, to go into union with the two other bodies, I for one cannot see my way to support such a method of proceeding.
May I draw the attention of the House to this circumstance. The Presbyterian Church in Canada has suffered disruption through this controversy. Let us remember that this great church is split in twain; its membership is irrevocably divided; never again will there be in this country the one Prebyterian church which our fathers and our forefathers have known in this Dominion. We are standing at the parting of the ways and we can help to bind the wounds that have been inflicted in this process of disruption, or by our action to-night we can help to make more difficult for all time the position not only of those who stay out of the union but also of those who go in. It is a time for conciliation not coercion. There are hundreds and thousands of men and women- in the Presbyterian church who want to go into the union; but do they want to enter the union in virtue of a power which their church does not possess or concerning the possession of which there can be a shadow of doubt? Does the Methodist church, does the Congregational church, do the Presbyterians who desire union, wish to found their new church upon a doubt, not to use a stronger term? Is that to be the foundation for a great church propagating the teachings of Christ-a foundation of

United Church oj Canada
doubt? Or is it rather the desire and the aim of all who seek to carry out the teachings of the Master that whatever they do shall be done in a spirit of conciliation and goodwill and in a manner which, if such can be found, will remove all doubts whatsoever?
You ask me, how are these two extreme positions to be reconciled? That is the problem. I do not believe it is difficult of solution, certainly not in a Christian spirit; I believe the solution will be found in a practical application of the central tenet of the Christian religion, following what is known to us as the Golden Rule, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. I believe that the Methodist church in this country and the Congregational church both wish that rule to be observed; I believe that the Presbyterians are anxious to see it applied in this instance in a solution of this question. Personally it is the only rule I wish to be guided by in reaching a decision as to my attitude on this matter; and it is because I wish to govern my own thought and action in accordance with that rule that I regret that this afternoon the amendment which was proposed by my hon. friend from Skeena (Mr. Stork) was not permitted by common consent of the committee to be moved and to be put before us for the purposes of debate. I believe that the amendment which that hon. gentleman offered provides a way out, a way which should be satisfactory to all who really desire the consummation of union on a foundation that will be enduring and above criticism in any regard. What was his proposed amendment? It was that this bill should become law. He accepts the amendment of the hon. member for Lisgar that the bill should go into force in July of next year; he accepts that. But he adds one proviso, namely, that as respects the Presbyterian church the question of the power of that church - to unite with the others, which is the only matter in doubt, shall be settled by a reference by the Minister of Justice of a stated case to the Supreme court.


Mr. GOOD:: Who outside of the Presbyterian church can determine that power?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Members of
the Presbyterian church say to-day that there is a doubt as to whether that power exists; some of those who wish the union admit that there is that doubt. Those who are opposed to union say that their opposition is founded on that doubt, most of those who are asking for the union are as emphatic in their view that the Presbyterian church has the neces^ sary power as the opponents of union are in 237J
the view that with the church as constituted, it does not exist. If those who are favourable to union are confident in this 'belief, what is there for them to fear from a reference of that particular subject to any tribunal?


Robert Forke: In the event of the Presbyterian church going to the courts, and the 'courts deciding against the General Assembly having power to go into this union, we would (have two churches united. What would ,happen to the third?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad my (hon. friend has asked that question, for now [I know what is in his mind, and it is one of the points which if I can I should like to make clear.
The suggestion of the amendment-and it would have been my own suggestion to the committee had it not found its place in the Votes and Proceedings of yesterday- is that this House refer this particular question, which is the only matter in doubt, by means of a stated case to the Supreme court. That case can be submitted to the Supreme court and finally determined before the end of the present year. Assume it iis settled as the unionists say, or believe, that it will be settled; that it is determined jthat the Presbyterian church has the necessary power, then this entire bill becomes operative and no one, whether anti-unionist or unionist, can reasonably cherish ill-will towards his fellows as a result of the conclusion which has been reached. Some tribunal sooner or later has to decide the question, and if .parliament refers this matter to the Supreme court for decision, it is simply prescribing the method that by and large has to be taken .in all great controversies-that of ultimately .referring to arbitration disputes that cannot ,be otherwise settled. If you object to the Supreme court, for my part I wouid not .mind whether the tribunal was in the nature .of a specially constituted commission of judges or lawyers or any other class of persons to be agreed upon. As I have already said, if such a tribunal were to decide that the church has the power which is now in doubt, the legislation would become effective and the union would be consummated in a manner to which no one could take exception.
But suppose the tribunal were to decide that the church has not the requisite power, what then? It will have to give reasons for so deciding. We will then know, the church will then know, the country will then know, what those reasons are. Is it because of some doctrine fundamental or otherwise of the Presbyterian church that union is impossible?
United Church of Canada

Is it because of some rule of organization that union with other churches is impossible? We will know what it is, and knowing, parliament will be in a position to act. If it is a disability of a character that should be removed, all that has to be done is for Presbyterians who desire union to come to parliament and ask that such disability be removed. Does any hon. member of this House believe that if parliament were asked to remove a disability which did not commend itself to the judgment of parliament and which prevented a great church, after following its regular methods of procedure and complying with its duly constituted rules, from participating in a union with other churches, that parliament would refuse so to act?
I hold the view, Mr. Cha.rman, with respect to matters of church and state, that the church within its sphere has powers and jurisdiction just as complete with respect to its doctrine, polity and destiny as the state has with respect to its own constitution and destiny. I would never support interference by the state with the right of any church to determine its own destiny, to shape its own polity, to do what it wishes with respect to its own doctrine. I know there are many who will not agree with me in that, but I believe that this House would be prepared were it shown wherein the Presbyterian church cannot control its own destiny, shape its own polity, and do as it will with respect to its own doctrine, to come to its relief and unless the reasons to the contrary were unanswerable would give it the fullest powers possible, and do so in a manner which would remove altogether any possibility of further doubt in this regard. Then the Presbyterian church, under the legislation which is already on the statutes, would go into this union not in an atmosphere of doubt and uncertainty but as a matter of fully established and recognized right.
Now, have I answered the question which my hon. friend wishes to ask?


Robert Forke: I cannot say that it is answered satisfactorily. Provided the decision went against the Presbyterian church, then we would have the Methodist and Congregational churches united-something which was never intended by the church courts.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not?


Robert Forke: It would not be legal. They have no authority to enter into any engagement of that kind. Their engagement is for the uniting of all three churches, and the courts deciding against the Presbyterian church,

we would have to come back to parliament, and parliament would be still forcing upon us the very same thing we are objecting to tonight.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We would be in a very different position. What we are being asked to do to-night by those who wish church union under this legislation is to declare that that union shall be formed whether or not the Presbyterian church has power to enter into it.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We cannot get away from that. We are being asked to compel that union whether the Presbyterian church has the power to enter into it or not. Now, inside of two or three months we can settle whether or not the Presbyterian church has that power. If it is found that the
12	m. Presbyterian church has not that power, and the majority of its members want that power given to their church, and ask this parliament for it, I believe parliament will be prepared to give the necessary powers to form a union. Then the union can be formed in accordance with legal rights and be in every particular above doubt and suspicion.
With respect above all else to the foundations of a new and great church, it seems to me that we shall be serving the interests of all concerned, if we take care to see that the church is formed on a secure foundation, a foundation that is beyond any question of doubt, a foundation that can give rise to no questionings or misgivings on the part of its membership, or to recriminations on the part of those who have not become of its membership.
In conclusion, may I remind this House that next to the sacred association-


Leon Johnson Ladner: Before my right hon. friend concludes his address, may I present my question regarding a stated case? How is he going to prepare a stated case in which the facts are at issue and which involve questions of doctrine and origin? Stated cases are prepared when the questions at issue are readily agreed upon.	.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am informed on what I believe to be as good legal advice as one can obtain that it is possible to form and submit a stated case in this matter.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Who would do it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Under the
amendment which has been moved by the

United Church oj Canada
member for Skeena, the burden of having the case prepared would rest upon the Department of Justice, and I should be prepared to advocate that the government bear the total expense of having this particular matter settled in that way. What I am aiming at in the point of view I am suggesting to the committee is to find some way of quickly and effectively resolving any doubt. Having resolved the doubt one way or the other, union can then be made possible in a legal way and in a manner which will leave no room for criticism or heart burning after union has been effected.


William Findlay Maclean: Would that decision require subsequent legislation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the decision is in favour of the unionists, the legislation which we are passing now settles everything. If it goes the other way, then wrhat will be necessary will be for the duly constituted1 authorities of the Presbyterian church who feel they are being hampered in the matter of union through some disability that has been discovered, to come to parliament and ask that the disability be removed. Unless the disability prove of a character which parliament should not remove parliament may be expected to act favourably upon such a request and when parliament has removed the disability then they will come into the union, and the new church is formed in a regular and unimpeachable way.


Robert Alexander Hoey: The Prime Minister has
alluded to the necessity of referring a stated case to the Supreme court. There might be some doubt, he said, with respect ti the right of the Presbyterian church to change its doctrine and consummate union. Does he want us to take him seriously when he contends that the people of Canada would accept the judgment of a civil court in matters respecting doctrine?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the proposed reference to the Supreme court does not appeal to my hon. friend's judgment, I have already said that I should be glad to have suggested any other commission, any other tribunal, a commission of any character to be agreed upon, to which this question of doubt might be referred and settled. Let that body whatever it may be by deciding the nature of the disability give a decision which will guide parliament. Surely if we want to find a way out that will help to reconcile differences it can be found in that way
Next to the sacred associations of home, the most sacred associations in the lives of men -to some perhaps more sacred even than those of home itself-are the associations of the Christian church. This parliament cannot afford to be indifferent to the feelings entertained by hundreds of thousands of men and women throughout this country with respect to the attitude of parliament toward their church. At all times parliament has to be prepared to recognize great bodies of opinion. What about the group of hon. gentlemen opposite, led by the hon. member who introduced this bill (Mr. Forke)? They represent a great interest in this country, and we hear them continually speaking of the need of the nation, whilst legislating for others, to consider their special interests. What about my friends at the far end of the chamber opposite? They speak about the interests of labor, another class, another group. All through our national life we recognize that whether or not we see eye to eye with the different groups that go to make up this great nation, we are nevertheless bound to respect the feelings and the beliefs and the convictions of the great bodies who constitute minorities. In the Presbyterian church there is from one end of Canada to the other, a great body of earnest and God-fearing men and women who feel very deeply in this matter. They may be a majority, they may be a minority. If we can help, as I have said, to remove from their minds the feeling that their church is being torn asunder and substitute for it a feeling that whatever division is now inevitable is being made in accordance with what is reasonable and right and in accordance with the best traditions of parliament, then we will be rendering a great service not only to the parties interested in the consummation of this important union, but also to our country as a whole.


Arthur Meighen: The nature of the
question under review to-night is such as has never in my time been before parliament. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is only expressing appreciation of the real position when he says that there are wide differences of view, sunderings of sentiment, and that on both sides of a great controversy are ranged some of the very best people of our country. Of course we all inspect the views of those who differ from us, and we must carry that respect to even greater lengths and depths in relation to a question such as now agitates us all. I regret exceedingly that any words have been uttered
United Church of Canada

impugning the high motives or the personal conduct of any connected with either side of the controversy. For myself I am in disagreement with very many of the best friends I have. My inclinations lead me naturally to cling to the church with which my family for many generations has been associated. Personal ties bind me closely to those, both in this House and throughout the country, who seek earnestly, even passionately, to maintain in its present status the church of our fathers. But I must say very frankly that after the closest thought I have been able to give to the subject I find the line of reason leading me the other way. I feel bound to state, at once, so that there may be no misapprehension, that in my judgment the duty of parliament is to pass this bill and that parliament cannot usefully evade that duty by any amendment either such as is suggested by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Stork), supported by the Prime Minister, or that sponsored by the hon. member for Lunenberg (Mr. Duff), and now embodied in the bill.
This is one of those questions which require the most careful reasoning; where confusion of thought is not only possible, but almost inevitable; where men are easily driven from the straight path of logic by sentiments which are powerful and by passions which are deep. I do not claim to be in the least exempt from these influences myself; I only endeavour to dispel them to the best of my power and to get at what I feel we ought to do by as simple and careful a route as I can find. In what I say to-night I am not expressing my views with any idea of changin' those of others; indeed, so firm have convictions been rooted that I could not hope to do so. The most I aspire to accomplish is briefly and simply to lay down the considerations which guide me, in the hope that in the future, when the result of our action now shall be reaped in all its fruits, these reasons may be looked back upon as adequate and appropriate.
We have a bill before us 'the purpose of Much is, as I express it, to confirm the union of three great denominations of religion- the Presbyterian church, the Methodist church and the Congregational church. I find myself in agreement with the argument presented to-night in very clear and forcible form by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham). I do not think he fully explored the question, but to the extent that >he did I find myself unable to diverge from his line of thought. These three churches come to parliament, having expressed their will through those tribunals which alone

are empowered to express their will. Not only have they expressed it to us, but they have taken action upon it themselves. To the utmost of their power they have formed a union-indeed they have consummated the union-buit, as all agree, legislation is necessary because of the civil rights involved, because of properties over which in some cases the legislatures and in other cases the federal parliament have jurisdiction, and because of the necessity of bringing those properties and the corporations which control them into conformity with a new relation created by the union.
Those appealing for the legislation say: " The question of union or non-union is ours, it is not yours. It is a matter for the exercise of our rights within our spheres. All we call upon parliament to do is to consummate our action because of the necessity involved in the existence of these properties, and as well, because of the desirability of putting into corporate form the union so effected." The Minister of Railways argues that these bodies have expressed their will through their definitely constituted authorities, their courts. No one disputes that to the extent to which those courts could accomplish their end they have acted in proper form. That is to say, if we admit that they had power to do what they have done they have gone about it through the proper route; they have taken all the precautions; they have paid heed to all the safeguards, and expressed the will of their churches as best they could. They come to parliament then and claim that we have no right to deny them the consummation of the union which they themselves have effected.
It is contended on the other side that one of those churches, namely, the Presbyterian, has exceeded its powers in taking those steps essential to the union. It is curious enough to reflect that no such contention is levelled as respects either of the other denominations-the Methodist or the Congregational-and the reason given is because there is no dispute, no great division of opinion in those two denominations. But does that reason really dispose ol the question? If the power to unite did not exist in the one I, as yet, have never found any reason to conclude that it did exist in any of them. I have not found in what investigation I have made any possible disability affecting the Presbyterian church, which did not equally affect the Methodist and the Congregational church. If it appertained to one, it appertained to the others and merely because it has not been drawn

United Church of Canada
attention to by the supporters of those others would not prove that parliament should be troubled about the matter in the one case and utterly ignore it in the case of the rest.
In this discussion the general expression has been that this church-the Presbyterian church-has not had the power to take those steps necessary for union. I do not know whether those using this expression intend always to say that the General Assembly of the church did not have the power delegated from the church itself to take those steps. Usually those who argue on the question of power contend that the assembly never received from the church itself-I suppose the people of the church-the power to take the action which it did take. There is some difference between that and arguing that the people could not give to the assembly the power to take the action. Personally I am of the view that not only had the church the inherent power but that the church had delegated such power to the assembly. But as I proceed to discuss very briefly this point and buttress my opinion I ask hon. gentlemen to remember that I do not rest my support of the bill on the foundation of this opinion. Others may have just as good and as strong a feeling the other way. I will contend later that it does not matter which is correct, the bill cught to pass, but I do take the view that the church inherently has the power and, as well, that it has expressed the authority and created the court by which the power may be exercised.
What after all is this power of union? Does it consist in anything more or less than the power to change doctrine? I ask most earnestly hon. gentlemen to reflect on that sentence. Does the power to unite really embrace anything more than the power to alter doctrine, to modify doctrine? If the power to modify doctrine is conceded what is there between that and the power to unite with any other church holding the doctrine so modified? I say, once the church is conceded power to modify doctrine we have ended the discussion as far as the power of union is concerned.
Mr. MaeLAREN: May it not be that one can change a doctrine to a limited extent, not being a fundamental or a radical change? No one questions the right to make minor changes, but I ask the right hon. leader if he asserts that it is possible for every General Assembly to change fundamentally while there is a basis of doctrine that is accepted by the church?


Arthur Meighen: What is in the mind of
the hon. gentleman is not a question of the power of the church itself to change fundamentally but whether there is a power in the assembly to change fundamentally. I will discuss that, and while I know I cannot convince my hon. friend, whose views I respect profoundly, I will explain why I am convinced myself. I think the power to change is inherent in the church and that the assembly has the power delegated to it to express the will of the church in this regard, and that there is no limitation, as respects at least the subordinate standards of the church. I entirely dissent from the theory that there exists in the parliament of Canada, or in any court in this country, the right to say what is fundamental in doctrine and what is not. What in parliament would appear to one secular mind fundamental, would appear trifling to another. In a court of law it would be just the same. Those prerogatives are the prerogatives of the church. The church must have power to determine how and to what extent it exercises those prerogatives, a power unrestrained by any authority whether of parliament or of civil court.
The reason I contend that the power must be inherent is, first that it is impossible to suppress or direct the conduct of any church, in this respect. I put it in this way: if a churdh exercises the right, who is to say it nay? If a church exemnses it through the tribunal it creates to exercise it, who can say to such tribunal, nay? Who can dispute its power? It is said that in England the courts did so in 1994. The courts did not decide in England in 1904 that the church did not have the power. They decided that the church had not delegated to the assembly the power; because looking into the practices, records and precedents of the church, they found no case of its exercise, and no expression of its will such as would have empowered, the assembly. I am not going to argue whether, even on the ground stated by those judges, their decision was right or wrong. I have my opinion, but it is not pertinent whether they were right or wrong. The basis upon which the Lords of the Rrivy Council decided that there was not in the Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland the right to change its doctrine, is wholly absent in the case of the Presbyterian church in Canada. With all humility I express that opinion-because both textually and by precedent there has been evidence of the existence and of the exercise of such power throughout the history of the Canadian church. R is true that such exercise has been in cases where it could not very well be said-at leas: where I would not say-that there was any very fundamental or radical change. But 1

United Church of Canada
do not think this fact argues anything. I do not think indeed there is ever likely to be any very fundamental or radical change. The whole tradition, the constraint of tradition and the safeguards which tradition imposes, always protect a church against hasty or violent change. But if it wishes to	alter doctrine through	the
authority it creates for that purpose, thei there is no other authority to say it nay Consequently the church must have the power. The case decided in England in 1904 was decided on the conclusion of the judges, one and all, that, looking back at its practice and looking at the constitutional records of the Free Church, there was nothing to indicate that that church ever intended the General Assembly to exercise such a power. Looking into our practice and constitutional records in Canada, there is indication in both that euch intention has existed.
Referring to what is called the Blue Book, which is accepted certainly by the assembly, and I think we can say by the church, as constituting its code, sections 112 and 120, cannot be read in such a way as not to express both the inherent right of the church and the delegation of that right to the assembly, to restate or to alter doctrine. Section 112 contains the procedure for restating doctrine; but in the case of change section 120 applies, and provides an added safeguard ensuring tha: there cannot be, by the mere uncontrolled act of the assembly, a change of doctrine. There must be a reference back to the presbyteries, a series of bodies standing between the people and the assembly, and a confirmation of the change by a majority of these presbyteries, in order that it be effective. This safeguard is known as the Barrier Act. However, it does not really come into this argument. The point is that granted compliance with this Barrier Act whatever its terms, the authority to change exists.
Again I am confronted with the question, which I know is in the minds of many, was all this intended to apply to fundamental changes? I do not know where to draw the line, nor do I feel that we have any business to draw the line. It seems to me it is for the church to say what change is to be made great or small, and I feel that if parliament adopts any other principle we are launched upon a sea where the storms will be heavier and the dangers greater than those which surround us now.
_ I stated some moments ago that even were it true that the General Assembly in Canada was not so authorized-that is to say, even if 
it were arguable that our church, or rather the Presbyterian Assembly, does not, as it exists today, enjoy this power such a thing would mean only that the courts of Canada would decide as to the Presbyterian church, as the Lords of England decided as to the Free church. In this event it still seems to me it would be our duty to pass the bill. Why so? Let us look back over the history of the Free church case. As soon as it had been decided, a condition arose where the intervention of parliament became necessary. The condition was this: First that the church stripped of its membership to a very considerable degree, was deemed by parliament incapable of administering the trusts committed to it-I mean the trusts mainly of a property character- and the trustee being so incapable, the church having been forsaken by its members, save to the extent of a remnant, parliament was compelled to step in and take those trusts in large degree from that church, and repose (hem in another institution. Parliament as well by the same act of 1905 went on to declare that certain rights in relation to the alteration of doctrine were hereafter to be considered as existing in the Church of Scotland.
I do not need' to dwell on this act longer, but I come to the act of 1921. This was an act passed by the Imperial Llouse, which recited certain declaratory articles of faith of the Church of Scotland, declaratory articles which themselves affirmed the right of that church through its assembly to alter doctrine, and the parliament of Britain placed upon those articles the seal of legislation. The significance of this conduct of the British parliament is very great. It is very great when we remember the decision of the Lords in 1904. It shows that the parliament of England came to the conclusion that if, by reason of such judgment, there was imposed a restraint upon the power of the church through its assembly to alter its creed, such restraint should be removed; that it was not fit or right that the parliament of Britain should be in any position whereby it could superintend or censor alterations of doctrine made by the church itself.
Now let me at this point ask: Are we to go through any process, whether on the lines suggested by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) or on the lines now suggested by the Prime Minister, and as a result of one legal process or the other come after some length of time, to the conclusion, or rather have handed to us the conclusion of a court of law, that the Presbyterian Church of Canada through its assembly cannot alter doc-

United Church oj Canada
trine, as was the result in the case of the Free Church of Scotland? If so what then would be the attitude of parliament as respects the situation created? The Prime Minister says, "Well we could meet the situation Whatever it might be." I have to say immediately, our attitude necessarily towards any church in Canada in such circumstances would be the attitude which the British parliament took towards the Free Church of Scotland. If I have been entirely wrong in my contention as to what exists to-day and if the courts were to hold that the inherent right of change does not exist, could this parliament for a minute refuse an application from the Presbyterian church to be given that amplitude of power which became vested in 1921 in the Free Church of Scotland? I submit we could not. The Prime Minister brings in a condition that if a majority of the members of the church would come to us and ask for it, we would do it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not say a majority. I said if the constituted authorities of the church came and asked for it.


Arthur Meighen: I am really very anxious
not to get into a controversy with the Prime Minister over this.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my right hon. friend take my word for it at the moment, that that is what I meant?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly. I notice he
said the majority-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Keep up the
controversy.


Arthur Meighen: I am most anxious to
avoid a controversy only I noted it and I thought it was wrong. When the Prime Minister says "the authorities", I agree with him. If the recognized authorities of the church come and ask for it, we would do it. Very well, the recognized authorities of the Presbyterian church are now right at the doors of this parliament asking that we do this very thing. So I say, why throw the church into litigation even though we pay the costs of the litigation? Why prolong this controversy if it is bound to end after years of turmoil where it will end if we pass this legislation now? Why prolong the whole thing through tedious months or years, whether it be done by the litigation proposed by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Stork) or that proposed by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff)?
Let me, before I pass the subject, impress upon the committee, if I can, again, the
absolute necessity of our presuming from the beginning that we must concede to the church, whether it exists to-day or whether it does not, the full and unrestrained right to alter its creed. How are we to take a position which says to a church:	Bound as you are
by a regimen of doctrine, you must remain there no matter what your own courts may feel to be right in the light of advancing years. Though you, through your constituted courts, decide that you desire to modify this or modify that, you cannot do so. If you so alter, you are violating trusts, you are diverting to the teaching of other doctrines moneys or property committed to you for the propagation of the doctrine of your fathers. I am referring now particularly to the argument of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler). Can we possibly assume for a day that sort of censorship over any church? Can we say to* a church: Though your majority desire a modification of doctrine, you cannot make such modification because it is diverting trust funds which you possess? If we say such thing we merely condemn that church to drift lifelessly on the reefs of time while its children abandon its altar and its creed. A majority goes first and then a majority of the remnant goes, until finally the church is left a shell. In this unhappy predicament we a parliament would be compelled, as was the parliament of Great Britain in the case of the Free Church, to invade the empty temple, disrobe the stranded church of its trusts and allocate them somewhere else. This course is the only alternative to conceding to every denomination its full right to alter doctrine and to have its trusts follow the destiny of the church itself. Between these ;wo courses will hon. gentlemen reflect which they would prefer to pursue-to hold the church within a strict regimen, the rigid restraints of any statement of doctrine which it had years before accepted and say that we must do such a thing because of trusts which that church has had under its care; or to hold that the church itself shall be the author and master of its creed and that its trusts will follow the destiny of the church? It is the latter course which I choose myself and that course I commend earnestly to parliament to-night.
I come now to the two amendments. I would prefer to oppose this bill direct, rather than to vote for either of the amendments suggested. I think it would be a more sensible treatment of those who come before this House. The amendment which is now part of the bill and which was inserted on motion of the hon. member for Lunenburg
United Church of Canada

provides that, in respect of certain litigation now launched in Ontario, any legislation which we pass shall not take effect until, as a consequence of this litigation, the courts finally declare that the assembly had power to enter into union upon the Basis of Union and the Appendix on Law. I take exception for this reason, that even if the defendants succeed, succeed right to the last court of appeal, there is no reason to be certain at all that there will be any judgment of the court on that question, yes or no. I call attention to the fact that this action is an action not between the General Assembly and the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are not suing the General Assembly. They are suing a committee of the General Assembly, and the committee takes the ground in its defence that the pleading is not properly based, and does not constitute a cause of action at all. If the committee win on this ground, then of course there is no decision of the court as to what were the assembly's powers. In this event we would have the church committee winning against the plaintiffs and still no possibility of the legislation going into effect. The committee might win its case on almost any other ground but inasmuch as the assembly is not a party to the action at all, it is very doubtful if the courts would give any judgment as to what the powers of the assembly were.
Moreover, I think that these plaintiffs should have moved sooner and not waited until the eve of the opening of parliament. I think they were in a position to launch their action two years ago. It is true that they could give certain reasons for not doing so, for example, that they did not know the exact terms of this bill. But they knew all those things to which chiefly they take objection in the litigation. They knew that the church was negotiating for union on the Basis of Union and the Appendix on Law. Against this they direct their fundamental objection. They could have launched their litigation at that time, and their litigation then would have been on just as strong a footing as it can possibly be on to-day. Next, when they did commence about the middle of January, 1924, they asked for an injunction to restrain further proceedings towards securing the legislation. But we are now nearly four months in this session and there has been no application, no motion for an interlocutory injunction although such a step would have been the only way to take practical action to get the restraint. Application for interlocutory injunction was open to them, but they let the time go by and were content to hold the sword of
fMr. Meighen.]
litigation over this parliament. There is the further fact that the plaintiffs could absolutely defeat this law by simply dropping the action. For these reasons, I do not think we should be asked to abide the event of this lawsuit.
But again I emphasize: Above and beyond these arguments there stands the great dominating truth that no matter what the result of litigation, unless we are prepared to allow a condition to remain where a church is denied the right to change its doctrine, for that right alone is involved in the question of union, we would be certain to find ourselves back in just the position we are in to-day where we would be asked and bound to decide in the affirmative what we are asked to decide in the affirmative in this bill. I therefore look upon the amendment now under review as an evasion.
The Prime Minister has another motion pending	on the order paper to the
affect that this bill shall take effect only to the extent of the powers of parliament. Well, whether such motion passes or not I really do not care, because the result is exactly the same in either event; no bill takes effect beyond the powers of parliament. Parliament cannot do any more than it can do; so why inject mere surplusage into the body of this legislation?
Now, I want to discuss briefly the amendment suggested to-day,-though it is not technically before the House.-by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Stork), an amendment to which the Prime Minister to-night gave his unqualified endorsement. I think this amendment is even more objectionable than the one embodied in the bill; and I am at -this advantage in discussing it, that its fatal features have been recognized already in the questions put by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) and by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke). Let me read this amendment so that there be no question in the mind of any hon. member as to its words. The motion is that there be added to the amendment of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) these words:
Provided that as respects the Presbyterian Church in Canada, the provisions of this act shall apply only when all doubt has been removed as to the power of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, under its constitution and rules, to agree to a union of the Presbyterian Church in Canada with the Methodist and Congregational churches upon the basis of union as set out in schedule A of this act; provided, further, that this question shall be submitted for decision to the Supreme Court of Canada by a reference by the Minister of Justice.
My objections to this amendment are these: If the "stated case," as this is described by the Prime Minister, is made and the courts

United Church oj Canada
hold that there is no jurisdiction, what results? We have then a union effected by this parliament of the Methodist and Congregational churches, alone, a union which neither of them made at all and which neither of them wants, a union forced upon them against the expressed will of the recognized authorities of both churches. Does anyone dispute that this will be the outcome? Undoubtedly it will. Parliament has no right to do such a thing; and I venture to say that no hon. member comprehending the full meaning of this amendment will be likely to give it support. I come also to the objection suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver South. I do not know who has advised the Prime Minister, and I do not want to pose as a great constitutional lawyer; but I say that this clearly is not a matter for a "stated case." There would be no difficulty in framing a " question " for the Supreme Court of Canada. This question could be put: "Had the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church power to negotiate for or to effect a union upon the terms of the Basis of Union and the Appendix on Law? The framing of this question would be simple and thus it could be put to the Supreme court. But that is not a stated case; a stated case involves the setting out of admitted facts. You cannot set out such facts because they are not admitted. On the other hand if you put the bald question-not a stated case at all, which is really intended by this amendment and what the Prime Minister himself has in mind-if you just put the bald question to the court, what is the court going to do about it? The court then has to get down and ascertain what are the facts upon which its judgment is to be based. These are in dispute, and there at once you have a law-suit. This subject I repeat is not appropriate for a stated case at all. One side will affirm, " Here is the Blue Book; this is the recognized authority, the discipline and law of the Presbj'terian church. Read what it says." The other side will say, " No, this Blue Book does not represent the law and the prophets of the Presbyterian church." Which side is right? The resultant is really a law-suit; it is not a stated case for the decision of the Supreme court. No matter how you go about to settle this matter in the courts, it is a law-suit, where the facts are in controversy and where you have two sides arranged in battle array against each other. Throughout all this controversy you will have two opposite contentions; you travel far over a long and stony road; you start in the
Supreme court and you land at length in the Privy Council before the law lords there.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Where does my right hon. friend get that opinion?


Arthur Meighen: I so interpret the suggested amendment, although the Prime Minister may interpret it differently:
Provided that as respects the Presbyterian Church in Canada, the provisions of this act shall apply only when all doubt has been removed as to the power of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada.
You do not remove "all doubt" on such a point until you have persevered to the last court. This is my interpretation of these words. The Prime Minister may have intended to stop at the Supreme Court of Canada but I do not think such is the legal effect of the amendment offered by the hon. member for Skeena.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would wish
to have it so worded at any rate.


Arthur Meighen: Even so, it would only
mean that the path to be traversed would be a little shorter. It would be dangerous and expensive and finally inconclusive. For as a final word let me say that the end of the road in any event is exactly the end of the road indicated by the hon. member for Lunenburg. We land at the end of the one exactly where we do if we take the other course. If therefore as the final episode of either the one journey or the other the court finds that the power of the General Assembly does not exist; does any one fancy that the church will not return to parliament for that power? Does any one fancy that any church will be content to live under such a conscious disability? Will any church recognize the smallest assertion of authority in parliament as respects its own doctrine? No. Therefore why delay?-I had almost said why evade, but I wish to avoid every term that savours of offence. Why not rather face the real situation and end this matter now? Why not do now what undoubtedly in any event we will later on have to do, even according to the words of the Prime Minister himself, after months or years of confusion and estrangement, after all this litigation has been suffered and all this agony endured? I ask hon. members to consider the reasons I have advanced and to give them such weight as they feel to be their merit.
* Mr. STORK: Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I moved an amendment which you declared to 'be out of order but which you stated would
Resignation of Mr. Porter

be in order "to-morrow". As this is to-morrow, if I may put it that way, I move that the amendment be now considered.


George Newcombe Gordon: With regard to the
point of order raised by the hon. member for Skerna (Mr. Stork), I did say that the amendment which he submitted earlier in the day would be in order "to-morrow." "Tomorrow" has not yet arrived, however, inasmuch as the present day lasts until the sitting is concluded, I regret therefore that I must rule the amendment still out of order.
Amendment (Mr. Brown) agreed to. Yeas, 110; Nays, 58.
Section 2 as amended, agreed to.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Mr. Chairman, the hour
is very late and I would suggest that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That private bills be the first order of the day at the next sitting of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 1 a.m. (Friday).
Friday, June 27, 1924