1924-06-24

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of Mr. Lapierre be substituted for that of Mr. Bourassa on the select standing committee on Public Accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 199 (from the Senate), to incorporate Shantung Christian University.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 200 (from the Senate), for the relief of Florence Castle.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 201 (from the Senate), for the relief of Frances Hadenka.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 202 (from the Senate), for the relief of Louise Powell.-Sir Henry Drayton.
Bill No. 203 (from the Senate), for the relief of Margaret Johnston.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 204 (from the Senate), for the relief of Hilda Girdler.-Mr. Harris.
Postal Employees

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of again directing the attention of the government to the postal strike at Toronto, where the situation is most desperate. Mountains of mail are piled up. Great difficulty is being experienced by the banks in the clearing of cheques by mail. Cheques for accounts are held up, mail order departments are without work, business is stagnant and at a standstill. The people are lined up for hours five or six feet deep but cannot get near their mail. The situation is so acute that I feel I would be quite justified in again moving the adjournment of the House to discuss the matter. I do not propose, however, to do that, but I want to direct the attention of the Acting Postmaster General (Mr. Stewart) to the matter to see if something cannot be done-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. member should be satisfied to put the question.


Thomas Langton Church: If I may be permitted,
Mr. Speaker, I would like to complete my question. Now, the situation is so desperate-*


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member is
simply making a comment. Will he put his question?
Mr. CHURCH; What is being done to move the mails? The people of Toronto cannot stand this for twenty-four hours longer. What conciliation has been or will be used in the matter?
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil). (Acting Postmaster General):	I think my
hon. friend is unduly exercised. The despatch mail is all moving in Toronto. There is no delivery of mail, but mail is prepared and delivered to the business houses and banking institutions. It is quite true that for two or three days cheques mailed could not reach their destinations, but that matter is cleared up to-day.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: I rise to a point of order. I contend that under the rules of debate on the orders of the day that is not an answer to the question I asked. I say this is a matter of most urgent public importance to the city I represent. The service is intolerable. No conciliation has been used. Will the minister not give us some more definite statement than he has just given? That is simply the reply he gave the other day.
fMr. Mackenzie King.]


Hewitt Bostock: The point of order is not well taken.



WITHHOLDING ASSENT TO PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) if any correspondence, official or otherwise, has been received from the government of Prince Edward Island or the Lieutenant Governor of that province relating to the Lieutenant Governor withholding his assent to any legislation passed by the Legislature of Prince Edward Island during the session of 1924, and if such has been received will the hon. Minister of Justice please lay on the Table a copy of the correspondence, orders in council if any, or any other documents relating thereto?


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: The refusal of the Lieutenant
Governor of Prince Edward Island to give his assent to a bill which had been passed by the legislature of that province-or rather, to speak more accurately, his withholding his assent to that bill-was referred a few weeks ago to the Department of Justice. The Minister of Justice has made a recommendation to the Governor in Council in that regard and I believe an order in council has been passed which has been transmitted to the Lieutenant Governor and to the government of Prince Edward Island. I shall be pleased to give instructions that all the documents referring to that matter be laid on the Table.
INTER-ALLIED CONFERENCE ON DAWES REPORT On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. HENRY SPENCER (Battle River):: I would like to ask the government if a communication has been received from Mr. Ramsay MacDonald with reference to the inter-allied conference to be called in London during July to consider and give effect to the Dawes report. Is it the intention of the government to send representation? And when will the Prime Minister give the House an opportunity of discussing the subject?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I saw by the press this
morning that Mr. MacDonald had intimated that the British government were in communication with the government of Canada with respect to the inter-allied conference, and I have no doubt that a communication will be received in due course. Up to the present

United Church oj Canada
time, however, the government has received no communication from the British government with reference to this conference.



UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 47, to incorporate The United Church of Canada.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 2-Date of coming into force subject to decision in pending action and reference to Supreme Court.
Mr. J. F. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Chairman, it is my desire to move in connection with this clause an amendment which will have for its purpose the striking out of the clause and the substitution of another.
This is one of the most important bills that have ever been before the parliament of Canada; and for this reason, that perhaps a greater number of people in the Dominion of Canada are interested in this bill than have ever been interested in any other-certainly any other private bill-that has been before the House. This bill has for its purpose the consummation of the union that was agreed upon by three negotiating bodies of Christians, known as the Presbyterian Church in Canada, the Methodist Church of Canada, and the Congregational Churches of Canada. This bill passed through the Private Bills committee, and in the course of its progress through that committee certain amendments were made to it which alter the bill very materially, and which are considered by the promoters to change in very large measure its effect.
Before entering upon a discussion of these amendments which now appear in the reprinted copy of the bill-a slight change in the preamble, together with the amended clause which now appears as clause 2-let me indicate what I think should be the guiding principles of this committee in approaching the subject, and what the attitude of parliament should be in connection with this bill. It is not the function of parliament to decide upon questions of doctrine or church polity. Unfortunately, during the discussion before the Privat; Bills committee, perhaps because there was some little mistake in the wording of the original bill, and because some of those opposing the bill introduced these matters in connection with their opposition, the discussion for a time did centre around questions of doctrine. In my judgment, these things should never have been considered at all. While there was a little misunderstanding in regard to the bill as first
drafted, it is now made quite clear that in the request that the basis of union be ratified as such, there is no thought that parliament should ratify this or any other form of doctrine or belief. Nowhere in the British Empire, neither in the Motherland nor in any of the great self-governing dominions, will it be seriously contended that the civil power has any right to dictate to men the religious beliefs they shall hold or the manner in which they shall give expression to their thoughts and aspirations in things spiritual.
I have been frequently asked why it is necessary to get power from parliament in order to consummate church unioq. The fact that such a question should be asked indicates the deep-rooted conviction that matters of faith and worship lie outside the jurisdiction of the civil power, and woe to that government or parliament that shall attempt to lay unholy hands on the Ark of the Covenant. What then is the purpose of this measure? It is not to define our creeds. Is it, then, to define our polity, the manner in which the church shall carry on its affairs? No. It simply asks that Methodists, Congregationalism and Presbyterians shall be given legal sanction to administer their affairs according to the terms that have been mutually agreed upon. In coming to a decision as to whether this sanction should be given, members of parliament, as such, have a right, in my judgment, to ask only two questions. Members of parliament should approach this question as members of parliament. We are here, not as individual members of any of the negotiating churches, not to give expression to our individual views; we had that opportunity when the matter was before our various churches. We are here now as members of parliament to decide whether this legal sanction shall be given; and I say that in my judgment we should ask two questions, and two only: First, has each one of the contracting parties, in the various steps that have been taken in arriving at the conclusion that organic union with the other two as desirable, followed the course that best harmonizes with its constitution and accepted method of procedure? Second, does this bill make a proper provision for the rights of minorities who may not desire to enter into the union?
I shall not discuss that second question at this time, because that will come up as we discuss the various clauses of the bill, but I would just like to make this general assertion at this time:	That never before in the history of the various unions that have taken place has such generous provision been made

United Church of Canada
for tlie rights of minorities. Having satisfied ourselves that the correct procedure has in all cases been followed and that minority rights have been properly protected, parliament in my judgment has nothing else to do but to pass this legislation. To do otherwise would be to arrogate to itself functions it does not possess.
In considering the question of the procedure that has been followed it must be borne in miind that it is not necessary that all the churches should have followed the same lines. Congregational procedure would, of necessity, differ from Methodist procedure, and Presbyterian procedure would differ from both. Perhaps I might indicate briefly just what these differences in procedure are. Under Congregational polity, which recognizes each local church as a self-contained and self-governing unit, the only way by which these units could enter into a union was by each local church voting itself in. That was recognized from the very beginning. There was no central body made up of delegates or representatives of these local bodies that had any authority except to carry out the instructions given by the local churches. It is true that the Congregational Union of Canada on more than one occasion voted for union with the Methodists and Presbyterians, but that carried no authority; it was simply an expression of opinion by the delegates from .the local churches that this union was desirable. I mention this matter because it has an important bearing on the question whether the proper procedure was observed by the other negotiating churches. The 'Methodist chinch is a well organized body under representative government. The authority derived in the first place from the people and vested in various church courts known as quarterly boards, district meetings, conferences and the General Conference. Thus when the General Conference of the Methodist church votes in favour of union it is representing a decision that has been arrived at progressively through the lower courts of the church. Under the Methodist system it is inconceivable that any local Methodist circuit should have power to vote itself out of the union, except as a matter of grace after union had been accomplished. To take any other course would be to do violence to what has always been the genius of the Methodist system.
The procedure provided by the Presbyterian church is similar to that of the Methodist church, except that in the case of the Presbyterian church there is an additional safeguard against hasty action provided by the Barrier Act. Under the operation of this act a decision

arrived at by the assembly does not become binding upon the church until the matter has been again passed upon by the presbyteries. It must be clearly kept in mind that in the Presbyterian system there is no provision for a plebiscite of the membership before submission to the church courts, or for a referendum after the matter has been passed upon by these courts. True, a vote of the members and adherents was taken, but this had no constitutional effect, and was solely for the purpose of enabling the presbyteries to arrive at a decision as to whether or not union was desirable.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to enter into a discussion as to the relative merits of these different methods of procedure. It would be expected that, as a Congrega-tionalist, I would be in favour of the congregational system. But that is neither here nor there. I would have no right at this time, and I think the House would have no right, to dictate to any church the method by which it shall arrive at its decision. My only concern, and I think the only concern of this House, should be as to whether each one of the negotiating bodies followed its own method of procedure.
Let me now proceed to answer the question: Has each church observed the proper procedure in arriving at its decision? There can be no question as regards the Congregational church. It is true, there are individual churches, one or two, that have not voted to come into the union; but the great majority of the united membership have voted in favour, as also the great majority of the individual churches. There can be no question then but that the procedure is in harmony with the Congregational system; neither can there be any question as to the procedure followed by the Methodist church; and neither in the case of the Congregational nor of the Methodist church is there any organized opposition to the consummation of the union I hrough the bill that is now before parliament. But it is different in the case of the Presbyterian church. From the very beginning of this movement looking towards church union there has been in that church a very considerable element that has been opposed to such steps being taken, and this element is to-day offering opposition to the passage of the bill.
Now, as I am not, and never have been a member of the Presbyterian church I did not, during the progress of the church union negotiations through the various courts, pay very much attention to the matter except in a

United Church oj Canada
general way. Recognizing however, that I would have duties to perform as a member of this House I felt it incumbent upon me to put myself in a position to answer to my own satisfaction the two questions alone that seem to me to be vital:	Has the proper procedure been observed? Have the rights of minorities been protected? By personal conversation and by reading union and anti-union literature I have satisfied myself that the course followed by the. Presbyterian church has been in harmony with its own constitution, and that the proposed bill makes all reasonable provision for the protection of minorities' rights. I shall therefore not attempt to recite ir. detail the various steps taken by the courts of the Presbyterian church by which they reached their final decision. These steps were not taken hastily. They were taken after the utmost deliberation covering a long period of years; and there is no question n my mind that the action taken by the church leaders in carrying out the decisions arrived at through the various church courts meets with the requirements of the Presbyterian constitution and the wishes of the great majority of the members and the adherents of the church. Knowing little of the Presbyterian system, except in a general way, I entered upon the study of this subject with a good deal of interest, and I may say that I gained an increasing admiration for the Presbyterian system when I noticed the calmness and deliberation with which they dealt with the question. Every step was taken in an orderly manner:	First from the lower
courts up to the assembly, then back again to the presbyteries; and in all the steps they took, those steps, it seemed to me. were charalcterized by the utmost deliberation; and I can come to no other conclusion than that the bill is in perfect harmony with the procedure provided by their own church. It is somewhat significant, that little if any objection has been offered to the procedure. It is true that objection was taken to the thing itself. It has been urged that the Presbyterian Assembly had no power to do the thing it did; that to do what it did really meant the destruction of the churlch. I do not think that assertion can be considered as well founded. There is no thought of destruction of any one body, when it unites with another. It never was felt that a branch of the Presbyterian church was destroyed when the union of 1875 took place, neither was it felt that any branch of the Methodist church was destroyed when the union took place in the early eighties. If it is a fact- and it would seem to be a faict-that there
is more difference in faith within the bounds of any one of these churches than there is between any two, it would seem that there is no reason to hold that the identity of any one of the negotiating churches would be sacrificed, any more than was the identity of those churches that entered into the former unions.
Now I come to the amendments that were made to the bill. One amendment proposes that instead of bringing this bill into force by the sanction of this parliament certain matters shall be referred to the civil courts. This would seem to be a direlct challenge to the right of each church to determine its own doctrine, its own polity and its own destiny. When such a challenge as that is issued it seems to me it behooves not only one church but all churches to assert the right of the church to determine for itself through its courts what its destiny shall be Much has been said of the House of Lords' decision in the case of the Scottish church,
. rendered in 1904. It will be remembered that decision was rendered by those who lived in an atmosphere entirely different from that which prevails here. The conception of the relationship of church and state that prevailed in the Old Land until this decision was rendered was entirely different from that which has prevailed among us, and we may safely say that such a decision never could have been accepted in Canada as final. Canadian sentiment in this respect is much more closely in harmony with the sentiment that has prevailed in the United States. I had thought at one time to read a number of extracts from various judgments rendered by United States judges in regard to the relations of church and state which seemed to very clearly harmonize with our own. I shall not however, take time to do that this afternoon, but would only assert that the decision rendered by the House of Lords in 1904 was abhorrent to our conception of the relations of church and state. The situation which arose at that- time was corrected, and the conception of the relation of church and state which now prevails in Britain is represented by the declaratory articles passed by the church and ratified by the Imperial parliament by the act of 1921.
Why do we object to these amendments that were addted to the bill? It should be remembered that the negotiating bodies, from the time that they began their negotiations, had very clearly before their minds that the union would be consummated only by an act of the Imperial parliament and concurrent legislation on the part of the provincial par-
3,560
United Church of Canada

liaments. That was recognized, and during the whole Bourse of the negotiations the thought was to avoid the difficulty that arose in the case of the Scottish church which is very clearly set forth in the appendix to the law on the basis of union. I shall just read one clause making clear that the United church shall have the powers of legislation mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 24 of the polity section of the basis of union, subject to the safeguards thereby imposed, in such full and ample manner as to render impossible the existence in connection with the United church of the conditions which have arisen in Scotland in connection with the United Free Church of Scotland, under the decision of the House of Lords, touching its property and doctrine.
The purpose of those who entered into the negotiations leading up to this bill was to avoid litigation, and now the Private Bills committee of this House has forced upon them, or would force upon them, the very thing they sought to avoid. W >
may, I think,, learn from the bill to whicc I have referred, the Imperial act of 1921, affirming the declaratory articles of the Scottish church what ought to be our proper course at this time. This act is very brief, and I think it would be well that not only the act itself, but the declaratory articles as well should be inscribed on the pages of Hansard. I am going to read the act-since it only contains four clauses-and briefly summarize the declaratory articles. In my judgment it throws a great deal of light upon our present situation. This is an act to declare the lawfulness of certain articles declaratory of the constitution of the Church of Scotland in matters spiritual, prepared with the authority of the General Assembly of the church. The preamble reads:
Whereas certain articles declaratory of the constitution of the Church of Scotland in matters spiritual have been prepared with the authority of the General Assembly of the church with a view to facilitate the union of other churches with the Church of Scotland, which articles are set out in the schedule to this act, and together with any modifications of the said articles or additions thereto made in accordance therewith are hereinafter in this act referred to as "the declaratory articles".
And whereas it is expedient that any doubts as to the lawfulness of the declaratory articles should be removed:
Be it therefore enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty by and with the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present parliament assembled, and .by the authority of the same, as follows:
1.	The declaratory articles are lawful articles, and the constitution of the Church of Scotland in matters spiritual is as therein set forth and no limitation of the liberty, rights and powers in matters spiritual therein set forth shall be derived in any statute or law affect-

ing the Church of Scotland in matters spiritual at present in force, it being hereby declared that in all questions of construction the declaratory articles shall prevail, and that all such statutes and laws shall be construed in conformity therewith and in subordination thereto, and all such statutes and laws in so far as they are inconsistent with the declaratory articles are hereby repealed and declared to be of no effect.
2.	Nothing contained in this act or in any other act affecting the Church of Scotland shall prejudice the recognition of any other church in Scotland as a Christian church protected by law in the exercise of its spiritual functions.
3.	Subject to the recognition of the matters dealt with in the declaratory articles, as matters spiritual, nothing in this act contained shall affect or prejudice the jurisdiction of the civil courts in relation to any matter of a civil nature.
4.	This act may be cited as the Church of Scotland Act, 1921, and shall come into operation on such date as His Majesty may fix by order in council after the declaratory articles shall have been adopted by an act of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland with the consent of the majority of the presbyteries of the church.
Now the declaratory articles themselves are contained in the schedule. I shall briefly refer to them, although I think it would be as well for the information of the country if the whole of them were inscribed on Hansard.
Section 1 declares the Church of Scotland to be part of the Holy Catholic Church that it adheres to Scottish reformation, that its supreme standard of faith is found in the Old and New Testaments.
Section 2 declares that the Westminster Confession is a subordinate standard, and that it approves of the doctrinal statement therein contained, and the prescription of government therein described.
Section 3 asserts the historical continuity of the Church of Scotland and declares that the continuity of the Church of Scotland and its identity are not prejudiced by the adoption of these articles.
Section 4 deals with the office bearers and mode of election and their authority, and it concludes with these words:
Or give to the civil authority any right of interference with procedure cr the judgment of the church within the sphere of its own government and jurisdiction.
Section 5 asserts the inherent right of the church to interpret and to frame its own statement of faith, to interpret and adopt its own subordinate standards, and to modify these always in relation to the condition of faith set forth in section 1.
Section 6 is simply a general recognition of the church and state, each having its own jurisdiction.
I will read section 7 in full, because it has some important bearing upon this case:
The Church of Scotland believing it to be the will of Christ that His disciples should be all one in the Father and in Him, that the world may believe that the

United Church oj Canada
Father has sent Him, recognizes the obligation to seek and promote union with other churches in which it finds the Word to be purely preached, the sacraments administered according to Christ's ordinance, and discipline rightly exercised; and it has the right to unite with any such church without loss of its identity on terms which this church finds to be consistent with these articles.
That is left for the church itself to determine.
Section 8 reads:
The church has the right to interpret these articles, and, subject to the safeguards for deliberate action and legislation provided by the church itself, to modify or add to them; but always consistently with the provisions of the first article hereof, adherence to which, as interpreted by the church, is essential to its continuity and corporate life. Any proposal for a modification of or addition to these articles which may be approved of by the General Assembly, shall, before it can be enacted by the assembly, be transmitted by way of overture to presbyteries in at least two immediately successive years. If the overture shall receive the approval, with or without suggested amendment, of two-thirds of the whole of the presbyteries of the church, the assembly may revise the overture in the light of any suggestions by presbyteries, and may transmit the overture when so revised to presbyteries for their consent. If the overture as transmitted in its final form shall receive the consent of not less than two-thirds- of the whole of the presbyteries of the church, the General Assembly may, if it deems it expedient, modify or add to these articles in terms of the said overture. But if the overture as transmitted in its final form shall not receive the requisite consent, the same or a similar proposal shall not be again transmitted for the consent of presbyteries until an interval of five years after the failure to obtain the requisite consent has been reported to the General Assembly.
Section 9 reads as follows:
Subject to the provisions of the foregoing articles and the powers of amendment therein contained, the constitution of the Church of Scotland in matters spiritual is hereby anew ratified and confirmed by the church.
Now turn back to the second part of the preamble which says:
Whereas it is expedient that any doubts as to the lawfulness of the declaratory articles should be removed :
That is, in order to set at rest any doubts as to the lawfulness of these articles, the Imperial parliament passed this statute.
That is very similar to the situation which confronts us. These negotiating churches came together. They recognized there might possibly be some doubt and they came to parliament asking parliament to pass an act in order that the doubt might be removed and that it might be settled for all time. The Private Bills committee, in its wisdom, or otherwise, said, "You have asked for legislation, but we will give you litigation; go to the courts". Instead of this parliament doing what the British parliament did, setting all these matters at rest as regards the Church
of Scotland and any other churches in Scotland, this parliament is asked to take an entirely different course. But we say, no; we object to being forced into the courts when our purpose from the beginning wgs to avoid litigation.
I will just briefly indicate one or two other reasons why this clause should be deleted from the bill. The churches have now been twenty years in a period of negotiations. The work of the churches has been carried on not perhaps in the orderly and systematic manner in which it was carried on previously. Temporary arrangements have been made. It is not desirable that this condition should any longer continue. Not only is it true in the West, but it is also true in eastern Canada in many districts, that until this legislation is passed the churches cannot carry on their work with the system, the orderliness, the force, that they otherwise could have done. Therefore, it is not wise that we should ask them to accept, or that we should force upon them, the delay that would necessarily be incurred if this clause were allowed to remain in the bill. Because it is by no means certain how long it would take to reach anything like a decision. "The law's delays" we know are proverbial, and we have no right to force any longer delay upon these churches.
And does any one imagine for a moment that even if an adverse decision should be given in the courts that that would finally settle the matter? I cannot imagine for a moment that the Presbyterian church or any other church would be satisfied with a decision of the civil courts that would impugn the rights of its own courts to decide its own doctrine, polity and destiny. If doubt should be thrown upon the authority of its General Assembly, the Presbyterian church would come back to this parliament, just as the Church of Scotland went to the British parliament, and would ask, and would have a right to receive from this parliament, legislation confirming it in the exercise of its rights as a church. Therefore, we cannot think that the matter would be settled even if an adverse decision should be given. Parliament has the authority to settle the matter right now, so why should that not be done?
Other reasons might be urged. It might be worth while pointing to the recent vote of the General Assembly at Owen Sound. It has been contended that the General Assembly has not represented the Presbyterian church; but for the benefit of those who are not familiar with church procedure, it might be indicated that the personnel of one General Assembly is never the same as that of the one that preceded it. I am not certain of the number, but
United Church of Canada

four or five times the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church has pronounced on this question in one phase or another and always by large majorities, the last vote taken at Owen Sound showing the largest majority of all. The General Assembly represents only one-sixth of the ministers and an equal number of the elders. These are chosen in turn, so that you have not the votes of a body of men meeting together year after year, but the votes of a body that differs absolutely in its personnel every year. Surely that is a reason for holding that the General Assembly does represent the will of the Presbyterian church.
One matter which has not been referred to during the course of the debate, but to which I would wish to refer just at this point, is that this question has been discussed almost altogether from the standpoint of the Presbyterian church and the opposing element in that church; but it should be remembered that there are three negotiating bodies, not only the Presbyterian church, but the Methodist church and the Congregational church. Hitherto, those representing the other churches have stood aside. But they have some rights now that should be recognised by this parliament, and delay should no longer be forced upon the Methodist church or the Congregational church. I do not think this parliament would be wise in ignoring those rights. While we have not asserted them very strongly up to this point, I think that at this time it is fitting that it should be made very clear that this is not simply a matter in regard to which the dissenting minority of the Presbyterian church are interested; but it is a matter in which a very large proportion of the Presbyterian church are interested as well as these other two negotiating bodies; and, speaking for the other negotiating bodies, we are satisfied that no civil court will declare the inadequacy of the Presbyterian courts. We are satisfied that the legislation that we are asking for is good legislation and will hold, and we are asking this parliament to give us this legislation.
There is no question of the right of parliament in this matter. Parliament may pass this legislation' or it may refuse it. But I want to point out that there is absolutely no precedent for refusing legislation when bodies of Christians, desiring to have their union consummated, come before parliament or any legislature. The request has always been granted as a matter of course. When churches through their own action or by the means provided by their own constitution, have determined to enter a union, parliament has always ratified those unions. So, we say: You

have power to pass this legislation; you have power to refuse it; but do not send us to the courts to meet litigation which is exactly what we have been trying all these years to avoid. Therefore, I beg to move the following amendment:
That the whole of section 2 of the said bill be stricken out and the following substituted therefor:
2. 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.


Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Lunenburg):: I
should like to deal for a few moments, not only with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), but with the history of the negotiations which have led up to the introduction of this bill, that is the first bill as introduced into parliament and considered by the Private Bills committee, with the bill as amended and reported to parliament by the chairman c f the select standing committee on Private Bills and also with the amendments which have been moved thereto by the hon. member for Lisgar. In order to understand this question properly, we have to go back a good many years. The hon. member for Lisgar told us in a few words some of the things which happened in regard to this great question. But before this parliament can give an intelligent vote on this question, we must look at the question from every angle. What are the facts with regard to the negotiations as mentioned by the hon. member for Lisgar? In the year 1904, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada and the Methodist Conference met in the same city, and three members of the Presbyterian Assembly were instructed by that assembly to go over to the church where the Methodist Conference was meeting and extend to them the felicitations of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada. During the course of the remarks made by these three gentlemen, the last speaker, Principal Patrick, without any instructions from the Presbyterian General Assembly, in his remarks held out the hope that the union between those two great churches might be consummated at some time in the future. The next day the Methodist church sent an official delegation to the General Assembly asking that they discuss the matter. For several years negotiations were carried on, with the result that in the year 1911 it was decided to take a vote of the Presbyterian church. Before I read the result of that vote, might I say this? In 1905, the union committee appointed by the Presbyterian Assembly made its report

United Church of Canada
Celling of its meeting with the committees of the Methodist and Congregational churches. Among the closing words of that report were these:
It was universally recognized in the joint committee. .	.	.
That is including Methodists, Congrega-tionalists and Presbyterians.
.	.	.	. that a union of the churches to be real and
lasting, must carry the consent of the entire membership.
The assembly adopted that report, sending it forth to the church, and its statements were accepted as the statements adopted by the assembly.
In 1911, however, a vote of the Presbyterian church was taken, the membership at that time including sessions and moderators, being 298,916. Of these, 113,000 voted yea and 50,733 nay. Hon. gentlemen who were in the Private Bills committee and heard Sir Robert Falconer speak on the subject will no doubt remember that, instead of giving the total vote on both sides as well as the full information with regard to that vote, he told us that only 16 per cent of the total vote of the Presbyterian church was against the union in 1911. Of course that statement was true; but he should have gone on to tell us that only 37 per cent of the total membership of that church voted in favour of union. He also told the committee about the vote in 1915, stating that only 22 per cent of the total membership of the church at that time voted against the union; but he refrained from mentioning the fact that in the 1915 vote the percentage in favour of union fell off from 37 to 33 per cent. Coming from Sir Robert Falconer it may have been right and proper that the matter should be stated in that way, but I am giving to the House my idea as to the proper way in which the facts should be set forth; the vote on both sides ought to be stated, showing what percentage voted for and what percentage was against the union.
After the vote had been taken in 1911 the General Assembly on receiving the result stopped the movement, and this is what they stated in 1912:
In view of the extent of the minority which is not yet convinced that organic union is the best method of expressing the unity sincerely desired by all, the assembly deems it unwise to proceed immediately to consummate the union-
At that time, remember, only 16 per cent *of the church voted against the union, and yet the General Assembly, when they met the next year, deemed it unwise to proceed to its consummation.
-but believes that by further conference and discussion practically unanimous action can be secured within a reasonable time.
In other words, the General Assembly distinctly declared in 1912 that unless a practical unanimity could be obtained on the part of the whole church they would not consider it advisable to go on with the movement. In 1915 another vote was taken, and here are some of the opinions which were expressed with reference to the condition of things then.
I quote first the words of Principal Patrick:
They wanted to carry all the members of the three churches into the union. From first to last the question must be a people's question.
That is to say, he felt that the minority against union was too considerable, or the majority in favour of union, too slight, to warrant the General Assembly's proceeding to consummate the movement. Next I give the views of Dr. Clark:
He thought the 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 is no such thing as attempting to force union on the church.
Let us see what was stated by Sir Robert Falconer himself, the gentleman who came before the committee and endeavoured to show there why at this time union was a good thing. He is reported thus: '
From the commencement he had put it in the forefront, that it would be utter madness to go forward to a union that did not carry the whole church with it. It was absurd to think that the assembly could force its will on the people.
I want my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown) to note these words:
It was absurd to think that the assembly could force its will on the people.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: Was that
after the last vote had been taken?


William Duff: Yes. Now, they talk about
the people of the West wanting this union. Well, let me tell the House that out of a total membership of 80,000 Presbyterians in the West only 32,000 voted for union in 1911. That is not the unanimity which Professor Falconer and other leaders in the church wanted in the movement; and yet they come to-day and ask parliament to pass a bill when, not 22 per cent but, I am confident in saying, at least 75 per cent of the total membership of the Presbyterian church are opposed to union; for I have no doubt whatever that if a vote were taken to-day it would reveal that percentage of the Presbyterian body who are against the movement and anxious to remain in their own church.
At this stage it may be just as well for me to explain my own position in relation to church union. It has been stated that I am opposed to the union; the statement has
United Church of Canada

United Church of Canada
to vote themselves out and would afterwards have to fight for goodness knows how long in order to regain their property. This, I say, was the resolution which the opponents of the bill would like to have seen passed. Personally I think it is a fair amendment, but after listening to all the discussion and after consulting with different members of the House I felt we should endeavour to make some compromise which would be acceptable to both sides in this dispute. Consequently after a good deal of earnest consideration I moved this amendment, seconded by the hon, member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter):
That the preamble of Bill 47 be amended by adding after the word " petition " in line 16 the following:
" Subject to the following conditions.-Provided that this act shall not come into force until and unless
(1)	The courts shall have finally decided that the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada has the constitutional power to form a union of the Presbyterian Church of Canada with the Methodist and Congregational Churches upon the terms of this act.
(2)	The courts shall have finally decided that the parliament of Canada can constitutionally enact this act in whole or in part and if the courts should decide that this act is constitutional only in part, then it shall come into force only as to such parts as are declared constitutional, provided further that the latter question shall be submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada by a reference by the Minister of Justice."
What was my reason for moving this amendment? It was this: As I said a moment ago, after the committee had listened attentively practically every day for two or three weeks to argument on both sides of this question by legal advisers and others, I have no hesitation whatever in saying that no member of that committee was in a position to judge whether the Presbyterian church had the constitutional power to force all its members into this union or not. That is the reason I moved the amendment. It was only to get something which I thought would be satisfactory to the committee. But after moving the amendment and hearing the discussion which took place upon it, I found that objection was raised to it on the ground that it went too far in the opinion of some members. Their idea was that it went too far in that no definite time was set in regard to the action in the courts. They said, if that amendment passes, and if parliament agrees to the bill with that amendment, there may be endless litigation. I saw at once that was a good point, and a small subcommittee was appointed to go into the matter and endeavour to draft an agreement which would be acceptable. That subcommittee spent a whole day trying to reach an agreement, but in vain. However, after further consultation another amendment was drafted. 
and that is the one which appears in the bill as it is now before the House, and which the hon. member for Lisgar desires to be stricken out.
Now I want to emphasize this: In my opinion we, as legislators, outside of perhaps a few lawyers in the House, are not competent to judge whether or not the Presbyterian church has proceeded constitutionally, and if that is the case, how are we going to vote? Why should we strike out my amendment, and replace the amendment in its original form, if in our opinion we do not know to our satisfaction whether the Presbyterian church had the constitutional right or not. The hon. member for Lisgar and others in favour of the bill have been arguing all along from the time this bill was introduced that they were perfectly sure that the Presbyterian church did have the power under their constitution to bring the whole church in, and to ask for this legislation. Well, if that is the case, what have they got to fear from the courts? Is it not far better for the courts to decide whether or not they have the power, than to have this matter settled by parliament and then taken to the courts afterwards? The hon. member for Lisgar in his remarks said that to pass my amendment would mean litigation. Does not my hon. friend know that this question is already in the courts? It was in the courts before ever this bill was introduced, and consequently, whether we pass this bill in its original form or pass it with my amendment, there is still a suit pending in the courts, and neither this parliament nor the Presbyterians who want to go into union can get away from that action which is in the courts at the present time. That action is going on, and is going to be settled, and I can tell my hon. friend I am positive the Presbyterians who desire to remain in their own church are just as anxious to get that action settled as the Presbyterians, or anyone else, who want to go into the union. They are anxious to have the whole question settled so that the church can go on with its work.
We have not only had a good deal of discussion with regard to this matter in the committee, Mr. Chairman, but it has also been discussed a great deal outside of the committee. You will perhaps remember, Mr. Chairman, that in the oild days we used to hear a lot about lobbying around the halls of parliament, but I think you and every member of the House will agree that never was there such a lobby as was conducted around this parliament with regard to this bill. Not only was there a lobbv conducted around this

United, Church oj Canada
parliament, but members of parliament were told that if this parliament did not pass this bill-my hon. friend from Lisgar told us the same thing practically to-day-something awful was going to happen to the members of parliament. Now I do not think any member of parliament is going to be intimidated by anything anybody says either outside or inside of this parliament, because we are a hard-boiled 'lot, and whether it is a clergyman or a layman, we are going to do what we think is right; we will not be intimidated by anybody inside or outside of the walls of this parliament. I think, Sir, it was a most undignified thing for clergymen in this city and outside, whether they met in the Presbyterian General Assembly or in Chalmers church in Ottawa, at the very time this bill was being considered by the Private Bills committee, to get up and make the remarks made by some of them on those occasions. I want to put on Hansard a few of the remarks that were made at that time, so that the committee may know what was said. I repeat, it was a most undignified thing for these gentlemen to try in any way to force parliamentary action. There was a gentleman named Smythe who spoke at Chalmers church, and here is what he said:
The speaker warned the legislators in advance of the consequences which he said would be sure to follow if the bill is defeated. "This country will be plunged into a religious war, the extent and bitterness of which no man can foretell," he said. "If the union bill is defeated or has to be withdrawn, the nexit general election in Canada will be fought on an issue of the spiritual independence of the churches in this country."
Was not that a nice remark for a gentleman of Mr. Smythe's standing in the community to make?


Mr. CRERAR:: Will my hon. friend vouch for the accuracy of the report?


William Duff: In reply to the hon. member,
my wife was there and heard him say it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is very good evidence.


John Livingstone Brown: I am glad to know that
there is somebody who can make the hon. member for Lunenburg believe certain things he may not want to believe.


William Duff: I always believe the truth,
and that is perhaps the reason I cannot believe all my hon. friend says. Now, on the heels of this statement by Mr. Smythe, followed the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church, meeting at Owen Sound, and listen to what they say:
If the Private Bills committee at Ottawa finally brings in a majority report unfavourable to union, the minority of the Private Bills committee will bring in a minority report, which is already fully prepared-
Perhaps my hon. friend from Lisgar knew something about that. This was long before the Private Bills committee had decided on any report.
-and will, if possible, commit every member of the House to the hilt on this issue.
That session of parliament will be followed quickly iby an election, and the subject will then be fought out in the various regions wherever the matter can be introduced. It is apparently not the intention of the committee on church union to enter the courts voluntarily under any circumstances or to submit the matter at issue to the courts-it is maintained that the subject is one which must be settled by parliament and not by the courts.
And that is from no less a body than the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church! Think of it, Mr. Chairman, ministers of the gospel, sitting in Owen Sound, in a church which was strongly anti-union, and daring to send that out to members of parliament.


John Livingstone Brown: Is that the report of the
assembly?


William Duff: That is the report of the
assembly, yes. I think even my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown) will admit that is not quite satisfactory. I will tell you what Dr. Pidgeon said at the assembly. He said that the church in its development would bow to no civil authority. Now, Sir, there are ' other people who wanted to get into this discussion and into the limelight. For example, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) started to give the members of parliament a hint.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Duff: He butted into the discussion
like a billy goat at a billboard, and he warned Liberal members of parliament to ibe careful of what they are doing. I should like to know what politics have to do with this bill we are now considering? Opinion concerning it is divided among the Liberals. Opinion among the Conservatives is also divided- some are for and others against the bill- and I think the Progressives are divided in a wmilar manner. So, I ask what right had the Minister of Agriculture, or anyone else tc write such a letter to the members of this parliament?


Mr. IRVINE:: Read the letter.


William Duff: Do you want me to read
it?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Duff: The letter has been published in the press and no doubt all my hon. friends have seen it. A good deal has been said
United Church oj Canada

about the vote of the assembly on this matter a few weeks ago, and my hon. friend (Mr. Brown) mentioned the fact that the vote in question was overwhelmingly in favour of this bill. Well, I am very doubtful if five members of the assembly ever saw the measure. It reminds me of the petitions which came into this House by the hundreds asking hon. members to pass this bill. I am quite positive that of the names on those petitions not one man out of ten thousand had ever seen the bill when he signed the petition in question.


Mr. FORKE:: Hear, hear.


William Duff: I am glad my hon. friend
agrees with me. Now, what about the meeting of the assembly. It is quite true, as the hon. i"ember (Mr. Brown) has said, that the assembly voted overwhelmingly in favour of union and in support of this bill but that -to my mind and to the minds of Presbyterians who know the government of their own church-does not amount to very much. My hon. friend said that the composition of the assembly changes every year. Let me tell him that it does not change very much, and it has1 not changed very much since the question of church union has been up; the gentle- . men who are strongly in favour of church union, and who are trying to force this bill through, have gone to every meeting of the assembly that has been held for the last ten years. But let us look into the matter a little further.


Mr. THURSTON:: Had not those opposed t.o church union a perfect right to be represented at the assembly?


William Duff: They did not have the same
opportunity to be represented as those who were in favour of church union.


John Jabez Thurston: Why not?


William Duff: Because those who were in
:avour of church union could practically settle who were to go to the assembly.


John Jabez Thurston: Why?


William Duff: This is the reason why: It is a well known fact that the majority of clergymen in the Presbyterian church are in favour of church union, and when the Presbyteries met to select commissioners who were to go to the assembly my hon. friend can very well realize that they would select their own friends.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
[Mr. Duff.l


Mr. HALBERT:: There are elders of the
church who go by virtue of seniority.


William Duff: The hon. member knows that
there are very few elders who go, and if they did they would not go by virtue of seniority. There is what is known as the ruling elder; he is the one that usually goes to the assembly.


Mr. CALDWELL:: The ruling elder is
elected by his congregation.


William Duff: Perhaps fifty years ago, perhaps forty-five, perhaps forty, perhaps thirty, perhaps ten, perhaps one.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: That is not correct because I have been elected ruling elder of my congregation several times, and I know the procedure much better than that.


William Duff: All I can say is that I am
surprised at the church. Now, let us look at the composition of the assembly. For instance the presbytery of Pictou sent fourteen commissioners to the assembly, out of which number eleven voted for the resolution of Dr. Pidgeon and three against it. Well, in spite of that fact, out of a total membership of 8,000 in the presbytery of Pictou only 1,790 voted in favour of union. Take another example.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: How many voted
against?


William Duff: The number that voted against was 3,345. Take another example, the presbytery of St. John. It has 5,640 members of whom only 1,513, or a little more than one-fourth voted for union.


Mr. McMASTER:: What vote was that?


William Duff: I am talking about the vote that was taken in 1915. Now take the presbytery of Glengarry. My information is that twenty-three commissioners went to the assembly from that presbytery. Twenty of these commissioners voted for Dr. Pidgeon's resolution and in favour of church union, whereas it is a well known fact that in the presbytery of Glengarry some twenty congregations are opposed to church union. Yet twenty ministers went to the last assembly and gave a vote diametrically opposed to the wishes of their congregations.


An hon. MEMBER:: Do they still hold
their jobs?


William Duff: Yes, I think that is the mistake that was made. That shows conclusively that the vote of the assembly does not mean very much. It is also a fact that at the last

United Church oj Canada
assembly, when the vote was about to be taken, some of the commissioners suggested that it should be taken by ballot but the majority of members of the assembly refused a vote by this democratic method. They did not want to have a vote by ballot taken because had that course been followed instead of ninety-four commissioners voting against Dr. Pidgeon's resolution the result would have been very much different.
It has been said that the Methodist church is a unit in favour of church-union. The Presbyterians do not want to deny that fact; but it is well known to people on the outside that a great many Methodists in the Methodist church would be quite willing to remain in their own church and not go into the union. Let me read what was said by Sir Robert Perks at the last Ecumenical Methodist Council. He said:
British Methodists look with utmost dismay upon the rash precipitancy of the Canadian Methodists on the matter of organic church union. What? Would you cut off all the hallowed associations of Methodist history? Would you in Canada be a consenting party to the annihilation of your identity for the sake of merging it with a colorless compromising Presbyterian nondescript ?
In other words Sir Robert Perks knows very well that if a vote were taken to-day at least 75 per cent of the Presbyterians in Canada would not go into this union. I will give another instance. I have here a letter from a Methodist lady who writes as follows: To the Editor of the Chronicle:
Sir,-I have read with interest the argument of Hon. D. A. Cameron, Provincial Secretary, against church union. I quite agree with the honorable gentleman that union of the churches means destruction of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, and with him I do not believe that Christ meant the destruction of the different churches and their doctrines when He spoke of unity. For does the same thing not apply to other churches as well as to the Presbyterian? The Methodist church, of which I am proud to own myself a member would be destroyed, too. There are in this church as good doctrines, sacred rites and as true heroes as in any church. The Tree is Christ, the churches are the branches of that tree and each has its own particular function to perform. The sainted John Wesley would rise from his grave in protest were the Methodist church to be swallowed up in a Union church. I cannot see what good can come of it.
Mrs. Stewart MacLean.
Londonderry Station,
March 31, 1924.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: Could the hon.
member tell the House whether John Wesley was a Methodist or not?


William Duff: Will the hon. member for
South York answer the question himself?


William Findlay Maclean: He was an Anglican.


William Duff: This letter is signed Mrs.
Stewart MacLean of Londonderry Station, Nova Scotia.


Andrew Ross McMaster: In Lunenburg county?
M,r. DUFF: No, Colchester county. There are many Methodists in Lunenburg, and they are the largest denomination in my constituency but they are quite willing to remain in their own church, and would rather do that than go into the union. Not only are the Methodist women opposed to this union, but we must remember that in Canada to-day there are at least 100,000 women in the Presbyterian church who are not only apposed to union-that is as far as going into the union themselves is concerned-but are determined to carry the fight to a finish.


Robert Henry Halbert: Are they old maids?


William Duff: I am sorry to hear that question asked. I think the hon. member had better withdraw it. It is a foolish remark to make. These 100,000 women are determined to carry on this fight. They are not going to give up their church. They have fought for their church for years. They have kept in it, and have taken more interest in it than the men, and no matter what parliament does or what the courts decide, these women are going to maintain the Presbyterian Church in Canada.


John Jabez Thurston: Are there any women
in the Presbyterian church in favour of the union?


William Duff: Yes, my hon. friend knows
without asking that there are a number of women in favour of the union; they have a perfect right to their views; they have a right to join any church they want to join, and the other women and myself have no objection to that. I say there are 100,000 women determined to stay in the church, and despite what parliament or the courts may do they are going to stay there. With regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lisgar, it must be remembered that when this amendment which has been embodied in the bill was passed and the bill was reported to the House, the chairman, the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. McGiverin) presented the report in the following words:
Your committee have considered Bill No. 47, incorporating the United Church of Canada, and have agreed to report the same with amendments. ,
Your committee have found it advisable to amend the preamble of the said bill so as to indicate the reason for some of the amendments which were made to the provisions of the bill.
This House accepted that report. In other words they accepted Bill 47 as amended by the committee. If that is the case, what is the usual parliamentary practice with regard to private bills reported from committee? In the first place in Beauchesne's Parlia-

United Church of Canada

mentary Rules and Forms I find that instead of moving an amendment, as the hon. member for Lisgar did, the bill should be referred back to the select standing committee. It is most unusual to alter a report from a select standing committee. At page 208 of Beau-chesne's Rules and Forms, we find rule 712, which reads as follows:
It is the correct course, in all cases where it is necessary to make material amendments, to refer the bill back to the select committee, to which it had been previously sent, instead of considering the proposed changes in committee of the whole.
Here is what I find in May's Parliamentary Practice, at page 738:
No amendment may be proposed, which could not have been proposed in committee without an instruction from the House.
Bourinot, at page 617 says:
It is very rarely that the committee of the whole on a private bill will interfere with the bill as it comes from a select committee.
That quotation is from Todd's Private Bill Practice, 101-103. Then I refer to Todd's
Private Bill Practice, 1S62, page 69, where I find the following:
A bill after it has been reported, may be referred back to committee, but this is very rarely done.
At page 72 he says:
It may be well to remark here that while it is of course, competent to the House to amend or reject any bill after it has been reported by a select committee, and to amend or reject any amendment agreed to by the committee, practically this right is but rarely exercised.
I think I have proved that my hon. friend's motion is not in the proper form, and if a very serious injury has been done the promoters of this bill it might have been in order for him to send the bill back to the select standing committee. I contend no injury has been done the promoters of the bill. In fact my amendment protects them just as much as it . protects the opponents of the bill who want the matter referred to the courts. Now, Mr. Chairman, I think the promoters of the bill should have followed the advice of the Montreal Witness. That paper is edited by_ John Dougall, and, if I am not very much mistaken, he is a real good Methodist. An hon. gentleman says he .is a Presbyterian. Well he may be .a Presbyterian, but I am sure he is a Methodist. Both religions are all right. I thought he was a Methodist. The hon. member for Brome agrees with me. Here is what the Witness says:
5fet all this was thrown open to parliamentary inquiry by the construction of the bill itself, which had appended to it a confession of faith and, strange to say, challenged parliament to ratify the same. Thus the charge of failing to grasp the issues applies
[Mr. Duff J
not only to the floundering of newspaper- correspondents, or to the bewilderment of memoers of parliament before whom old theological or rather philosophical perplexities were thus gratuitously thrown, but to wise people behind the bill who put the cart before the horse in asking parliament to constitute a church and to stereotype its creed, as being to all appearance, in their view, a necessary step to union.
If a man like the editor of the Witness gives this kindly advice to the promoters of the bill, and says that they have evidently drafted a very bad measure, it seems to me the proper procedure for this House is, as I suggested, or as proposed in my amendment, to withdraw the bill and redraft it as it should have been drafted, and give everybody a fair and square deo.1. But Mr. Dougall goes on:
What the churches ought to do at once is to begin over again, proclaiming their union. It may be possible even yet to rid the bill of these mischievous features and get it passed. Should that fail at this session, a new and simpler bill should be drawn up, disposing of the properties for parliament to act upon according to its wisdom and sense of equity. As revealed in the discussion, the present bill looks as though it had been drawn up by some one who had not got rid of the old world notion of a state church.
*Will the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) listen to this:
As revealed in the discussion, the present bill looks as though it had been drawn up by some one who had not got rid of the old world notion of a state church, for which people of all religions and none, and of all moralities and none, would determine how it should worship and what it should believe.
I do not think for one moment that the bill was drafted by someone who had not got rid of the old notion of a state church. I would take the other view and say that the hon. gentleman who had most to do with drafting this bill had in mind something to do with a state church or a church which should come to parliament year after year and say what parliament should or should not do. I contend that the Presbyterians in this country who are fighting to remain in their owrn church are fighting the battle of religious liberty for all the churches in Canada. For if parliament, on an eight-year-old vote of less than one-third of the Presbyterian membership, should blot out their church, and make that entire membership, however unwilling, members of a new and different church, taking away their religious liberty, then next year parliament might do the same to any other church. There would be no safety for any church, and no assured religious liberty for any member of any church.
To have a great church thus blotted out by act of parliament, and its entire membership, however unwilling, made members of another church and compelled to remain there or go

United Church of Canada
out homeless on to the street, their church gone for ever, would be religious coercion unknown in the history of free peoples. Let all change who wish, but keep Canada free.
Further, Presbyterians are fighting the battle of civil rights for all people of Canada. For if parliament, on an eight-year-old vote of less than one-third of the Presbyterian membership, should confiscate all trusts held by that church and should divert these trusts to other control, then parliament might, in the same way, divert all trusts held by any society or church, for educational, benevolent or religious work of any kind, to any who might ask for them, a thing which no government, in a free country, has ever done, and which would make Canada's statutes and laws no protection to her people. These two great wrongs, wholesale coercion and confiscation, are the chief features of the church union bill.
What would be the result of such wholesale coercion and confiscation? It would mean the denial of religious liberty and civil rights to a great body of the Canadian people on the demand of some other people. It would mean life-long bitterness and resentment on the part of that great body of the people, against such unjust coercion and wrong. It would mean the breaking up of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, which has ever stood for liberty and good citizenship. It would mean a lessening of that religious life and work which is the safeguard of good morals everywhere, for if people are not free there cannot be the same free effort. It would mean less incentive for any to organize for the good of their fellow men, for to-morrow, on the demand of some one, within or without, their organization might be wiped out by act of parliament. It would mean fewer men and women leaving their money in trust, to carry on their good work when they are gone, for they would have no assurance that it would be used in accordance with their intention and will. It would mean no safety for any institution, school, hospital, asylum or church, depending in any measure upon trust funds. It would mean that this new incorporated combine, born of coercion and confiscation, and claiming the right to coerce and confiscate, would in future, be a menace to the freedom of statesmen and parliaments in their efforts for the well-being of our country.
So far as I am concerned and so far as many other people are concerned, we have no idea of saying that a bill to incorporate the United Church of Canada should not pass this parliament. If the Methodist church is desirous of forming a united church and entering union, it has a perfect right to do so. If the Con-226J
gregational church desires to become part of that United church, it has also that right. We are willing to give it to them; but we say: If there is a small minority, or a large minority in the Presbyterian church who are opposed to that union, this parliament should not. put anything in their way to prevent them from getting their just rights, and allowing them to worship under their own vine and fig tree and the church of their choice.
I say, in closing, that the amendment which I moved and which was adopted by the committee is a very simple one. It protects the rights of all Presbyterians, whether they are anti Presbyterians or union Presbyterians or those Presbyterians who want to remain in their own church. The amendment refers specifically to the action which is in the courts at the present time. Consequently, in view of the fact that that suit is referred to and that action is going on, my hon. friends, who are in favour of union and who think that the Presbyterian church should go in as a whole church, if they believe that the Presbyterian Assembly and the courts of the church have power to do the right and proper thing, have nothing to fear from my amendment, nothing to fear from the courts, and, therefore, they ought to be fair and reasonable and allow the courts to decide whether the Presbyterian church has the constitutional right or not.


Mr. HERBERT MARLER (St. Lawrence-St. George):: It is my intention to support the report of the committee that has examined into this bill. Perhaps that statement might be quite sufficient without any discussion whatsoever of that report; but as I am adverse to giving a silent vote on such an important matter as this bill is, I desire to give certain reasons why, in addition to others, I intend to take the course I have stated. What does this bill propose to do? It proposes possibly one of the most momentous movements which have ever taken place in the Dominion of Canada. It proposes to unite three great religious bodies, the Presbyterian church, the Methodist and the Congregational church. Each of these bodies has millions of adherents; each has traditions which many of those self-eame adherents hold sacred, just as other religious bodies have traditions which they also hold sacred. Certain petitioning churches come forward and say that these three religious bodies shall be united together under the name of the United Church of Canada. I do not question for a single moment the good faith of those gentlemen, ministers of the gospel, or of those church members who desire a united church. I admire
United Church, of Canada

their sincerity, their ambition; I have not the slightest doubt that there are many good and valid reasons why unity should take place in religious matters as well as in any other.
But, on the other hand, we have been told, and told with great distinctness and clearness, that although these gentlemen come forward and promote this bill and desire to have a united chuTch of those perhaps in the majority, there is a great minority who oppose this bill being put forward in the shape as originally drafted,-not in the shape as it is now before this committee. I think it is perfectly safe to say that that minority as existing in the various churches, principally in the Presbyterian church, is imbued with precisely the same spirit of religious tolerance, the desire to do the right thing and to preserve traditions, as imbues the other great majority who desire this bill to be passed into law subject to the amendment moved this afternoon by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown). Surely the rights of these minorities must be considered. They are a large body; they have large property rights. And, coming as I do from the province of Quebec, I am urged, perhaps, as much if not a little more than others coming from other provinces are urged, as regards the protection of the rights of minorities.
I happen to be one of what are known in t'he province of Quebec as "separated brethren;"- in that province we do not admit that there is any such thing as a minority at all; we proceed in our ordinary way of life, in our relationships, in the prosecution of our daily affairs, with a feeling of certainty that whether we be French Canadians or English Canadians our respective rights will always be respected no matter what may happen. Per-laps, therefore, I am imbued a little more than others with a strong regard for minority *rights, having been brought up from my earliest youth, inculcated and steeped, in the desire to see those rights in all cases protected. And, after all, what are we here for in this House of Commons? Are we here always to put forward the rights of majorities? Are we not here equally for the purpose of protecting the rights of minorities? Are we not here for the purpose of seeing to it that such rights, whatever -they may be, good, bad or indifferent, shall be given a fair hearing and a fair reading in any bill which may be brought down before the House?


Mr. BIRD:: Will the hon. member go a
little more into the question as to what constitutes the minority in this case and as to what are the rights of that minority as he conceives them?
[Mr. Marler.l


Herbert Meredith Marler: Yes. I am speaking of the minority interest in the bill as originally brought down. My hon. friend who interrupts me must bear in mind what I stated at the opening of my remarks, that I intend to support the report of the committee. In my opinion the report of the committee on the bill as now brought down in its amended form does to a certain extent at least help the minorities and does in some measure guard the rights of the minority interest. It is true that the bill as brought down does not guard all minorities, but it does guard what are known as congregational majorities; that is to say, under section 10 of the bill, any congregational majority before the bill becomes law may decide not to enter into the United church at all. But some say that all these churches should come in. My hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown) spoke about the rights of the Congregational church, the rights of the Methodist church, and the rights of certain Presbyterians. I do not for a moment deny any of these rights; I do not deny the good faith of any of these bodies who come forward and state that the churches might do better going forward as a united body. But what I do say, and what I desire to impress on the House, is the importance of considering this question: Had the Presbyterian General Assembly the right to bind the Presbyterian church, as it did attempt to bind that church, and to come forward as one of the promoters of this measure? That alone is an exceedingly serious question; it is a point which I for one feel entirely incompetent to answer. It is a legal and constitutional question which has been debated by the very best counsel in the length and breadth of the country. Some say that the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada had the right to bind the church, and others declare that it had not. Can we in this House decide for ourselves which side is right and which is wrong? Can we, with our knowledge of law, state that those who hold that the General Assembly-had the right to bind the Presbyterian church are correct in their view?-or, on the other hand, that those who hold the opposite opinion and declare that the General Assembly had not the right so to bind the church, are right? I do not think we can very well decide the question; the point is a legal one and involves many complications; and for us in this House to assume the great knowledge of constitutional law and of the technicalities of this question which it would be necessary to possess in order to decide the matter satisfactorily is a position which I for one do not propose to assume.

United Church of Canada
Now, what was done? Those who desired the amendments placed in the bill came forward and said, "We are not opposed to the United church; we are not opposed to having the bill go through. We desire to see unity-in religion as in all other matters. But we do say that there are a great number of Presbyterians in Canada who are not of this opinion and that the Presbyterian General Assembly had not the right to bind the whole Presbyterian church. We therefore ask that these matters be submitted to the courts and by them decided". My hon. friend from Lisgar stated that he doubted very much whether the civil courts would make any other declaration than did the Presbyterian General Assembly. If that is the case, what do those who are in favour of the bill fear? Do they fear a slight delay? Is a matter of a few years going to make much difference in this great movement?-one of the greatest movements that have ever taken place in Canada. Is there any harm in waiting a short time until the constitutionality and the legality
5 p.m. of the measure, and the right of the Presbyterian Assembly to bind the Presbyterian church, are decided on by authority in regard to whose competency there can be no doubt whatever? Is that an unreasonable attitude even for one who is not a member of any of these petitioning churches? Would it not be more unreasonable for me to say that these churches shall be amalgamated and shall go forward as a united body, while I myself know nothing about the constitutionality of the matter, whether the power rests in this parliament to pass the bill, or whether it is legally competent for the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church to act in such manner as it did? It seems to me there can be no question at all about the course which is wisest in the circumstances; there can be no question in the mind of any hon. member who, like myself, desires to view the matter in a purely impartial and fair spirit, that it would be very much better not to put a measure through a House constituted as this is, but rather to place the whole subject before the courts of highest authority and obtain their decision upon it. And that is all that is asked. That being done the act can come into effect, and then the whole question is settled without further turmoil or any necessity to resort to parliament.
There is another question which has borne upon my mind and which to me at least is of very great consequence. Indeed, it is of consequence to me inasmuch as I have been brought up in the province of Quebec to regard as sacred those dispositions made under wills or donations in favour of any religious
sect or any religious institution. I do not say, of course, that they are never changed;
I do not say that the legislature of the province of Quebec never makes any such changes. I do not say that in Quebec we are bound altogether by what has actually taken place under wills or under donations; but I think I can say without fear of contradiction from any member from the province of Quebec that our legislature hesitates to change any bequest made in -a will or under a donation. If the amendments as brought down are not adopted, if the report of this committee does not carry, the result is to affect large donations made under deeds in the province of Quebec in a form surrounded with all possible solemnity, a form peculiar to the province of Quebec and in accordance with its laws. Donations of this kind have been made to the extent of hundreds of thousands of dollars-I might even say millions-under wills and in the form of such donations as I have described. I wish again to emphasize that this is one of the essential reasons why the report of this committee should be adopted; it guards at least in a measure against any casting aside of the wishes of those who are dead and gone, wishes specifically stated in writing. Surely we should respect those wishes to the fullest possible extent. Take, for example, a donation made by one of our most prominent citizens of the city of Montreal, the late Mr. David Morrice, with whose name is connected the David Morrice Hall and Library on McTavish street in that city. Under the solemn form peculiar to the province of Quebec he stated-I have here an extract from the donation-that he gave to the Presbyterian College of Montreal the David Morrice hall and library, valued at the time of the donation at certainly not less than $100,000. Under similar donations there have been given to the same hall and library by other prominent citizens of that city amounts which run into a total of about half a million dollars. Under what terms was this donation made? What did the donor wish to have carried out? He stated clearly that the donation was made to the Presbyterian College of Montreal for the particular purposes of that college. There was no ambiguity about it; there was no uncertainty as to what he intended. The Presbyterian College of Montreal was a body incorporated under the legislature existing under the old Act of Union of Canada. There was no doubt when this donation was made what the Presbyterian College of Montreal was intended to teach; no doubt as to what this donation was to be used for. The act is definite -and express in its terms. I read

United Church of Canada
from ''The Public Statutes Relating to the Presbyterian Church in Canada," published in Toronto, Canada, 1879. The Act to incorporate the Presbyterian College was assented to on 18th March 1865, and it states:
The Presbyiterian College of Montreal shall continue to be a body corporate, with perpetual succession, and a common seal, and with the powers vested in corporate bodies by the Interpretation Act, and also with power, under the said corporate name, and without license in mortmain to hold and to purchase, acquire, have, take, and enjoy by gift, grant, conveyance, devise, bequest, or otherwise to them and their successors, any estate or property, real or personal, to and for the use of the said college, in trust for the promotion of theological learning and education of youth for the holy ministry, under the authority, and according to the principles and standards of the Canada Presbyterian church aforesaid.
That is stated in the preamble of the act. That is one of the reasons why the Presbyterian College of Montreal, was incorporated. The act goes on to say:
It shall be lawful for the synod of the Canada Presbyterian church at its next ordinary meeting after the passing of this act to declare by resolution or a by-law to that effect and record in the register of proceedings of the said synod-
I will not read the whole section, but it goes on to deal with the rules and regulations under which this property shall be held. Later the synod did adopt rules and regulations relating to the Presbyterian College of Montreal. They also stated-I am reading from page 163 of the same publication:
That the principles and doctrines to be taught in the Presbyterian College of Montreal by the professors and tutors, or other persons who shall from time to time, and at all times hereafter, be employed or appointed in giving instruction in the said college shall be such and such only as are consistent with and agreeable to the " Confession of Faith," the " Larger and Shorter Catechisms," and the " Form of Church Government," all of which are called " The Westminster Standards," and shall comprise all theological learning consistent with the said standards.
It. is only fair to say that in the same section there is a provision which gives the right to deviate somewhat from those standards, but those deviations can only be taken in matters of direction, not in matters of doctrine. The act makes it abundantly clear that the teachings in the Presbyterian College of Montreal shall be in accordance with this act of incorporation, which teachings are distinctly laid down as based upon the Westminster Confession of Faith and the regulations of the synod.
i Mr. IIOEY:	When was that donation
made?


Herbert Meredith Marler: On the 28th of November, 1882.
[Mr. Marler.J


Mr. HOEY:: The hon. member is aware,
I suppose, that that college is being used for the education of men who intend to enter the ministry of the three churches, for several years?


Herbert Meredith Marler: The college is being used
as all other theological colleges in Montreal are being used, namely, for t'he education of those who desire to enter the ministry in a number of churches. My hon. friend probably has in mind the fact that students of the Montreal Diocesan Theological College also attend that college and that Presbyterian students also attend the Montreal Diocesan Theological College. But on essential questions of doctrine these students are taught separately.


Thomas William Bird: When was the college originally founded? -


Herbert Meredith Marler: I do not know. I am not speaking about the foundation of the college.


Thomas William Bird: If the founding of the college
dated back some considerable time before that donation was made, that would be important.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I think my hon. friend
has altogether missed the point. I was pointing out that under a donation made in 1882- and I am only citing it as an example-the late Mr. Morrice specifically gave the Presbyterian College of Montreal certain properties, valued roughly at $100,000, for the purposes of the act incorporating the Presbyterian college which I have just read.


Thomas William Bird: The statute to which my hon. friend referred dated back to 1865, did it not?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Yes.


Thomas William Bird: And it laid down the trust to which this donation was made?


Herbert Meredith Marler: That does not affect the situation.


Thomas William Bird: What effect had the union of 1874 and 1875 upon that trust?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I would say, no effect
whatsoever in any way. That was not a case of union of the Methodist and Presbyterian churches. There may have been a union of certain Presbyterian bodies, but the essential doctrine was not affected.


Thomas William Bird: Did that union of the three Presbyterian churches in 1874 and 1875 have no effect on the original trust?

United Church of Canada


Herbert Meredith Marler: Exactly the same doctrines were taught.
Mr. MeMASTER: They were all supposed to adhere to the Westminster Confession.


Herbert Meredith Marler: They all adhered to substantially the same doctrine. I am not giving this in a spirit of hostility at all; I am simply stating points of fact which appear clearly on the face of these proceedings, namely, that donations were given for the propagation of certain articles of faith.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If I understood my hon. friend, a bequest was made to the college in question on condition that certain doctrines should be taught in that college. Am I correct in that?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Yes.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Adherence to the Westminster Confession of faith, for instance, was one of the conditions of the bequest? Am I correct in that?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Yes.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If that is so-


Herbert Meredith Marler: May I interrupt my hon. friend so that there will be no misapprehension on this question? The actual donation in question does not state what doctrine shall be taught. It is given to the Presbyterian College of Montreal, a body incorporated under a particular act, which I have read. That particular act refers to what shall be taught at the Presbyterian College of Montreal. In other words, you have to read not only the donation but also the act of incorporation, as well as the regulations which the Senate of the Presbyterian Church in Canada brought down after the incorporation of the Presbyterian college itself.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Very well. I think it is generally admitted by all parties that the Presbyterian church has the right to change its basis of doctrine; that in that matter it is supreme. If that is true, and it should change its basis of doctrine, what would be the position of the bequest my hon. friend refers to?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Has the Presbyterian church changed its basis of doctrine?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It has the right to do it, and supposing it did do it, what would be the position of the bequest?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Has it the right to do it?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not think that is
denied.


Herbert Meredith Marler: In what way has it the right to do it? I understand my hon. friend's question to be this: If the Presbyterian church did change its basis of doctrine, what would be the position of this donation? Now if the act was put through as originally framed, this donation would go in with the rest of the property, because the act distinctly cites the Presbyterian College of Montreal. Parliament can certainly do that. But the point I am making is this, that unless the power of the Presbyterian General Assembly to bind the Presbyterian church is certain and distinct -and the only way it can be made certain and distinct, as far as I can see, is by reference to the courts-the terms of this donation should not be altered. Once the courts decide that the Presbyterian General Assembly have the right to bind the whole Presbyterian church, it follows without the slightest doubt that this donation would then be merged in the United church. Have I answered my hon. friend to the fullest extent he desires?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Not very clearly.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am sorry I cannot convince my hon. friend, but there are other matters on which I cannot convince him, as he is veiy well aware.
That is the situation, Mr. Chairman, without any doubt as regards numerous donations, and I have only quoted one. I repeat again, I do not make any argument or cite this donation in any spirit of hostility, but merely for the purpose of definitely and absolutely citing facts which do exist, and which, it seems to me, would be fully covered by the amendments which are brought down in this amended bill.
There is one other point which I desire to urge. I think that under our parliamentary practice a report of a committee, is as a rule -not always-accepted by the House of Commons. There is a reason for that, and a very good reason. Committees are appointed for the purpose of hearing witnesses and going into all the facts of the case fully, and understanding the situation far more thoroughly than can possibly be done by members in this House assembled. I think that is admitted. Various authorities speak on that question in no uncertain terms. I have here The Government of England by A. Lawrence Lowell, a man of very great note, a professor of the Science of Government in Harvard university. At page 265 of volume 1 of this book this point is brought out very clearly. The author clearly states that the actual reason in parliamentary government for committees, great and small, is for the purpose of

United Church of Canada
sifting the facts, for the purpose of understanding the situation, for the purpose of bringing forward into the House itself a measure which has been thoroughly digested, so that the House would only have to decide on the main issues. That idea is also borne out by many other authorities. Therefore I repeat, that for us to attempt amendments in a bill of this description means that we would be making amendments the full effect of which it would be utterly impossible for us to understand, amendments which would be of a most far-reaching character, amendments which possibly do not harmonize with other parts of the bill, amendments which without hearing witnesses and counsel it is impossible for us fully and properly to digest and understand. For those reasons it seems to me that we should be prepared to accept the report of this committee. As far as I am concerned, for the reasons which I have given, I intend to vote for the adoption of the report as now brought down.


Mr. R. J. WOODS (Dufferin):: Mr. Chairman, I think we are discussing one of the most important measures that have come before parliament, at least, in my parliamentary experience. I was surprised at some of the arguments the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) brought forward in his address against the amendment that has been proposed by those advocating union. The necessity for a united front has been insisted upon. It has been argued that there should be absolute unanimity before such changes as are contemplated here are carried into effect. Let me point out that such a demand is not customary-is quite unusual-in connection with the 'proceedings of any organization. We believe in majority rule in this country; it is the principle which obtains in connection with the management of every organization whether of a religious, a social or a political character. Majority rule is the rule which prevails and absolute unanimity is rarely demanded. So far as the present bill is concerned it has not been apposed by the Methodist church, the Congregational church, or the United committee. Hence we must assume that the measure is satisfactory to the various churches interested. The movement for unity has involved considerable time, anxiety, labour and expense. The changes embodied in the bill are the fruition of strenuous efforts and of the deliberations of the best minds in the several churches identified with the movement. These churches now come to parliament and ask to be incorporated in the United church. The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff)

sought to airgue that the United church was taking something away from the Presbyterian community and that there was practically no recognition of the rights of-those who dissent to union. My reading of the bill convinces me that ample provision is made for the protection of rights of minorities. Dissenting churches need not enter union if they do not so desire, and six months is granted to them before the bill comes into operation in which to determine' whether they shall go into union or remain out. If they do not enter union they will receive their proper share of the church assets. The opponents of the bill are asking that the measure shall not come into effect until an opinion has been obtained from the courts as to its constitutionality. That demand comes from a small minority only. The wish of the majority is that the legislation asked for should be enacted. The United church is asking for incorporation by parliament. That is no new thing. The Methodist church came to parliament for incorporation in 1884. The Presbyterians came for a similar purpose. The Orange society and other bodies came to parliament for incorporation. All the United church is asking for is the right to transact its own business through its own organization. Parliament is not asked to decide any questions of doctrine, or church polity or church government. All the United church asks for is the right to legally transact its own business, and it seems to me we have no right to tell it to go to the courts for a decision. In my opinion parliament would be acting wisely to say to "the supporters of this bill, "We will give you the right, as a United church, to carry on your own affairs and transact your own business." To adopt any other course would be virtually dictating to the United church what its course should be.


Thomas William Bird: The opponents of this bill are making a direct challenge to the right of a Christian church, a religious organization, to exercise its corporate authority in mattere of doctrine or church government. The many objections which those who represent the opponents of the bill in this House have presented are just so many variations of that basic position. Whether they talk of the rights of minorities or of breaking trusts or of the significance of votes, or in whatever other manner they chose to express their grievances, it all comes back to this primary proposition: That an organized, religious body has not the right in these respects to exercise its corporate

United Church oj Canada
function. That is a very serious proposition, and goes right to the very structure of voluntary churches as we have conceived of them up to the present time. As individual members of this House, we may with perfect legitimacy hold our own views as to the justice or historical truth of the various internal arrangements that are adopted by different churches in this country. It is within the rights of every one of us to hold our personal views as to the character of the principles on which the various churches have constituted themselves; but in our collective capacity to assume the role of an ecclesiastical court of appeal and to sit in judgment upon these matters is a very different thing in my conception, Mr. Chairman. If this parliament is going to take unto itself that function, I say it strikes at the very foundation of church economy. It strikes at the very principle of cohesion that binds the voluntary church together, and in so doing, if, whether mistakenly or otherwise, it presumes to do that, I believe that, without intending it, it will open up a vista of ecclesiastical recrimination which every Canadian honestly shrinks from. As to this right of the churches irrespective of the principle of their constitution-I do not care what the principle of that constitution may be,-as it happens we are dealing now with a church which is based upon the Presbyterian system,-it is a serious thing for that church to admit for one moment that any exterior authority can step in and dictate to it as to the wisdom, as to the justice, or as to the truth of that principle.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Does the hon. member go so far as to state a legislature would not have the right to restrain a church that was endeavouring to treat a minority with real injustice? I am asking the abstract question. I am not saying whether the bill is just or not. I want to know if the hon. member carries that proposition as far as he appears to carry it.


Thomas William Bird: I will go so far as to say that this House of Commons might very well be left until such a situation arises, and I think if it did arise at any time it would be settled in the wisest possible manner. But we are dealing at the present time with a totally different situation, a situation which I have taken for granted is straightforward, in which one of the prominent churches of this country, united with others, has petitioned this House, in accordance with the constitutional principles that govern that church, for a certain measure that commends itself by an overwhelming majority to the minds of this country. I was proceeding to say that it is a very serious
thing for any church to admit for a moment the right of any exterior authority to trespass upon this sacred ground, and I will go so far as to say that this right, which has been a very contentious one throughout the centuries, is no mere right to follow the prescribed routine of any written constitution. It is the right of the church to adapt itself to its environment in time and in place, and there is not a church on this continent which at bottom does not claim that right to the very last letter. How else could a church exist if that right were taken from it? It could not exist. The law of organization is the same as the law of natural organisms. They can only live in the truest sense by adapting themselves to the circumstances in which they find themselves. If the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) could succeed in his attempt to bind the Presbyterian Church in Canada to the standards that were proved to be good and necessary in the seventeenth century in the Kingdom of Scotland, he would forever condemn that church to inaction, and in my judgment if we are to follow his advice, we may as well at once assign the Presbyterian Church in Canada a place alongside those huge fossils which adorn our National Museum at the foot of this street. Those relics of the prehistoric times ceased to exist and became fossils because nature deprived them of their right to change their constitutions, and that is what the hon. gentleman would do with respect to the Presbyterian church in Canada.


Andrew Ross McMaster: He is an Anglican anyway.


Thomas William Bird: You can confer upon him all the honours you choose. There is one surprising thing which I find on inquiry, namely, that many hon. gentlemen who are leading in this matter of church union shrink from carrying out the logic of their position with regard to themselves personally. They would bind the church to antiquity, but they themselves would move abreast of the times. They dance along to the lively measures of German criticism, and all the most up-to-date views that can be expressed in the theological realm. Yet, at the same time they would bind their lowlier brethren down to the more staid, but not less worthy, music of the simple oaten pipes of John Knox away back in the seventeenth century. I do not understand the position of these gentlemen, leaders in this movement against union, these men who would bind burdens grievous to be borne upon their fellow Christians and who yet refuse to touch those burdens with their little finger. I cannot conceive where the integrity
357S
United Church of Canada

of conviction comes in. It reminds me of the position of those Roman patricians who sacrificed to the ancient deities to meet the opinions of the common herd, but who in private conversation poured contempt upon those things. I do not think that any of those gentlemen are prepared to carry out the logic of their situation to its final issue. We admire the seventeenth century. There is no century in the annals of Anglo-Saxon history which is more admirable. There is something about its atmosphere which is always beautiful to contemplate. But we cannot go back to the Scotland of that time. Providence has placed us in Canada in the twentieth century, a totally different century and a totally different place, with its own problems and its own necessities. Providence has laid it upon us as living, active people to meet those problems as best we know how.
If I may, perhaps, take the discussion into rather a different realm, in dealing with a question of this kind, I should like to deal with those interior and intangible forces which have gradually produced the movement which to-day is held in question. I do not for one moment hold light the fundamental motives of those who are opposing us on this question. Undoubtedly, they are sincere; but those who undertake to oppose a movement m the direction of religious reunion are in a very difficult situation as compared with those who are putting their energies behind a movement such as that. Surely the stars in their courses are arrayed on the side of those who are bent on overcoming the non-essential differences that exist between religious peoples in this country and in any other country in the world.
In the preamble of the bill, in very solemn ind earnest language, it is stated that this petition is the outcome of a profound sense of religious obligation directed by what they term as the expressed will of the Almighty Himself. A statement of that kind is very difficult to gainsay. Ever since Apostolic times, Christians in all .countries and all ages 'have refused to part with the aspiration of ultimate Christian reunion. That has obtained through the centuries. It has been opposed only by little, exclusive, insular, out-of-the-way sects at any time or in any age. There is no church in the history of Christendom that has not, throughout its history, maintained that bright dream before its mind. How otherwise could it be when you understand the fundamental character of our common faith? This movement is based on' a universal conviction in the hearts of religious

people of all denominations, of all sects, of all countries. Not only is there the force of an overwhelming conviction behind this movement, but there is the impetus of a historical movement that is world-wide in its scope and irresistible in its career. Ever since in Great Britain a hundred years ago the final seal was laid upon religious liberty-and I would take your minds back to that period and the period of conflict that preceded the final triumph of religious liberty-the course of Christian reunion has gone on unhindered. In Great Britain itself the movement has not been so speedy as has been the case with other movements in that country, but union proceeded slowly and, maybe, fitfully until the Great War itself came on and gave a new impetus to it. Christian union since the Great War has been one of the most vital issues in British public life. In Canada ever since the time I referred to, this movement towards Christian reunion has gone on steadily and with gathering volume.
If you take the family tree of any one of those united churches, you will be amhzed to see of what it is the product, of all the different converging lines of ecclesiastical traditions that .come together in each of those churches. Those ecclesiastical genealogies themselves are proof to any reasonable mind that this movement -with which we are dealing this afternoon is one that has its roots away baok historically, and that it has gained upon the convictions of Christain people a hold which cannot be wrenched away. This movement has not only an unconquerable conviction behind it-and I would remind the committee that is a very important statement of mine, but it is true-but the impetus of an historical movement that is written plain right over the history of the British people.
More than that, I believe it appeals to the common sense of the Canadian people. They tell us that when we adduce instances of previous unions, which to me are in no sense different from this union, they were unions of similar churches, of churches with similar doctrines, similar polity and so on. Let that be granted. Then we appeal to the common sense of the Canadian people and say: What is this union but the union of churches with similar doctrines and similar polity? I should like the committee to apply whatever fair test they would wish to apply to the situation. I would ask the hon. member for Lunenburg on Sunday to go to a Presbyterian church in the morning and a Methodist church in the evening. Let him go in the morning to Knox PreshsTerian church, where the pastor

United Church oj Canada
is a prominent anti-unionist, and in the evening to the Dominion Methodist church where the pastor is a prominent unionist, and let him come baek and tell us wherein the difference lies.
Mr. DUFF- I do not need to go to either of these churches, but if I were a young married man with three children I should like them to go to a Sunday school and I should want to know whether, if this union bill is passed, the Shorter Catechism would be taught in any Union Sunday school.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It is not taught in many of the Presbyterian Simday schools now.


Thomas William Bird: I was interrupted while the
hon. member (Mr. Duff) was putting his question. He did not accept my suggestion, and I suppose the reason therefor was the gist of his remarks.


William Duff: The hon. member said that if I went to Knox Presbyterian church in the morning and to the Dominion Methodist church in the evening I should not know the difference in polity or doctrine between the two. I said that if I were a young married man with three or four children I would want to have them attend a Union Sunday school; and the question I asked was whether if this bill were passed the Shorter Catechism would be taught in that Sunday school.


Thomas William Bird: The question reminds me of
the story of the little child who begged its mother for an egg. The mother beat the egg and put it in a pudding and when dinner time came the little girl cried and asked her mother where the egg was.


William Duff: That is not an answer to my question.


Thomas William Bird: We will change the figure; perhaps the test is too hard on the hon. gentleman himself.


William Duff: You cannot answer my
question.


Thomas William Bird: Let me put it another way.
What is the difference between the doctrine of a Methodist minister who is taught in a Presbyterian college and that of a Presbyterian minister who is taught in a Methodist college?


William Duff: My hon. friend being a
Methodist does not know what the Presbyterian colleges teach. But before I answer his question will he answer mine? He deliberately put a question to me with regard
to the respective churches. Will he be good enough to say whether the Shorter Catechism will be taught in the Sunday schools of the United church?


Thomas William Bird: No, and it is not taught now.
The children of Presbyterians and Methodists are taught with the same literature issued by the same printing press at the present time.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas William Bird: When the committee rose
before dinner I was proceeding to show that the attitude taken by the opponents of this bill was a very serious one, having regard to the right of any voluntary religious organization to exercise its corporate authority. I went on to say that the movement which had given rise to the bill sprang from motives deep in conviction and almost universal amongst religious people in this age and was the outcome of an historical movement dating back quite one hundred years, if one considers only the modern phase of it. It is a movement which commends itself, as I was pointing out, to the common sense of the Canadian people, because there is practically no difference between the churches united; in every important sense they are already one. At that point I was interrupted by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) and I was doing my best to convert him from the error of his ways. I will admit that the effort was somewhat discouraging.


William Duff: Did you unscramble that egg yet?


Thomas William Bird: I was proceeding to enlighten
the hon. gentleman in regard to the doctrinal similarity of these uniting churches. I will turn for a moment from the position taken by the hon. gentleman and give some attention to the views expressed by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler). That hon. gentleman referred to the traditional attitude taken in the province of Quebec towards the rights of minorities. I thought at the time he was making that reference that he was departing somewhat from his usual candour in argument, because the sacredness of the rights of minorities is not at the moment concerned. If the rights of minorities were concerned in this issue a good many of us would be as strongly on the side of the minority as the hon. gentleman himself, because the sacredness of the rights of

United Church oj Canada
minorities has been stamped on every fibre of the being of us who have inherited the traditions of the free churches of Great Britain. There is no need to appeal to that sentiment in our nature, because it is indelibly placed there. In times gone by our forbears stood shoulder to shoulder with the forbears of the people of Quebec on this question. So that is not the issue at stake. It is not the rights of minorities that is at issue, but the position of a faction within an ordered community. If the hon. gentleman in the name of the sacred rights of minorities is going to exalt faction above church order, then that is where we take issue with him, and that is where I believe his friends in Quebec will take issue with him. That is simply by way of disentangling the issue.
I wish now to proceed along the lines I had been pursuing, and to say a word or two with regard to the national aspect of this question, because a question which involves such a large proportion of the Canadian people does assume a national aspect. It seems to me that the welfare of our country as a whole is involved in this very matter. I should be making a trite remark if I said that Canada was a difficult country to govern; the statement has been made so often as to become commonplace. But the fact remains that whether you consider Canada geographically or economically, to govern it is the despair, I am sure, of all earnest minded statesmen. Now in this proposition to unite the great Protestant churches of this country we have something that may very well make every patriotic Canadian think. In a country like this I think it is very well indeed that we should ,lay emphasis upon those invisible bonds which bind us together in spite of distance, in spite of physical obstacle, in spite of sectional points of view, nay, in spite sometimes of economic differences. I think we Canadian people, we members of parliament, ought to lay stress upon these invisible bonds of citizenship which bind people together in spite of sectional differences and divergent points of view. In this proposition to unite the great Methodist church of this country with the great Presbyterian church, including the Congregational churches, you are creating something that is going to weld this country together from coast to coast. Every connections! officer that travels from ocean to ocean will be a living symbol of the unity of Canada, and the message he will take from one end of Canada to the other will be a message of unity.
I would go a little further, Mr. Chairman, and mention a subject which I believe that

every Canadian, whatever his religious affiliation is, has begun to take very seriously indeed. I refer to the flowing tide of materialism that is swamping this country, in common with other countries, from one coast to the other. We may not look at this thing in the same light, and it is not necessary that we should. Sometimes when on the floor of th-'s House we are dealing with moral questions there is a manifest difference of view between, say, myself and my hon. friends over here; but no matter what the point of view is, the thing viewed is the same, and it is a veiy serious consideration. I have heard sometimes my hon. friends from Quebec, who are of another faith from that of my own, speak very seriously about certain aspects of the moral life of this country, and I have never listened to them except with the greatest of respect, although I may differ from them; and they, in their turn, have listened to me expressing my view as to the moral life of this country, and though they may not have agreed with me in my views, they with me are agreed that the moral life of this country, in common with the moral life of every civilized country, is showing certain marked tendencies which may well cause serious consideration in the minds of all serious-minded citizens. Now what I want to say, Mr. Chairman, is this: Right throughout the length and breadth of this country I want to see a united Protestant church working alongside a united Catholic church, each working within its own sphere, and their spheres are well defined, each working according to its own traditional conception of the problems involved, to maintain as far as they can, and it needs all the effort of both together, in the soul of the Canadian people that reverence for moral sanctions without which no nation can ever prosper. Do not let us bring this subject down to a level where it becomes confused in ancient and petty rivalries. That would be a big mistake.
This is a subject, Mr. Chairman, which while it concerns every patriotic Canadian, concerns primarily I suppose the churches concerned, and it is to be hoped that we as a House will have the greatest possible respect for the expressed will of those great churches, because they have acted in the best interests of those churches; they have acted for their own good. I know it has been hinted, but I think not worthily, that this movement has taken i'ts origin in some overweening ambition on the part of the churches concerned, but I think nothing could be more absurd if you look at the thing fairly. How can this movement which has begun in the spirit of tolerance bear the fruits of intoler-

United Church oj Canada
ance? I think the very opposite will be true. To whom should we, as a parliament, go to ask what is in the interests of the churches concerned? To whom shall we go to settle this question? I have the greatest possible respect for those who are opposed to this bill, but I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, to whom I would go to ask an opinion as to what is for the good of the Presbyteiian church and for the good of the Methodist church in Canada. I would first of all go to the missionaries of those churches who are holding the outposts of Christendom in China and in India, those men who, if any men do at this day, represent the original spirit that created Christianity, those men who, at sacrifice to themselves, are holding fast and firm the principles of Christianity on the outposts of civilization. When you think of names like St. Francis Xavier, Father Damien, Livingstone, Moffat, and Carey, you are recalling men whose names will remain firm in the annals of the race long after the names of our warriors and statesmen have faded away. Those are the men of whom the House ought to be proud, and I would ask the opinion of the living descendants of these men. They have been asked, and what have they said? With almost unanimous voices they have voted in favour of church union. How could they do otherwise? Then I would go to the thousands of ministers who are working in the rural parishes of this country, that great body of Presbyterian and Methodist ministers who are working in the rural fields of this country. They have a right to be asked, because they are bearing the burden and heat of the day, these men who with their families have given their lives to this cause. I know that a good many of our city ministers have generously given their support to this movement, and they are to be honoured for it. But what is the reason? It is because they have been through the mill themselves. They know what it is to work out on some rural charge and to bear the heartache and humiliation of trying to carry on their work in competition with their brother ministers when there was no necessity for that competition-men with the same message, with the same methods, on the same ground, compelled by our denominationalism to carry on their work under those conditions. It is a serious matter, Mr. Chairman.
In this Canada of ours it is becoming more and more difficult to get the young men coming out of our universities to enter the ministry, because they believe our divisions and narrow denominationalism has rendered this sacred calling less than a man's job. Now
this bill which is before us proposes to do away with that obstacle, and to make a thousand parishes, nay, two and three thousand parishes in Canada, a field whereto we can invite our young men to give their life's work. And then I would speak also of the great body of laymen who have to foot the bill. We sometimes talk about the unsupport-ableness of taxes. But people outside the churches know very little about the impost that is laid upon the average church member in trying to carry on work which after all is national work. And I think the laymen of our churches-who are sometimes paying two, three and sometimes four times the amount which they could reasonably be expected to do in order to carry on the work of the congregation-I think those men have a right to be consulted. They have been consulted, and their answer has been overwhelmingly in favour of church union.
I want to say in conclusion that this movement not only commends itself to us from a national point of view, not only from that deference which is due to sister Christian churches endeavouring to carry on a work under very onerous conditions, but also from a strictly legal point of view. The legal side has been almost exclusively discussed this afternoon. I did not enter into it at the beginning, because I thought possibly I might deal with the question from another angle; but I wish to say in conclusion that this bill as introduced is in perfect harmony with the law, as the law is understood by the average lay mind, and contains the most generous provision for minorities. The counsel for the opponents of the bill based his argument, his legal argument, almost exclusively on the Scottish church case. He said in his speech that the principle underlying the Scottish church case was that no general assembly, no matter how unanimous the vote, has the power to destroy the church it was commissioned to preserve. I want to say very respectfully that the learned gentleman when he made that statement was simply filling up a gap in his argument by his forensic imaginings, because there was no such principle embodied in the judgment given. The judgment as laid down by the law lords contained two very clear principles which I ask this House to apply to this case. The first principle was identity of doctrine. The second was that there should be power to change doctrine. They laid upon themselves the onus of proving both and to the satisfaction of themselves, with certain dissentients, they decided that there was no identity of doctrine
United Church of Canada

-that is, in this specific case there was no identity of doctrine-and there was no power to change doctrine. Those are the two prin-c.ples upon which that case was decided.
Now, I do not need 'to appeal to anyone in particular because it seems to be so plain: Here are these two principles. Let us apply them to the Presbyterian Church in Canada, and let me remark that the Presbyterian Church in Canada is not the Presbyterian Church in Scotland. But let us apply these two principles. First as to identity of doctrine. Well, I have already dealt with that and I did not convert the hon. member for Lunenburg, but I think I showed to the ordinary common sense way of thinking that there is absolutely no difference between the doctrine of the Presbyterian Church in Canada and the doctrine of the Methodist Church in Canada-absolutely no difference. They teach the children out of the same text books in the Sunday schools; the missionaries divide the work between them, signifying that no longer have they the consciousness of any special message to deliver; and they use also each others parsonages, and no doubt they borrow each other's money. Now, leaving all technicalities aside, I do not think that any man can stand up here and say that the doctrine, the working doctrine, of these churches is in any way different; they are absolutely identical.
But then, what about the power to change doctrine? Well, with regard to the Presbyterian Church in Canada I might, perhaps, endeavour to enlighten the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler)) if he were here; but he is not here. If he were here I might tell him that the Presbyterian Church in Canada, whatever was the position of the uniting churches in Scotland, has the right to change its doctrine. That right is set forth in a very clear legal decision that was given in the Dobbie case. That right is couched in unmistakable terms in the rules and usages of the church; that right has been exercised in two specific instances; and what is more, that right is stamped indelibly upon the consciousness of the Presbyterian church in this country. Well, if that is the case, if we have identity in doctrine, if we have power to change doctrine, why should this parliament confront the Presbyterian church with the technicalities it is trying to get away from?
With respect to this amendment I could have understood the member for Lunenburg, and others, if they had attempted to get a vote against the petition. If they had come

straight out against the petitioners in the first place and said "This bill must not go through this House" I could have understood it. But they bring in this amendment, and they have very cunningly laid a snare before the members of this House. What they despaired of doing in the open light of public discussion they thought they could do at a subsequent date in the twilight of legal disputation. They remind me of a carnivorous wasp which never kills its prey outright but just-sticks in its probe at the right place and waits for another day to finish the job. I cannot understand an attempt of that kind to mislead this House, for after all the intention and the motive behind the amendment is to defeat the bill and that is all there is to it. If this parliament yields to the amendment it will be shirking a duty, a clear duty, which belongs to it; a duty which the British parliament just two or three years ago accepted in the Scottish church bill. The very thing these petitioners arl asking us to do this evening is the thing which the Scottish church asked the British House of Commons to do three years ago, and the British House of Commons did it without demur. They did it in deference to the expressed will of a great Scottish church; aind if the thing that is expedient and right for the British parliament to do is wrong and inexpedient for us to do, then I fail to understand the situation at all.
And then, Mr. Chairman, finally, if this parliament accedes to the movers of this amendment they will be, as I have already indicated, taking away from the church the responsibility that rests within the church, that has always rested within the church, and which no church in Canada would consciously allow to pass out of its hands. They are taking this matter which concerns doctrine and policy, the most sacred right of all Christian bodies, and wresting it out of the sacred realm to which it belongs, and they are hurling it ruthlessly and thoughtlessly into the maelstrom of political controversy. I appeal to the House with the very highest of motives not to accede to the individuals who have been pressing this matter upon us for some weeks, but to accede to those who have sent them here, and to accede in particular to the great Presbyterian church as that church has expressed itself through its historic General Assembly, and has expressed itself so decisively and so finally only about a week ago.

United Church oj Canada


Mr. MURRAY MacLAREN (St. John City):: We have heard this afternoon a
quotation from Bourinot which states that it is very rarely that the committee of the whole interferes with a bill as reported by a select committee. Now in this case the select committee has heard a great deal of evidence and has given much consideration to the matter; so much so that one of the points on which all members of the select committee will agree, is that the matter has been thoroughly presented to them, in so far as was possible under the circumstances. Now then, if it be the procedure with few exceptions that the committee of the whole should accept the report of the select committee, and in view of the great amount of evidence which has been presented to the select committee, I think the committee of the whole will exercise the greatest caution before accepting the amendment which has been placed before us this afternoon. The amendment which was placed in the bill by the select committee is a safeguard. It is eminently fair to all parties. It ensures, I believe beyond doubt, the fairest decision that can be obtained in a matter of this kind, and therefore I would submit that there is much reason to accept the bill as amended and presented to the committee, and not to depart from it.
There are several subjects which I will refer to before dealing with the amendments as such, because there are several incorrectly stated propositions and certain misunderstandings in the matter. First of all, a word on the subject of union. All anti-unionists are favourable to uniion. I have said that and I repeat it. They are favourable to union, and not only so but it is their duty to favour union in so far as possible. That being the case, all Methodists, all Congregationalists, and such Presbyterians as so desire, are free tomorrow to enter into the union. And under what circumstances will they obtain more Presbyterians because it is evident that Presbyterians will remain out of the union and that the Presbyterian church will continue. I say it is some obsession on the word "union" in the case that prevents a settlement on the point. As I say, we are favourable to union, but we are not favourable to union beyond the rights of those who are petitioning, nor are we favourable to the proposal to interfere with the rights of those who are opposed to it. We are not favouring union at the expense of taking away a church which we consider belongs to those who wish to retain it. We are not favourable to a union compelling a large number of
people to go into a church who are not willing to do so. It is one of the great principles that comes to us, one of the great heritages, that we have not only civil but religious liberty. It is no use saying "This is a great idea, therefore go to it." It must be dependent on the circumstances, and must be dependent on people's own desires. Each one must judge for himself. It is a common saying that union is a good thing; the bill is for union; vote for it. That is altogether subject to various conditions. Are the petitioning churches entitled to it, or have they authority to ask for it Have they authority to do away with their own church? Is it right to put into that church people who are not prepared to go there? Those are important questions. If there something that is more important than union, it is the principle of religious freedom.
The next point I desire to refer to is the question of majorities, and there is a good deal of misunderstanding on that subject. First, let me say that the General Assembly does not represent the sentiment of the people, and I will try to demonstrate that in a moment or two. The General Assembly does not represent the sentiment of the people, nor do the votes of the General Assembly authorize the General Assembly to enter into union. And all I am saying, or nearly all I propose to say, is from the Presbyterian standpoint, because that is the section that is entering the protest. The union movement in the Presbyterian church was what? It was clerical and official; it never arose from the people. The explanation of the twenty years taken with the proceedings is the best evidence that it never received the support of the people as a whole. As I say, it was official and clerical. Therefore that influence has naturally had a great restraining influence on the people, and in the process of time, when they saw especially the nature of the bill that is before us now, they broke through the influence and control of the clergy. It is not now possible to say which is the majority.
The General Assembly does not represent the sentiment of the people, because it is not in any sense representative in numbers. A congregation, no matter how small, if it has only a score or two score members, has its minister and elder in presbytery and a congregation of two thousand has its minister and elder in presbytery. Now, two thousand members in one part of the church may thus have only two representatives in the presbytery, and two thousand people in other places may have two hundred representatives in the presbytery, and those representatives
United Church of Canada

in the presbytery have their corresponding places in the assembly. Then, again, the members of the assembly do not represent the people in any issue such as church union because '.the members of the assembly are not elected by the people on any such issue, or any issue contemplating the blotting out of the church, but for its upbuilding and continuance. Members of the assembly, both ministers and elders, are chosen from the piesbytery and not from the people.
I wish to place before the committee some recent examples showing how far the commissioners have differed from their congregations. A few of them were given by the member for Lunenburg this afternoon. I would like to add to them. I am quoting from the last vote taken in 1915, and when 1 am mentioning this it reminds me that one of the members to my left said that there was no procedure for taking a plebiscite in the Presbyterian church. If that be true, it certainly is not laid down in the Blue Book. The fact is they have taken two plebiscites. They took one in 1911 and one in 1915, nine years ago, and if they took two plebiscites, it seems to me it would have been rather an easy matter for them to have taken a third, to have ascertained positively how the church stands at the present day. Let me give the committee the votes of 1915, because those are the last that can be obtained as the official vote:
Commissioners at General Assembly [DOT]	Owen Sound
For Against For Against Presbytery union union union union
Pictou	
1,790	3,345	11	3St. John	
1,513	1,779	7	0Montreal	
4,085	4,174	22	4Toronto	
7,434	7,780	28	5
There are other figures such as those for the presbytery of Peterborough, but I have not them here. Here is an analysis of the vote in Ontario at the General Assembly of this year:
Number
The following ministers voted for union in the assembly, the churches having recently recorded
themselves as against union	 11
The following ministers also voted for union representing no Canadian congregations.. .. 17
Partly retired ministers, partly professors and so forth. The elders' vote could not be determined accurately without personal knowledge of the churches represented by those alders, but the number of those who voted for union from anti-union congregations was six. These figures, I think, demonstrate to a very very large extent what a small relationship there is between the majority 
in the General Assembly and the sentiment amongst the general people of the country. I shall not give you the plebiscites, because they have already been given, but I wish to remind the committee that in the second vote of 1915, there was an increased vote over the previous one of over 23,000 opposed to union. What was the increase in the number of those in favour of union? Six hundred.
During the last year or two, ever since this bill or the nature of this bill has been known to the people, congregation after congregation has had informal votes and has shown a majority against union where the votes were formerly in favour of union. Such is a certain indication of how the people stand in the "Kirk" at the present day.
Let me say a word about the union of 1875 which has been frequently quoted as a justification for the proposed union of to-day. The union of 1875 was a union of four Presbyterian churches, not different denominations, not different churches. When I say that it was a union, that is not quite an accurate term. It was a reunion. Those churches had formerly been one and they came together again. That is one difference and a very vital substantial difference it is. But there are others. Those Presbyterian churches were not incorporated. The Presbyterian church of to-day is not incorporated. There is no need of its being incorporated. Another difference is that when that union took place, the congregations that decided to go in went in, and those that decided to remain out-and they were not many-remained out. What became of those congregations that remained out? Were they east adrift as isolated congregations without their church? Not at all. They remained in their mother church. In Pictou, especially, where they decided not to go in, there was formed for the two presbyteries a synod in which the church continued in connection with the mother church, the Church of Scotland. There was no taking away of their church from those people, and one of the great difficulties and hardships at the present day is the threat of their church being taken away from the people.
I am altogether of opinion that this committee has had the great advantage of acquiring a wonderful amount of useful ecclesiastical knowledge this afternoon. As regards the Free Church Act of 1905, the Free Church of Scotland1 and the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland proposed to. unite. They did1 unite, 'but a certain portion of the Free church protested. The case was tried in the courts, and finally in the Privy Council it was decided that the Free church could not

United Church oj Canada
unite with the United Presbyterian church and take its property with it into the union. What was the size of the minority? Twenty-six or twenty-seven ministers and their respective congregations. There is no comparison between that situation and1 the present situation in Canada. In Canada there are hundreds of congregations that are not prepared1 to go into the union now. Those that stayed out of the union in Scotland were called from their small numbers, the " Wee Frees." It was held by the Privy Council that the Free Church of Scotland could not unite. Why? Because their doctrines were not identical. My hon. friend on my left (Mr. Bird) put the matter in this way, that it had said that there was no identity of doctrine. I presume he did not mean that. There are no Christian churches in regard to which you can say that. What he meant, I presume, was that their doctrines were not identical, and that is a very different thing. Their doctrines were not identical, but they were very similar. They were both Presbyterian churches and yet there was sufficient difference to warrant the Privy Council in holding that union could not take place. That law still holds good; it has never been changed, although one would think, to hear the discussion which took place in the committee and the debate which has taken place in the House to-day, that the law had been proved to be faulty and that in consequence parliament had to step in. That is not the case. What happened was this: All the trusts and the church property could not be carried on by 26 ministers and their congregations and there was such an enormous amount of trust funds that could not function that parliament necessarily had to take notice. Parliament therefore appointed a commissioner, and I may read to the committee the following paragraph in the preamble to the act making the appointment:
Whereas a royal commission appointed to inquire into the matter have reported that the Free church are unable adequately-
Note, they are unable "adequately"-
-to carry out all the trusts of the property and that it is desirable to provide for an allocation thereof, provision being made for the equipment of the Free church, and whereas lit is expedient to make provision for such allocation by means of the appointment of a commissioner.
That is a different thing altogether; there were so few to carry on the affairs of the church that they failed in their trust and parliament had to step in and make allocation so that the properties might not go to waste but should be usefully employed. But the law still stands with regard to these churches,
that on the question of their doctrines they could not unite. Let me come to the Church of Scotland Act of 1921. Personally I do not think that it is very material to the present discussion, but those who are in favour of union have seized almost frantically on that act to help them in their case. My opinion is that it will not. I listened to my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown) this afternoon when he said that he would like to put something on Hansard; and he did. But I thought that there were some very important things which he might have put on Hansard and which he did not submit. I therefore want to supplement his statements on that point. The Church of Scotland at the present time seeks union with the church I have been speaking of, the United Free Church; but the Church of Scotland is an established body, a national church, in that respect the same as the Church of England. So that naturally it requires authority to unite with another church. Parliament therefore has passed an act in a schedule to which appear what are called declaratory articles- articles declaring the constitution of the church in matters spiritual. What does article No. 2 say in full?
The principal subordinate standard of the Church of Scotland is the Westminster confession of faith-
Is that in the proposed union?
-approved by the General Assembly of 1647, containing-
Mark this.
-the sum and substance of the faith of the Reformed church. Its government is Presbyterian and is exercised through kirk-sessions, presbyteries, provincial synods and General Assemblies. Its system and principles of worship, orders and discipline are in accordance with " The directory for the public worship of God," " The form of Presbyterial church Government," and " The form of Process," as these have been or may hereafter be interpreted or modified by acts of the General Assembly or consuetude.
This is an article setting forth that the principal subordinate standard of the Church of Scotland, containing the sum and substance of the faith of that church, is the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the act enables the church to join or form a junction with another Presbyterian church. Now let me read the remainder of the fifth article:
But always in agreement with the word of God and the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith contained in the said confession, of which agreement the church shall be the sole judge, and with due regard to liberty of opinion in points which do not enter into the substance of the faith.
I think it is pretty clear, if I may venture an ecclesiastical opinion, that, in these declaratory articles, are laid down the doctrine of

United Church of Canada

faith of the Church of Scotland and its principal and subordinate standard, the Westminster Confession of Faith, and that any changes that take place in the church must conform to the faith as set forth therein.
There are two great objections to
9	p.m. the bill, but before I consider them I want to supplement the views I advanced a moment ago. I have a note on the subject and it might be just as well if I gave it to the committee. The British act of 1921 did not give the Church of Scotland the power to abandon its Presbyterian standards; any changes in doctrine which it authorized had to be in harmony with the fundamental doctrines of the church as laid down at the Scottish Reformation, and as indicated in article 5. It would never have authorized such changes as appeared in the basis of union. The fact that legislation was necessary for the Church of Scotland indicates that without such legislation the Church of Scotland had no power to institute any change. The Presbyterian Church in Canada never obtained any such power from any parliament, but the church courts assumed to have that authority and, what is more, exercised it without any prior legislative sanction. The promoters of the bill before the Private Bills committee asserted and attempted to sustain the position that all that had been done by the church courts had been legally done and within the competence of such courts. Any action of the church courts in Canada was taken long before the legislation of 1921 was enacted, so that those actions could not have been based upon that precedent. In any event the British legislation of 1921 has no application to Canada and should not influence our decision.
Now I come to the two great objections to which I think the bill is open, and the first is that the action of the General Assembly is unconstitutional. And it seems to me there is a great deal of confusion on this point. I notice that some hon. members speak of the General Assembly as if it were the church, while others refer to it as a corporate body with certain functions. We shall see in a moment what the extent of its functions is. When the union of the four Presbyterian churches in Canada took place in 1875 those churches united under what was called the basis of union, and therein it is stated that the scriptures shall be the infallible rule of faith, and the Westminster Confession of Faith the subordinate standard; and then reference is made to the form of Presbyterian church government and "The directory for the public worship of God." That is the basis of union and the basis of their faith I want the committee to consider also what vows the min-
isters have taken in entering that church. They sign a vow that they believe in the Westminster Confession of Faith as adopted by this church in the basis of union, and the government of the church by sessions, presbyteries, synods and general assemblies, to be founded on and agreeable to the word of God; that they own the purity of worship at present authorized by this church and that they engage to adhere faithfully to the doctrine of the said confession, to maintain and defend the said government, to conform to the said worship, to submit to the discipline of the church. And then listen to these words:
To follow no divisive course from, the present order established therein.
The elders take a somewhat similar vow when they are ordained. Now, what is laid down for the General Assembly to do? The General Assembly receives and disposes of petitions, overtures, references, complaints, and so on; prescribes and regulates the course of duty of students having the ministry in view; corresponds with other churches, and so on; reviews the records of synods, deals with matters respecting doctrine, worship, discipline and government of the church. Its duty also is "to preserve the unity of the church;" that seems to have been overlooked in the recent years. Now, in view of what I have read-and all these things must be considered together: the basis of uni on; the vows of the ministers and elders of the church, their duties and the duties of the General Assembly as laid down in the Rules of Procedure-is there any authority to abolish their church? In all that I have read is there the remotest suggestion to that effect? On the contrary, the requirement to maintain and defend the church and to follow no divisive course therefrom is clearly laid down, and there is the requirement also to accept the Confession of Faith. There is every authority for the continuance of this church, but in my humble opinion there is no authority for its extinction. The General Assembly is not the church; it is a committee of the church to carry on the church's business affairs.
Now, a word about the free church case because two things are clearly shown. First of all, in the General Assembly no vote, no majority vote, not even a unanimous vote, can destroy the church that it is its commission to serve. Mark these words: No majority, not even a unanimous vote, can abolish the church. That is an entirely different view from what we have heard this afternoon. What does it mean? It means that the General Assembly has no authority to disturb the continuity of the church. The General Assembly

United Church of Canada
is merely a committee carrying on the business of the church, acting within its vows, dealing with matters affecting internal management. It is beyond its power and its authority to destroy the church which by their vows they have undertaken to serve and to maintain. No majority of the General Assembly, no church court of the Presbyterian church, can give power to divert property to a different purpose from that for which it was originally intended. There is a good deal of loose talk about this question of trusts. I have heard a man say, "Oh, well, it was a good many years ago that that condition was laid down; you really do not need to carry it out." Surely an attitude of that kind is no less blamable than any departure from the rigid interpretation of a will. The conditions surrounding the disposition of these properties must be scrupulously carried out.
I do not propose to read many quotations, but I would like to read from a decision of Lord Lindley of the Privy Council in the Wee Free case. This is what he said.
If, therefore, a synod or council, under colour of exercising their authority, were to destroy the church which they were appointed to preserve, or were to abrogate the doctrines which they were appointed to maintain, their acts would be ultra vires and invalid in point of law, and it would ibe the duty of every court in the United Kingdom so to hold, if the question ever involved a controversy as to civil rights and so arose for judicial decision.
In other words, this matter of union is not a question of preference. Somebody gets up and says this is the greatest thing that eve" happened, but that is not enough; that will not do. We know that union has been set aside in Australia, in New Zealand and South Africa; we must have regard to the facts. This so-called sweep towards union has not gone on; it has fallen through. The unanimous decision of the Privy Council in the case to which I 'have referred was that churches must have identical doctrines to unite. Two of the Privy Council held that there was no difference, but on the question of law they all agreed. Two said there was no difference, and five said there was.
I want to remind the committee that there is a legal action pending in the Ontario courts. If the amendment of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) carries, then an opportunity of continuing the action in the Ontario courts will be lost to the anti-unionists. Is that a fair and proper thing? Is this matter so urgent as to take away the right of these people to have their case decided in the Ontario courts? And even if it were urgent, is it right and proper, is it just, to do anything else than to see that this action is allowed to proceed at law?
227*
I want to refer to a few subjects that have been mentioned by those who are in favour of union. It is stated by the unionists that all constitutional steps have been taken. A great many steps have been taken, no doubt, and so far as they go I presume they are constitutional. But on what basis do they rest? They are a series of steps resting in the air. You must have a basic authority for your procedure. You may proceed to the presbytery and from there through the various stages to the synod and to the assembly; that sort of performance is constitutional enough- provided that the General Assembly has the necessary power . The basic question is have they that power? That is what is in dispute. I venture to say that what I have stated makes out a strong case, but I do not wish to make other men accept that; let us have the question settled where it can best be settled, and that is in a higher civil court.
I would say also that the General Assembly has no power to transfer to another church property which has been given for a specific purpose. That is a breach of trust. That is a matter that should also be sent to the courts. Does the committee consider it a proper thing to decide on the question of a very large trust fund, the existence of a church and the happiness of hundreds of thousands of devout people in this way in the House of Commons? Or does it not appear to the ordinary common sense man that this matter should be sent to the courts, where it can be argued out fully pro and con, and a decision be taken which I submit under all ordinary circumstances cannot be as fairly and as properly and sanely arrived at in this committee. To those who are interested in legal cases I would mention a Canadian case, Anderson versus Gislason. That was a Manitoba case concerned with the union of two churches, but the Presbyterian church was not involved. Legal action was taken, and this is what the appeal judge, Judge Dennistoun, said:
The guarantee of religious freedom has nothing to do with the property. It does not guarantee freedom to steal churches. It secures to individuals the right of withdrawing, forming a new society, with such creed and government as they please, but it does not confer on them the right of taking the property consecrated to other uses by those who may now be sleeping in their graves.
That is a Canadian case. I said that the first great objection to the bill was that the General Assembly has not the power to do what it is attempting to do. Secondly, parliament has not the power to pass the bill. Can parliament incorporate and merge together people who do not wish to be merged? Is that not an infringment of the liberty of the
United Church of Canada

subject, which will not be allowed under the British North America Act? And so with regard to incorporated congregations that have not asked and do not wish to go into the union; and so as to the diversion of trust funds, which is provincial property. There are some important quotations in this connection in the Free church case which I shall not detain the committee to read, although they are in strong support of what I am saying, and would well repay any one who chooses to read them. They are to be found in the judgments of Lord Halsbury, the Lord Chancellor, and Lord Alverstone Chief Justice of England.
It is also said there is no need of this conditional clause in the amended bill, that is the clause I am speaking of as being ultra vires of parliament. There is no need of such a clause in the bill, it is said, as action can be taken in any case. Of course, it can be taken in any case. Does anybody suppose it could not? We all know that it could be taken. But it has been pointed out to the committee that it was urged that parliament- bad not the authority to pass this bill, and strong reasons were given in support of that contention. Is parliament then prepared to-shut its eyes to that and go on and effect union, and then let somebody else attempt and perhaps succeed in upsetting the action of parliament? Is that justice, is that equity, to those who are protesting against this bill? I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is only proper and fair and just that this question of the authority of parliament be settled before the bill is brought into force, if it should pass this House. There is no use in saying that can be done some time. It is the duty of parliament to see that that provision is in the act.
Furthermore, there is no need of incorporation. The Presbyterian Church in Canada is not incorporated. There is nothing to prevent this union we are speaking of taking place without incorporation. Why is that not done? I will give you the only possible explanation, and that is that such a union as they are asking parliament for could not otherwise take place, because the courts would not allow it any more than they did in the Free church case. The courts would not allow the transfer of property and trusts, and that is why they are coming to parliament and asking for a power which I do not think they could obtain in the civil courts of the land.
It is stated that passing the bill as it now stands-it was stated only a few moments ago-would not settle the matter. Certainly not. Whoever expected it would settle the matter? The only course then would be to

come back with an amended bill. This bill should not pass in my view, because it would not settle the matter. Let them come back with an amended bill, and it would go through. But when a man says: Pass this bill because it is coming up again next year, does he mean to say-and this is the only interpretation- give him the bill to keep him quiet, to please him, or whatever you like, so that he does not come back to parliament. Give him the bill granting him powers and privileges that he does not possess and that takes away powers and the church from others, just to satisfy him. Surely the committee will not approve, cannot approve of any such iniquity as that; and that is what it all means. I can understand the committee would be very glad indeed if they could get rid of this question, if they could, free our House and these corridors of a great deal of solicitude that has been shown all the members during the last few weeks. They would do a great deal to do that, but we cannot get rid of it at the expense of people's rights, and that is what we are doing if we go on any such argument as has been placed before us. Then it is said that if the General Assembly had not the necessary power, the passing of this act would give the supplementary and additional power necessary. Is that the way we wish to treat those who come to parliament protesting that this union is against their rights and that their church is being seized? I think not, Mr. Chairman. Again, it asked, why was legal action not taken before? And because it was not taken before, it is argued that parliament cannot be expected to wait. I have heard this said several times. It implies that the action of the petitioners has been dilatory. It implies that they have delayed so that this matter can be held up. I have taken the opportunity of asking Mr. Chrysler, who I think is certainly a man of repute in this community, to give some facts in this connection, and this is what he says:
Some question has been raised as to whether proceedings in the action of Cunningham et al vs. Pidgeon et al should not have been taken at an earlier date.
That is in reference to Bill No. 47.
I was asked before the Private Bills committee, with regard to the time taken in commencing the action, but I understood from the questions then asked that the time referred to was that between the publication of the notice of application to parliament and the issuing of the writ. I explained then that there was only the necessary time occupied in the preparation of the statement of claim and the printing thereof.
I understand now that it is said that the present plaintiff (or some plaintiff) might have proceeded at any time after the passing of the resolutions by the General Assembly adopted on the 11th day of June, 1923, which are quoted in paragraph 37 of the plaintiff's statement of claim.

United Church oj Canada
I am pleased to have the opportunity of placing this matter before the committee because I think it meets the many criticisms that have been repeatedly made on this point. Mr. Chrysler goes on to say:
If this view were correct it might lead to the conclusion that an action should have been commenced at any time after the resolutions adopted by the assembly in 1916, which are in substance very similar to those of 1923. (paragraph 29 of the statement of claim).
In each case there is the assertion of the intention to take very bold and definite action by the assembly, qualified in each case by the condition that no such action should be final until confirmed by legislation.
This matter was very carefully considered, and in my view no action could be maintained in a court of law merely because resolutions had been adopted by the General Assembly, or other courts of the church, which might or might not be acted upon or be repealed or modified by a subsequent meeting of the assembly.
The resolutions of 1916 and 1923 were each of them, upon their face, provisional and conditional upon legislation being obtained.
The resolution of 1923 affirms the decision of the assembly:
"To proceed forthwith to the consummation of union upon the terms of the draft bills, which are hereby approved in principle and generally as to form as necessary to give legal effect to the said union, and to furnish the United church with legal authority requisite to corporate action and as by said bills provided."
These proceedings are set out in paragraphs 37 to 50 inclusive of the statement of claim, and the notice of application to parliament in paragraph 56.
The action was commenced as soon after notice of application to parliament had been given as practicable, the proceeding being one in which it was convenient and proper, according to practice, to provide for the service of the statement of claim along with the writ of summons, as several of the defendants were not resident in the province of Ontario, the legislation was intended to terminate the existence of tihe Presbyterian Church in Canada by merging it in a new statutory corporation, and to invade the constitutional rights and property of the church and its corporate bodies holding property, provincial and local, and to take away the congregational property held in perpetuity in trust for the use of the members of the Presbyterian church.
Until the representatives and agents of the assembly themselves applied to the civil power to enforce their resolutions, either by action in court, or by applying for legislation, any action taken to test the pretended powers of the assembly would, I think, have been premature.
The decisive step, taken to enforce the resolution of the assembly, was first taken when the notice of application to parliament was published.
Yours truly,
F. H. Chrysler.


Mr. McBRIDE:: Will the hon. member not admit that when Mr. Chrysler was under crossexamination he made the statement "I have not had time to examine this bill; this bill is beyond my comprehension", and that Mr. Mason, the solicitor for the union party, made a straightforward and honourable statement of the matter?


Murray MacLaren: No, I do not admit
anything of the kind. It is also stated that
the amendment whidh has been made to the bill in section 2 is an evasion. If ever a fair or honourable amendment was introduced into a bill it is the one that was inserted before the Private Bills committee. It says in effect "You can have your bill, but if there is any doubt as to the constitutional powers of the General Assembly the question must be submitted to the courts". What can be more fair or more honourable than that? Where is the evasion? I think the man who says there is evasion in that shows symptons of astigmatism if you know what that is.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Explain please?


Murray MacLaren: The Minister of Railways is so well informed that I need not explain the term to him.
Summing up I ask what is the position now of the Presbyterian church? Notwithstanding official pronouncements at the early stages of union negotiations that practical unanimity would be essential, in spite of steadily increasing opposition so that now probably one-half the church is opposed to union, in spite of there being no vote for nine years, and that over 100,000 new members have joined the church since the last vote, regardless of the assembly failing in any fair measure to represent the people, regardless of the power of the General Assembly being challenged as its constitutional authority in seeking union and there being strong evidence to support that step; regardless that the power of parliament itself is distinctly disputed, and that the existence of the church of thousands of devout people is threatened-with all these facts before us an amendment is presented to eliminate section 2 which would mean, if the bil'i is passed along with it, that there is not only confiscation and coercion but infringement of religious liberty. I think it may be said of those who are in favour of union that they have "followed too much the devices and desires of their own hearts". They see this ideal before them. They think that what they are striving for will be the solution of everything. They are pressing towards that goal without due regard to the liberties and rights of others, without vouchsafing to other people the right to choose and worship as they think best. There is no use in attempting to tell anybody how they must worship; what they should do in regard to religious matters. That is an impossible idea. The question is now before us for settlement, and surely this parliament is not going to dictate to any body of people as to what church they should belong.
United Church oj Canada


Mr. H. B. McGIVERIN (Ottawa):: I would like to make a few remarks on this bill. In the debate so far this afternoon and this evening, this matter has been very ably and very fully discussed. I had the honour of being chairman of the Private Bills committee to which the bill was referred. As several hon. members have mentioned, for many years no private bill has caused such a tremendous interest as is taken in this measure. The committee gave both sides a very fair and full hearing. Six days were occupied in presenting the case to the committee. The arguments were well presented from both sides. While there was keen feeling in the matter, there is no question that courtesy and kindness were shown on both sides, and that was only to be expected from men of such high standing in the church, at the bar and among the laity. The committee discussed this bill for the equivalent of another four days, and went into the question very carefully.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Methodist and Congregational churches are practically unanimous in asking for this church union bill, but gentlemen appeared before the committee and presented a very grave difference of opinion on the part of communicants and members of the Presbyterian church. They claimed that the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church had not the legal and constitutional right to enter into such an agreement with the other churches. Excluding this question which is now before the committee in regard to the amendment of my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown), I think the remaining provisions of the bill were very carefully considered and thought out, and practically follow what was asked for by the promoters of the 'bill. But on the question of this amendment to the preamble and section 2 which is now sought to be eliminated, the committee felt- and I agree with the committee-that there was grave doubt as to whether the Presbyterian General Assembly had the right to enter into this agreement.
I am not going to enter into a long legal argument, but I would like to draw the attention of the committee to the questions which are raised in the case of Cunningham versus Pidgeon, which is now before the Ontario courts. The case mentioned subsection 1 of section 2 of this bill. The reason that I am going to read some of the points presented in that case is that these were the points that were brought before the committee and argued, and are on record in this case

in the courts of Ontario. Another reason why I read from this record is that I desire to show that there is a grave doubt, to put it fairly, and I want to show, Mr. Chairman, that the questions which are involved in this case are questions of doctrine and faith, which hon. members who are for this amendment said the committee and parliament should not discuss, the point being that these legal and religious questions should be submitted to the courts of the land, to men who are trained to consider these very questions, trained to weigh the evidence and to take these matters in hand. Paragraph 63 of this statement of claim reads:
The covenant of the Presbyterian church in 1875 and its constitution and rule contain no provision for any alteration being made in the principles of the said church or for union with any oilier church or association of Christians holding different principles.
Paragraph 64 reads:
The plaintiffs further submit that the said assembly had not, nor has any assembly of the Presbyterian church, power to appoint delegates or any committee of delegates or agents to apply for legislation designed and intended to annihilate the identity and continuity of the Presbyterian churoh by merging it in a new corporation and to bring about the alienation or spoliation of the property of the church, nor to take proceedings to procure the conveyance by act of parliament or legislatures of such property to Buch new corporation.
Paragraph 66 reads:
The plaintiffs submit that it is not withiin the power of the courts of the Presbyterian church or any combination of them, or of any majority of its officers or members to alter or vary the trusts upon which the property vested in or acquired by it, or by trustees for it, is held, or to alter the purposes for which it was founded and established.
That refers more particularly to subsection 2 in regard to the constitutionality, which was referred to by my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler). Then I turn to paragraph 86, which is purely one in regard to doctrine, and reads:
In place of the standards of the Presbyterian church, namely the Confession of Faith, which is % statement of a system of doctrine, an the form of a creed or covenant, and the longer and shorter catechisms, provided for the instruction of its members the proposed basis of the United church substitutes a statement which purports to set forth not the creed of the church but the substance of the Christian faith as commonly held among us.
There is a question solely of doctrine or creed or faith, which I submit should go to the courts. Then I refer to paragraph 96 which reads:
The plaintiffs submit that the twenty articles which follow the preamble are not identical with, but a departure from the doctrine of the Presbyterian church as set forth in its standards.

United Church oj Canada
Paragraph 101 reads:
The following differences and departures from the Westminster Confession of Faith in the proposed basis of union are set forth in the opposing statements or propositions which follow:
And here are ten very grave differences of opinion on doctrine as between the United church and the Presbyterians. I maintain that these are not questions which should be settled by a committee or by parliament, but are questions which should be decided by the courts of the land. Paragraph 102 recites these ten grave differences which I will not repeat, and states further:
The above instances do not constitute the whole sum of the differences between the Confession of Faith and the basis of union, but are given only to illustrate the opposition between these two documents not only in their superficial features but even more in their fundamental conceptions.
In other words, there appears to be a vast difference in regard to the two conceptions as regards doctrine and faith. At a meeting subsequent to the General Assembly of 1923, a reply was presented by those in favour of union to the dissent of those gentlemen who opposed union, and as appears on page 9, the chairman of that committee in his report said amongst other things in section (2):
This assembly maintains that the General Assembly held in Winnipeg in 1916 did act within its rights and powers in approving of the said basis of union.
(3) The assembly denies that its acts in this behalf are illegal, and denies that it has in effect seceded from the Presbyterian Church in Canada.
Section (5) reads:
The assembly, claiming that its acts have been legal and within its powers and rights, holds that those who dissent from this deliverance and not the majority are the parties responsible for this threatened schism in the church and for any consequence which may flow therefrom.
In other words, they joined issue in regard to the legality of the proceedings of the assembly. When the gentlemen appeared before the committee, they argued that the General Assembly had acted in a legal and constitutional manner in carrying this out. It is true that the case of Overtoun and the Free Church of Scotland has been cited before the committee, and I will only mention the fact that the decision apparently was directly against the General Assembly to make any particular change in doctrine. The gentlemen who appeared before the committee in favour of union said that they could differentiate this legislation from the Free Church case. All that I am concerned in showing from these statements is, first, that there was a serious doubt as to the right of the General Assembly; secondly, that parliament and this committee are not the authorities to decide questions of
doctrine and of faith, and that such questions should go to the proper tribunals set apart by the constitution of this country, namely the law courts of the land.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: When were the law courts set apart to decide questions of faith and doctrine?


Harold Buchanan McGiverin: This question has
arisen between parties in the Presbyterian church under their own system of government, under the laws and obligations laid down in the church, and, therefore, any question of dispute which would arise between one section of that church and the other, any legal rights that they would have, would have to be tried by the courts. If the question of doctrine comes into this question, it would naturally be tried by the courts as was the case in the Overtoun case.
The Barrier Act has been referred to. The Barrier Act is simply an act of the Presbyterian Church in Canada which is used as a check of legislation. The General Assembly passes a law, and then it is sent down during the following year to the different presbyteries for assent or dissent before it is put into effect. But it does not give any additional power to the General Assembly as regards legislation outside of whatever rights and powers it may have.
I would have thought that the reference to the Supreme court would be welcomed by the promoters of this bill, because there is no doubt that in this legislation we are dealing with property and civil rights in the provinces, with education in the provinces and with trusts in the provinces. It is true that legislation has been obtained from many of the provinces and legislation is still to be obtained in two or three more. But the point I attempt to make is this, that if the question is referred to the Supreme court, this will prevent litigation in the other provincial courts of this country until the Supreme court has decided whether the legislation we have granted is ultra vires or not. This will save money to both sides and it will save delay by having the matter referred. I have supported and I am supporting the report of the committee, but the question of delay was brought up. The committee tried to meet that point in the reference to the courts by limiting the time to two years. But if a reference of both of those legal questions in subsections 1 and 2 of section 2 to the Supreme court is put forward, as it is following the principle adopted by the committee, I would agree to it because it would avoid delay and expense. I am in favour of church
United Church of Canada

union, but I think that in granting church union you cannot take away whatever legal rights may belong to the minority in the Presbyterian church.
The question of the General Assembly has been touched upon. I have a great respect for the opinion of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church and for the system of church government; but the gentlemen who make up the General Assembly are elders appointed for life. They go to the General Assembly, and in all honour, without any question of their good faith, they have a perfect right to vote for or against church union as they see fit whether their congregation is in favour of union or not. The point I wish to make is that they are not instructed by the congregation to make a direct vote.	Why did the
General Assembly, I suppose in its wisdom, ask for a vote in 1911 and again in 1915? Surely it was to get that advice from the great mass of communicants and members of their church. In the last vote of 1915, out of 336,822 communicants, 106,534 voted for church union and 69,000 against it. That meant about one third of the communicants of the Presbyterian church. Now, there is a general law in this country governing corporations providing that when any serious move is made, in order to protect the minority, there shall be a two thirds vote of the shareholders. I would not go quite so far as that in this matter, but all that is shown as regards the democracy of this question is that nine years ago one third of the communicants of the Presbyterian church voted in favour of union. We are the representatives of the people and it seems to me it would have been of great assistance to us, even apart from the legal aspect of the matter, if a vote had' been taken at a later date than 1915.
As has been stated this afternoon and repeated over and over again during the past few weeks, the state cannot interfere with religion. I want to read a statement from a pamphlet entitled "Parliament and the Church" addressed to members of parliament by Professor R. E. Welsh, D.D. of the Presbyterian College, Montreal. He says:
Pari Lament is not a court of appeal from the churches upon any ecclesiastical matter. Their creeds or any modifications therein, and their procedure according to their constitution, are determined solely by themselves as free, self-governing religious communities, having neither political nor commercial aims and uses. Any intrusion upon the action of General Assembly,

General Conference, or other church court, in respect of its own functions, would be a violation of the sacred principle of the spiritual independence of the church of Christ and would never be endured in a free country.
Well, I agree with that, with this important addition that as between the members of their own communities or sects or religions the governing body of the church has acted legally according to the agreement or the basis upon which they all join. It is for that reason that I believe in referring this question to the courts. If you accept the amendment of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) and you forbid any reference of the matter to the courts you are deciding a religious question without any consideration for the minority, the thousands of communicants of the Presbyterian church who are opposed to union, and that I maintain would be an interference on the part of this body with the religious opinions of a large section of the Presbyterian church in this country. For that reason and for others which I have advanced I will support my committee and vote against the amendment of my hon. friend from Lisgar.


Mr. LADNER:: The hon. gentleman makes no reference to an important contingency. Suppose that through a technicality the courts should decide that the procedure of the General Assembly was not in order; how does he provide for the carrying out of what is practically the unanimous will of the Methodist and Congregational churches and those Presbyterians who want union? The nature of the bill denies the possibility of union to those large numbers who are in favour of it.


Harold Buchanan McGiverin: If the decision of the
courts were 'against the action of the General Assembly it would then be the duty of parliament to meet the situation. There has been a great deal of talk in regard to the remedial legislation passed in connection with the Free church. That decision, as has been pointed out, left a very small minority, so small that a commission was appointed to inquire into the question, and it was that commission that decided that the trusts of the church and the management of its affairs could not be carried out by those who were legally entitled to the control of that body. It was then that the commission advised parliament to pass a law covering that contingency. I understand that in that case it was found that one-third of those who were by law declared to be the rightful members of the church were entitled to take all the

United Church of Canada
property. I say therefore that the question would have to be settled by the courts. This legidation provides that, if the General Assembly acted in a legal and constitutional maner, then the bill should become effective.


Leon Johnson Ladner: That is not the point.
Having provided in the bill for many contingencies so as to obviate any repetition of this controversy, which is not in the interests of the churches, of religion, or the welfare of the country, why not
10	p.m. go further and provide for another very important contingency? If the courts should decide that the procedure of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church was not in order, should not the remaining bodies who wish the union be free to unite? Why is that provision omitted from the bill?


Harold Buchanan McGiverin: I do not see how
you can arrange for a contingency of that kind until the matter has been settled in the courts and you know where you stand.


Thomas George McBride: When this bill was before the committee why did the hon. member refuse to hear counsel that was opposed to the amendment when he heard counsel on each and every one of the other sections in the bill?


Harold Buchanan McGiverin: That is easily
answered; after the public hearing it was decided by the committee that we should not hear any outside the committee on the preamble, and I was simply carrying out that arrangement as I did in every instance.


Thomas George McBride: Counsel for the union
came to me and requested me to obtain for him the right to be heard on that question before the vote was taken.


Mr. E. GUSS PORTER (West Hastings):: It is not my intention to speak at any great length on the question before the chair. Since the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. McGiverin), has expressed his views, I should feel inclined to refrain from saying anything whatever on the subject, as I find myself fully in accord with what he has stated in his speech. Every opportunity was given by the chairman of the committee to both parties to the controversy to make the fullest statement of their case. I feel that every member of the committee gave the most careful consideration to the evidence that was offered. When the amendment that now appears in the bill was moved by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) I took occasion to second it after
giving a good deal of thought to the matter, and I do not think that this House is commissioned to revise or repeal the decision of that committee. Every phase of the question was fully argued in the committee by the ablest counsel who could be procured.


The CHAIRMAN:: I would like to direct
the attention of the committee-not particularly of the hon. member who is speaking- to a reference in Bourinot which I fear may be disregarded in connection with this discussion.
I quote from page 357:
Neither can a member, in speaking, refer to anything said or done in a previous debate during the same session-a rule necessary to economize the time of the House, and a restraint upon members to prevent them from reviving a debate already concluded. Neither is it regular to refer to arguments used in committee of the whole, nor to any amendment proposed in the same.
I do not suggest that the hon. member is disobeying or disregarding that rule, but from some comments that have been made I fear there is a danger that it may be disregarded. If the hon. member will excuse the interruption, I simply want to draw that to the attention of the committee.


Edward Guss Porter: I have no intention of
repeating any part of the argument presented by counsel to the committee; I merely mention the fact that argument was made before the committee, without stating what it was. As I have suggested, the House is not conditioned to determine the question now before us as the committee was conditioned to determine it. The committee had all the evidence before them; they had an opportunity of discussing it among themselves and of considering it fully. This House has never had that evidence before it and therefore has had no opportunity of weighing it. Nor has the House had the advantage of the arguments of counsel made before the committee. It seems to me that the safest thing for the House to do is to rely upon the action of the committee. The House cannot, upon the arguments presented here this afternoon and to-night, undertake to decide on the matters involved; that cannot be intelligently done unless all the evidence and all the arguments are taken into consideration. So that to ask this House to undertake to annul or repeal what the committee has done seems to me, in the circumstances, to be asking the House to do altogether too much.
Before this bill was brought into parliament there wa,s an action pending, and the fact that that action is pending is the strongest possible evidence of the bona fides of those who instituted that action. On the other hand those
United Church of Canada

who are promoting this union bill are endeavouring to get through the House a reversal of the opinion of the committee and to stifle the litigation to that extent, to prevent those who have confidence in their action from having it properly brought before the courts and adjudicated upon. They would have this House, which has not the information, the argument or the evidence before it, pass legislation that -would altogether wipe that provision out of the bill. That does not seem to indicate the same amount of good faith or of confidence on their part in the success of their cause as is exhibited by those who have taken the action and are now maintaining it before the courts.
Is there a real bona fide question involved in the motion now before the committee? Can this parliament, can this committee say that there is no question to be determined by the courts? No doubt it has the power to do so, but will any hon. member say that no question is involved in this bill that is in controversy between the parties and that ought not to be settled-settled by the courts, if you will? If there is such a question, then is this parliament going to aid the one in evading litigation or assist the other in succeeding in the litigation? The fairest possible course parliament could take is to maintain the statu quo between the two parties, leaving each his own rights to be determined upon the evidence in the way that matters of that kind are usually determined.
I am in favour of voluntary union of the churches, but I am not in favour of compulsory union, and I cannot think I ever will be. I do not think the greatest good comes from compulsory union in anything, and that applies to churches as well as to anything else. If this church union is to be compulsory, they cannot expect to get from it the benefits that would otherwise accrue if it were a voluntary measure. Now while that is so, there is this question between the two: The unionists say: We have no desire and no intention, and we have never attempted, to coerce those who do not want to become unionists. On the other hand, the anti-unionists say: You are by this bill compelling us to do something we do not want to do. Now there is the issue. How are you going to determine it? Is parliament going to say the anti-unionists are right, or is parliament going to say that those who are in favour of union are right? Is parliament going to determine that question at all? Is not that a question that is right and proper, and that should only be decided by the courts of the land constituted for that purpose?

I have spoken longer than I intended. I merely want to repeat, the committee was in a position to decide this matter, to protect the rights of minorities, and if there is a fundamental principle of British government, it is that the rights of minorities must be protected. That is -what the committee was in a position to do in this matter. Will parliament undertake to say that they were wrong in doing that, and deprive the minority of their rights as determined in the courts?


James Shaver Woodsworth: As a member of the Private Bills committee I have been trying to analyze the somewhat extensive evidence which has been placed before us in the past few weeks. I propose very briefly to outline some of the main points as they appeal to me, not merely from the legal standpoint, but from that of the wider aspects of the case. The heart of the bill, I take it, is contained in the words of the preamble, that the three churches desire to unite "without loss of their identity." That little phrase is the very key to the whole situation. It is that which causes the greater part of the controversy. The churches claim the right to unite without the loss of their identity. The petitioners came to parliament in the first place, we are told, in order that they might avoid litigation. In this apparently they have been disappointed, as the case is now before the Ontario courts. They make the claim that the steps which have been taken towards union have been taken constitutionally, that is, as provided by the regulations of the various churches concerned, and I think that their claim along that line has not been successfully disputed.
They claim secondly that they have made provision for non-concurring congregations. I might say that certain modifications that were made in committee make it clear that no one was to be forced to go into the union but rather that he might stay out. That announcement seemed to clear that point somewhat. Moreover it is pointed out by the advocates of the union that there is provision for the division of general church property; that is, colleges and certain trust funds of various kinds that are general in character, and are controlled by the church at large. It would seem as if there has been fairly generous provision for the division of general church property of this character.
Then finally the unionists laid a good deal of emphasis on the fact that this union might be in the interests of the country at large, and particularly in the interests of the West. It does not seem to me that it is a question for

United Church of Canada
parliament as to whether or not this union is in the interest of the country. It is our work to deal with this bill.
Those opposed to the union, representing one section of the Presbyterian church, claim through their counsel and through others who spoke for them, that the proposed legislation was beyond the powers of parliament. They emphasized the fact that the bill was concerned with property rights, and that property rights was essentially a provincial matter. Further, they argued that parliament cannot divert the trusts from the original purposes, and many eminent authorities were quoted, including Lord Halsbury, and other law lords. They argued that the assembly had no power to annihilate the church-that word "annihilate" was used again and again-that however wide the recognized powers of the assembly, it had no right to annihilate the church, and here again we had quotations from Lord Overtoun in the Free Church of Scotland case.
Further, they laid great emphasis on the fact that the church must retain its "identity of doctrine." The Westminster Confession is recognized as the subordinate standard of faith in the Presbyterian church, and it was said that no church might deviate from this standard and remain a Presbyterian church.
Finally, the opponents of union made the sentimental appeal, and I use the word in the best sense, that they must not be deprived of the church of their forefathers, the historic church in which they had been brought up.
Then there came from the anti-unionists the amendment which is now incorporated in the bill as it is before us. That amendment would result in a delay of action until the case before the Ontario courts is decided -probably two years, or that time might even be exceeded. I quite admit that when prominent legal authorities differ, it may seem presumptuous for a layman to have anything to say on the matter, and yet on the other hand perhaps it is well that these questions should not be decided entirely by lawyers. There are other than legal questions to be considered, and some of us who have not had legal training, desire to emphasize some other than the strictly legal aspects. I cannot see that it is right that we, as a House of Commons, Should permit our powers to be abrogated and relegate, this whole matter to the courts. Here is a straightforward proposition that is brought before us, a bill to unite three Canadian churches. It is not a matter for the courts to decide whether the bill is in order or not. We are the people who Should decide
that. I admit there are certain legal and technical difficulties, but supposing the courts should decide that this bill was not constitutional; what would happen? The whole matter would be delayed for several years, involving an immense amount of friction, and finally it would undoubtedly come back to parliament again, because parliament would be the only body that could ultimately decide a matter of this kind. This was done in the famous Scottish case where the whole question was referred to parliament, which went behind the merely legal points to secure substantial justice.
Let me comment very briefly on a few points. In the matter of provincial rights I believe the bill is very carefully drawn. An effort has been made in every instance to avoid any trespass on provincial rights as they affect local church property, and moreover concurrent legislation is being sought in all the various provincial Legislatures. I should like to point out in passing that if the bill meets shipwreck on this ground of provincial rights it may possibly result in some good, as it may give the general public a little more sympathy with some of us who have brought forward measures in this House only to be told again and again that we cannot act because of provincial rights. It was only the other day that we had the eight-hour day issue before us, and again it was a question of our not being able to take action because such matters were within the jurisdiction of the provinces.
With regard to the question raised by the chairman of the committee (Mr. McGiverin), and others, on the administration of trusts there appeared very clearly two fundamentally divergent conceptions of what the church really was. On the one side the church was regarded as a fixed organization irrevocably based upon one unalterable standard of doctrine. On the other hand the church was regarded as a living organism, adapting itself to the new conditions in which it finds itself existing. Now, I would ask if all these matters are to be settled on the ground of precedent, as the lawyers generally do settle these things;
*-as their training inclines them to settle them. -How are we to decide which of these two conceptions of the church is to prevail? If we are to regard the church as a fixed organization based upon unalterable doctrine, one decision must be given. If, however, as some of the law lords pointed out in the Scottish case, the church is an organization that may modify its creed and policy from time to time as all other human institutions do, then another decision would perforce be given. On
United, Church of Canada

the general question of trusts why should we allow the dead hand of the past forever to tie action in the present? Because some man one, two or three decades or two or three hundred years ago gave a certain donation in all good faith, and notwithstanding changed conditions must we tie the hands of the people of to-day who are trying to grapple with the problems that meet us from day to day? That is really the argument that is brought forward, and that argument, I believe, a great many of us cannot possibly subscribe to or allow to prevail.
As to the statement that the assembly has no power to annihilate the church I would suggest that this takes the whole question for granted. Surely the church itself is the best judge of what its real life is. I think I may lay that down as a general principle-that the church itself must remain the judge of what its real life is. We are told that if the church unites it loses its name, it loses its identity. Well, let me give an illustration in regard to that. A young woman is married. She loses her name. Does she lose her identity?


An hon. MEMBER:: I should say not.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is she annihilated?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Surely in practice we recognize that sometimes there may be a merging of one life into a fuller life. That is the attitude that we take in regard to other matters and surely it is not right to say that because there is a change of relation, the individual or corporation which enters into the new relation is thereby annihilated. The changes have been rung on two terms. I do not pretend to distinguish the exact meanings of these terms-"identity" and "entity".
I submit that these are metaphysical and legal abstractions. So far from the lawyers saving us from the difficulties in the case they are largely responsible for the tangle into which we have got ourselves. Let us view the situation from the practical standpoint. The unionists say that the church must go into the union as an entity, and as the bill was first drafted I confess it seemed to me that the people who would not go in were left suspended between heaven and earth. As there could be but one entity, if the Presbyterian church went into that union the whole church went in, and there was nothing left out. But some of the anti-unionists feel that they are very real personalities and they did not know where they were. I do not blame them for feeling that way as it is a legal interpretation that since the entity had gone into the union there was nothing left outside.

On the other hand the anti-unionists, the non-concurrents, claim that they are the only true Presbyterians and hence the entity is outside the union and the individual people that go in, go in on their own account but that it is not the Presbyterian church that is going in. So we have the one group saying they are "it" and they are going in, and the other group saying they are "it" [DOT] and are staying out.
Now I want to look at this matter not from the legal or theological standpoint but from the standpoint of common sense. The fact is that the Presbyterian church, as far as we on the committee could judge, is irrevocably divided; it is divided into two groups. One group has gone into the union, the other has stayed out of the union. And what is the reason for all this talk of identity? The real reason is because certain property rights lie at the basis of it. If the unionists can establish that they are the true church, they carry the property with them; and if the antiunionists can establish they are the true church, then they retain the property. That is the real reason why there is so much stress laid by the lawyers on this question of identity. Mr. Lafleur, the counsel for the anti-unionists built up the greater part of his legal argument on what he called the doctrinal basis of identity. Every Presbyterian minister is required to answer this question on his ordination or induction:
Do you believe the Westminster Confession of Faith, as adopted by this church in the basis of union, to be founded on and agreeable to the word of God, and in your teaching do you promise faithfully to adhere thereto ?
A similar question is asked of the elders and deacons. The Westminster Confession of Faith, according to the basis of union of the present Presbyterian church, forms the subordinate standard of the church. I am inclined to think that there is something in the charge that the anti-unionists bring in this case because no less an authority than Sir Robert Falconer said that 90 per cent of the ministers in the Presbyterian church subscribed to that basis of faith only with reservations. On the other hand I want to ask whether all the anti-unionists really believe in the Westminster confession? There are very few copies of the Westminster Confession of Faith now available to the public. We have had certain clauses of it read before the committee and in order that the House may know what are some of the things for which the anti-unionists stand and to which they pin their whole legal argument I should

United Church oj Canada
like to read one or two of these clauses. Chapter 3, section 3 reads:
By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.
Chapter 6, section 1 reads as follows:
Our first parents being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.
Chapter 10, section 3 and 4 reads:
III	Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the spirit, who worked when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all the elect persons who are capable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word.
IV	Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the word, and may have some common operations of the spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore connot be saved; much less can men not professing the Christian religion be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they ever so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do profess; and to assert and maintain that they may is very pernicious, and to be detested.
Chapter 25, section 6 reads:
There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that antichrist that man of sin and son of perdition that exalteth himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God.
Now it is not for us in this House to say whether that doctrine is correct or not, but my point is that the whole legal argument of the anti-unionists is built upon the idea of the identity of doctrine-a doctrine that cannot be altered-and that the subordinate standard of faith is the Westminster confession, one or two clauses of which I have read, and which every minister must promise not only to believe but to teach. I ask in all fairness whether the men who adopt this position subscribe unreservedly to every word of this creed. If they do-and I can scarcely conceive it-their case from their standpoint, of unalterableness of doctrine is won; but if they cannot subscribe to that without any reservation, I submit that the legal argument on which they have built up their case absolutely falls to the ground.
There are one or two larger issues that are involved which I must mention very briefly. There is the whole relationship of church to state. We as a state claim to be sovereign. The church as a church claims to be sovereign. Now can you reconcile those two sovereignties. I take it that the only possible way of doing so is by remembering that each must be sovereign in its own sphere. I asked a question of the senior member for Ottawa
i Mr. MeGiverin) a little while ago, when he suggested that the courts should decide the questions of doctrine and of faith. Surely no self-respecting church could submit to a decision by the courts. The church must maintain its supremacy in spiritual matters, and it cannot allow itself to be induced to submit its doctrines to a court or even to parliament. On the other hand, there is undoubtedly the danger that we may build up an ecclesiastical organization that may imperil the state itself. There have been whispers going around the corridors-they have not come before the House perhaps to-day that one of the dangers in this proposed merger is that we should establish a body that will be strong enough to dominate or at least to influence the political life of this country.


Mr. FINN:: Might I ask the hon. member
what ecclesiastical organization he refers to?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I refer to the proposed church merger which three strong churches might become powerful enough in this country to influence the political life of this country.


Robert Emmett Finn: And endanger the national
life?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The question has been discussed as to whether it is wise for parliament to sanction a strong merger of this kind, lest it put a strong church in the field which would have an adverse influence over the policies of the country.


Robert Emmett Finn: What is my hon. friend's
opinion?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would say that
such a danger is not quite so fantastic as perhaps my hon. friend might imagine.


Robert Emmett Finn: I did not deal with it fantastically.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Since my position
has been questioned, I would read in this connection a circular which was sent out several years ago by one of the churches that proposes to enter the union. It was sent out by the Department of Social Service and Evangelism of the Methodist church, and was dated Toronto, December 7, 1917, addressed as follows:
To the Methodist people of Canada. Declaration by the executive committee of the General Board of Social Service and Evangelism.
The present duty and paramount responsibility of Canada is to render every possible assistance made for the very highest sacrifices and unity in the most determined purpose to contribute its full share to
United Church of Canada

win the war, and thus protect the smaller nations against the menace of an aggressive militarism, save democracy from German autocracy and despotism, and establish the dominance of the principles of Christ in international relationships.
And again:
All our annual conferences were imbued with this spirit. Each adopted strong declarations in favour of selected conscription and Union government.
At the polls on December 17, 1917, every Methodist elector, women as well as men, should conscientiously meet personal responsibility and both vote and work for the election of the candidates who stand with the Union government.
And again:
With enthusiastic unanimity, believing the present duty of every Canadian citizen is to support Union government at the forthcoming election, this executive committee of the Board of Social Service and Evangelism of the Methodist church requests that this statement be read from our pulpits and published in the daily and weekly press. We also urge that every Methodist having the right to vote will support the candidates who are supporting the Union government.
I would submit that if a body is to take that attitude of interfering with political matters it might very well be that it might become a danger to the state.
The only possible solution of this question is what has been expressed in the well-known phrase, "A free church in a free state" I believe the church has an absolute right of freedom of self-determination, of deciding whether or not it wants to enter into union with other bodies. I believe that is an inherent right; but on the other hand I urge that we as representing the state have a right to insist that the church must keep its own place and deal with what have been termed spiritual matters, rather than entering upon these definitely political alignments. As we were struggling in committee with these questions of property rights there kept running through my mind the old saying that is attributed to the one who is claimed as the founder of the Christian church:
And one of the company said unto him, Master speak to my hrother, that he divide the inheritance with me.
And he said unto him, man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?
And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetouness; for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.
I submit that essentially the struggle before parliament to-day is a struggle for certain property rights, for the control of certain very valuable properties in this country. The emphasis on the question of "identity" by these churches is not because of the idea of apostolic succession which is common to the Episcopal churches. The struggle is not one [Mr. Woodsworth.j
for the right to use a particular name, for there is no reason under the sun why the nonunionist Presbyterian cannot go out to-morrow and use the name Presbyterian. The only name that they may not use is the exact name Presbyterian Church in Canada, and that for purely legal reasons, lest there should be some question over property rights. A great deal has been said by both sides each claiming that the struggle is a struggle for religious liberty. I cannot see that this is at all a struggle for religious liberty. Presbyterians who want to remain Presbyterians and to accept holus-bolus the Westminster confession can remain Presbyterians and no one in this country will say them nay. The unionists, if this bill is defeated, can go into union with every provision in this bill except property clauses and no one will say them nay. Let us face that fact. The real situation is that the rival groups are not content with regard to property arrangements.
That brings me to the point which I should like to emphasize before I close. I cannot think that the present bill contains a sufficient safeguard for the minorities. As far as I can judge the division of the general property is as fair as can be arranged. In fact, it is more generous than any provision that has been made in any previous union. But when we come to the property of minorities within congregations, it does not seem to me that the bill is quite fair. That, after all, is the question with which we are concerned in this parliament. I have mentioned doctrine, not because I wish this parliament to discuss doctrine. I have mentioned church organization, not because I believe this is a matter that we are asked to decide. But we are asked to decide the question of a fair division of property between the two sections of the Presbyterian church,-the other two churches apparently being satisfied with the union arrangement. So, my suggestion is-and I should like to offer it, perhaps, as an amendment at a later stage in the bill if no one else does so-that we should, where necessary, go below the congregational unit and endeavour to provide that no minority is penalized by the proposed union. At the present time a congregation may vote itself into union or out of union, but it goes as a congregation. If in any congregation there is, we will say, 40 per cent of a minority, that minority of 40 per cent has no legal claim on the property. That seems to me to be a hardship and none the less so because it works both ways. If the majority is a unionist majority, it is a hardship for the minority that remains Pres-

byterian. On the other hand, if the majority is Presbyterian, it is undoubtedly a hardship for the unionists.
I will give a particular example of this in my own city of Winnipeg. I am given to understand that in that city every Presbyterian congregation is in favour of church union, but in a number of local churches there are very substantial minorities. I am told that a somewhat similar situation prevails in Saskatoon, Regina, Moose Jaw and Edmonton where the vast majority are in favour of union, but where there are substantial minorities. What happens in such a case? It means that people who have worked for years to build up a common cause would be, by this bill, if it becomes law, deprived of all rights in that local church property. They would not have a right as a minority even in the general church property. I am told by the lawyers-and I suppose I must accept their ruling in this regard-that it will be impossible for us in the Dominion House to legislate with regard to local congregational property; that that is a matter for the provinces to decide. If this ruling is correct, we cannot do anything with regard to congregational property, and that will have to be dealt with by subsequent legislation in the various provinces. But these local minorities within congregations have, in my judgment, certain claims upon the general church property, and we might introduce an amendment to this bill which would recognize those claims and make provision so that as little hardship as possible would be worked upon the minorities. I know that this is said to be impracticable; that it would create a good deal of talk and trouble in the various local congregations; that it might maintain dissension for many years; but any dissension that might take place would not be nearly so serious as the sense of injustice which would rankle in the minds of many minorities if this bill is allowed to go through in the form in which it now comes before the committee.
As regards the bill as amended, let me say again that I think, in referring the matter to the courts, we are not by any means settling the problem; we are merely deferring 'what must ultimately be settled by this House, and further we are putting into the hands of lawyers questions that must be settled on other than purely legal grounds. I shall have to vote for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown).


Mr. W. G. RAYMOND (Brantford):: As
a member of the committee, I should like to associate myself with the committee's report that was I think, well explained by the
United Church oj Canada
chairman. I am not a member of any of the churches that are proposing to effect this union, and consequently I have not been affected as much as some others, perhaps, by the explanation of the various doctrinal points that have been raised. I think, in fact, that in that we have rather gone outside of our sphere, if I may be permitted to say so. A very plain question presents itself to me in connection with this matter and it has done so from the first. It is presented shortly and clearly in a circular sent out by those in favour of union after the bill has been amended in committee. In the very first sentence of that you will read that the object of the promoters of union in introducing the measure is that it will prevent litigation.
That may seem to some a very harmless phrase; but to me it conveys a good deal, and I think we should look into it very carefully, because in it I believe we shall find a reason why every man, who understands the principles that are at the very basis of our constitution, would see that he would stand by the report of this committee. We should ask ourselves: What litigation is it that is proposed to be prevented? Have the parties to that litigation a right to enter upon it and is it within the province of this parliament to prevent the exercise of what I have always understood to be the inalienable and inherent right of every subject,-the right to apply to the courts of the land for justice and more than that, to carry his appeal to the Lords Justices of Appeal, to the Privy Council, as we say figuratively, to the very foot of the Throne I think those principles are assailed in the prevention of the receipt of the report of this committee. I think the matter that was taken up was very carefully considered, as was pointed out by the chairman, the hon. member (for West Hastings (Mr. Porter), and the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woods-worth), who gave a good resume in part of what took place, and the report that is presented to the House was not obtained without a great deal of earnest consideration. It does not seem to me, therefore, that hon. members who have not followed the matter up should now, without the same opportunity of hearing both sides which members of that committee had, vote for an amendment to the bill which would destroy the bill as it came from the committee.
Now, the three churches that have been applying for union are old historic churches; it is not necessary at this time of night to remind any one that each of these churches has a very creditable place in the history of our race both in the Old Country and
United Church of Canada

in Canada. But it is claimed that these churches have entered into union and that they have done so by means of their own courts and their own organization, and I do not think there is any difference of opinion in that regard in the case of either the Congregational church or the Methodist church. In the case of the Presbyterian church however there is a minority, we will call it a section of the church, which has entered an appeal to the Supreme Court of Ontario, complaining that the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church in entering into union did so ultra vires of the laws and the constitution of that body. What right has this House to take away from that minority the undoubted right of appeal in this case? If the minority consisted of only one individual citizen this House in my opinion would have no right to deprive that person of the right of appeal to the courts of the land for justice. (But the minority consisted of more than one man. I do not know offhand what the membership of the Presbyterian Church in Canada is, but it has not been claimed at any 'time that more than one third of that church has been in favour of union; and consequently the appeal is made on behalf of the remainder of the church which would constitute as I believe a considerable majority of the members. It might possibly be within the legal power of parliament, because we know that parliament is supreme, but certainly it is not within the moral right of this House to prevent that section of the Presbyterian church, a majority as it would seem, from applying to see if they can obtain what they consider justice at the bands of the Supreme Court of Ontario.
This is not a question of the court or of this House deciding upon the creed of these people. The question that the courts have to decide is whether the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church have acted within the constitution of that church; and if points of doctrine come up to be decided upon I think that any man of common sense who has listened to this debate so far will agree with me that the cold minds of trained judges would be far better to consider such points than would a committee of the whole of this Housie. I say this without any disrespect to the members of this House, but because the judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario are men who have been elevated to the bench by reason of their great ability, their fairness and their judicial powers and because they have trained minds and are able to know what is evidence and to make the necessary comparisons in these matters. 
I do not think therefore that we have any right in this House, indeed I think parliament would be exceeding its moral right, and its public sense of duty, if it interfered with that appeal being taken to the courts.
I	do not know that we need go much further than that. It is pointed out in this
circular to which I have alluded,
II	p.m. containing the objections to the
bill as amended and as now before the committee, that parliament is the highest court of all in the land. Well, we know that parliament is above any other body; it was not necessary to learn this from th^ circular in question, because we know that nothing under heaven is above the power of parliament. That was set forth nearly three hundred years ago when it was established that the government of the land under God was in the hands of parliament; and we know that parliament has arranged royal marriages, the union of countries, the succession to the throne and, on one occasion, has even brought the king to the block. So that we cannot very easily put much above [DOT]the power of parliament. We will grant that parliament has all this power. But I maintain that the more power we have the more Carefully and the more considerately should Ve use it. We should not use that power to block the right of any person or any section of persons who wish to appeal for justice to the Courts of the land.
It has always been considered the inalienable right of the British subject to appeal for and to obtain justice at the hands of the courts. And the history of our constitution, the history of the development of our race, show clearly that it was the passion for liberty and the respect for justice going hand in hand that made our people great, so that British justice is the word that is used the world over when people wish to speak of that earthly kind of justice which is regarded as most nearly like *the divine. When you go back in the history of the race long before there was such a thing as printing and before there were schools or education, you will find that there was a kind of belief in justice among the people, the principle being almost a settled faith with them; it will be remembered that in the trials by ordeal and the trials by combat appeal was made to the justice of the cause. I look upon justice as a sacred quality and one which this House should revere; I venture to say we should revere it just as dearly as we do any church whatever or any combination of churches.
But in my opinion we are asked now to violate the principle of justice in not putting

United Church oj Canada
this bill through as it came from the committee. As the. bill came from the committee it does not deny the right of appeal to the courts, which as I say is the inherent and inalienable right of anyone in the land who wishes to avail himself of it and to carry his appeal if necessary to the very foot of the throne. It may be because I have not made a study of theology or of anything of that kind, but I find it difficult to understand how one set of Christian people who read the teachings of Jesus Christ as I read them would want to take a. church or a minority of a Church and force it into union against its will. That in itself, it seems to me, is not a Christian principle, and I do not think there can be any satisfactory and beneficial union of these churches unless that union is made entirely voluntary upon the part of the contracting parties. Indeed, that was the principle set forth in 1911 by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church. I do not think that any section or part of any church should be forced into union, as those Presbyterians complain who object to the union on the ground that the church of their fathers is being annihilated. These people state that the union has not been properly and legally consummated according to the laws and the constitution of their own church, and they have the right to make the objection they do.
It would be far better in the interests of real religion if time were given for a union, until a feeling of union could be effected and the difficulties overcome. I do not see why there is so much impatience on the part of those in favour of union to have this measure consummated immediately. They have not taken the bill up fairly as it is before us this evening; they have not shown us what is the difference between the original bill and the amended bill, except that the amendment proposed will take away the right of litigation from those who think they are aggrieved by the passage of the bill in its present form.
A parallel was drawn a little while ago between marriage and the union of the churches. It was said that a woman in getting married did not of necessity lose her identity or become annihilated. I do not think she does in every case. But I could not help thinking when I heard the parallel drawn that in some countries marriages are contracted by the parents and guardians of the young people. To carry the parallel through, it would seem to me as if in this case such a contract had been made and that at the last moment it was found that the bride objected. No consideration. however, is being given to her 228
objection; those enthusiasts who believe in union assure her that she is not going to be annihilated, and they proceed to take her by the scruff of the neck, drag her up to the altar and have the union consummated. I am reminded of a case which occurred in British history a number of years ago, when a royal marriage was conducted on something of the same plan. The royal bride was forced into the marriage against her expressed will, and the comment made at the time by the Marquess of Huntly was that he did not dislike the match but he hated the manner of wooing. That is the case with this union bill. I believe every man in that committee was in favour of church union. From what has been stated here it would seem as though some were in favour of union and some were against- were anti-unionists. But that was not the case so far as I observed the work of the committee; all were in favour of union, but all wanted it to be a union that would be fair and just and equitable, one that would not deprive any persons or any groups of persons of what they considered to be their rights.
The Presbyterian church is an old historic church, the history of which has endeared it to more than a usual extent, I believe, to its members. I have seen strong men with tears in their eyes protesting against the destruction of the church of their fathers. What answer could we give to such men if we lightly legislated that church out of existence or allowed it to be legislated out of existence by taking away from them under this bill that right to appeal to the courts which naturally belongs to them?
I shall not further take up the time of the committee at this late hour. I have indicated sufficiently my stand on the bill. Hon. members can see the real reason why no one who values the traditions of the House can support the bill or vote for it, namely, that the legislation prevents litigation, that is to say, prevents or interrupts the right of certain persons to appeal to the courts, something which should be the inherent and inalienable right of every citizen. I therefore wish to support the report of the committee. The basis of our whole constitution, the greatest boast of our land and of our race, has always been our recognition of the principle of justice. If that principle was ever lost sight of we could not continue to carry on the proceedings of this House. The chairman as he presides over the meetings of this committee represents that principle, just as the king as he presides over the country represents it, in poor imitation of that greater justice which is divine. As far as we can we imitate that justice, and we

United Church oj Canada

should not at any time depart from it. We should regard it as the sacred right of any man to obtain justice as far as he can from the courts of the country, and it is because I feel that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Lisgar would have the effect of departing from that justice that I shall have to oppose it.


Mr. HAROLD PUTNAM (Colchester):: It is always a pleasure to hear the rare diction and the exceptionally pleasing delivery of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond). In this instance, however, I feel that much of his doctrine is wide of the mark and lacks a concrete application to this case. I would say of the hon. member, with all the respect due to any clever and distinguished layman, that had he been a lawyer I do not think he would have made such an ill-conceived application of legal principles as he has to the particular case in point. But for the fact that I was unavoidably absent from the Private Bills committee during the discussion and the vote on the amendments which it is now sought to delete, I think I should have given a silent vote on this occasion. It happened that that was almost the only sitting of that committee which I missed.
I listened with care to the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) when he argued that this was not a proper case for the committee of the whole to review. He said that the committee below have heard the witnesses and on that point he attempted to build up an analogy with the taking of an appeal from a minor court to a supreme court. Where there is any question with regard to the credibility of the witnesses of course the court below has a tremendous advantage, and the court above will seldom interfere in that respect. But this, Mr. Chairman, is by no means a case of that kind. Let us not on an occasion so important as this forget to be practical. The honesty of the witnesses who gave their evidence before the committee below is unquestioned. Having regard to the character of those witnesses, to their demeanour and to the well-nigh sacred nature of the subjects with which they at times dealt, I am sure that nobody at any time thought of raising a question as to their credibility. In that respect, therefore, the committee of the whole is in the same position as the committee below. Then we have to take into account that, in substantial part at least, the committee below was concerned with questions of law and procedure, with questions of fMr. Raymond.]
theological doctrine. Does anybody suggest now that we are not in just as good a position as the committee below to decide these things according to that doctrine, according to that theory, and according to the facts?


Edward Guss Porter: When did this House ever hear the evidence given before the committee or have an opporunity of reading it so that they would know what it was?


Harold Putnam: I concede that the evidence was not printed, although if anybody had really insisted upon it that might have been done. But the doors were wide open to the public, the gallery of spectators was exceptionally large, and a battery of newspaper reporters was present who synopsized the proceedings and wired them out every few hours. So that there was the utmost publicity, and it is merely an academic argument for the hon. gentleman to say that we are not now in as good a position to look into the facts, theories and doctrines, the law and justice of the case, as was the committee below.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make my remarks brief, and to make them revolve rather strictly around the immediate clause under discussion. As to that clause it is significant that we had a statement from the chairman of the Private Bills committee to the effect that counsel were not heard upon it. I will join the preamble with that clause. I will gladly lay at the feet of the chairman of the Private Bills committee my tribute to the spirit of justice which he displayed, to his fair demeanour, to his attempt to be impartial. I was informed by some of the committee-I have already said that I was not there on that precise occasion, although I attended at all hours all the other sittings-that counsel were denied the right to appear before the committee on this particular amendment. As to the reason for that I am not going to inquire. I know that the chairman had conscientious reasons. Whether they were right or wrong-


William Duff: It is not fair to blame the
chairman. The committee decided that, not the chairman.


Harold Putnam: If the hon. member would weigh what I have said, he will find that I was careful not to blame the chairman. I heard the explanation of the chairman that that was by arrangement, but I do wish to be practical to-night, and all the way through, and it is a fact that members of that committee, largely laymen, found themselves at that point, and only at that point, without

United Church of Canada
the expert advice and assistance of counsel as to the exact meaning of that amendment. I will not say they misapprehended the clause; I think I could give evidence on that. I will say it is only too easy a matter of inference that they, as laymen, could well have misapprehended that clause, and it was a thousand pities that the able and reputable counsel for the unionists or against them were not heard on that particular amendment, as to which the committee made it very plain they wanted to hear counsel.


William Duff: The committee decided against hearing counsel.


Harold Putnam: Members of the committee insisted counsel be heard.


William Duff: One.


Harold Putnam: It may have been one
or more. One may have expressed the wish of many. The significant fact is that counsel were not heard as to that amendment, though heard fully on everything else in this bill, and I ask the House to remember that.
Earlier in the history of this bill there were a great many people in the country, and I admit there are substantial numbers yet, who were absolutely opposed to this bill, and for its rejection in toto. I wish to show that those in favour of these amendments and those against them are much nearer together to-night than perhaps they realize. I think it is scarcely necessary for me to say that I believe this dispute and this conflict has been carried on with the best of good faith on all sides. I saw no evidence of anything else in the committee, and I have seen no evidence of anything else in this House. I am going to assume that that common honesty and that common good faith existed and still exist on both sides. There was a time when the opponents of this union throughout the country were opponents whom I might call out-and-outers. There were witnesses before the committee who wanted, not a modification of the bill, not an amended bill, not a compromise on the bill, but an absolute rejection of the bill.


William Duff: Hear, hear.


Harold Putnam: That opened an impassable gulf between the one side and the other. The hon. member for Lunenburg says "hear, hear." He himself-


William Duff: I said it this afternoon.


Harold Putnam: And lie says it now. There was at one stage that impassable gulf. Now the gulf is pretty nearly bridged, and I say it 228i
in all good faith, because in this report coming from the committee you get no echo of the voice of the man who may call himself an anti-unionist. Why? There are two classes in this discussion now. There are those whom I will call the unionists, and there are the conditional unionists who say, not that they are opposed to this bill, but that they will consent to it on two conditions; if the bill will successfully run the gauntlet of those two conditions they are unionists too. and will vote for the bill, with all its main features and all its incidentals. Now, can people who take that position really in their reflective moments believe that this bill is fraught with great injustice or any great evil? If they did, what should be their attitude? Independently of what the civil courts might say, or a church constitution might say, their attitude would be:	We shall not suffer injustice; we shall not suffer wrong of a substantial kind; we will still be apposed to the bill and opposed to it without any modifica-t;on of our attitude. Now I wish to tell this House and the country that so far as that attitude is concerned it completely disappeared in the Private Bills committee, and it has completely disappeared so far as this House is concerned. The anti-unionists have completely disappeared, and we have now two classes of unionists.
Now what are those two conditions upon which the conditional unionists are willing that the bill pass? I am not going to be told, I shall not believe it if I am told, that when those who support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Lunenburg, setting up as a first condition that if this bill will successfully run the gauntlet of the civil courts and it is thereby decided1 that the Presbyterian church proceeded constitutionally, according to the church meaning of that term, say the bill will be all right under that condition, they had any intention of fraud whatsoever. It would be, I contend, a species of deception, a species almost of fraud, if they felt or if their counsel felt certain in the back of his head that the issue would be sure to be determined against the unionist and that it would' be found that the church courts had not proceeded constitutionally. The very conscience of the gambler will recoil from betting on a certainty, and I say these men were not betting on a certainty. They were acting in good faith, and they said: We are willing to submit a fairly divided probability to the civil courts, and if they decide that the highest court of the Presbyterian church has acted constitutionally we will let the bill come into force. I say it was a fairly divided pro-
United Church of Canada

position, because I do not think anybody here is dogmatic or arbitrary enough, I well-nigh said foolish enough, to say there would be any certainty as to the issue of that law suit which would ensue. No man could be sure of it.
Well then, Mr. Chairman, here we have our pure unionists, and our conditional unionists; and our conditional unionists are merely laying down that if it turns out from the pronouncements of the civil courts-I want to emphasize this-that the Presbyterian church in the strictly narrow sense has proceeded constitutionally, they will let the bill go through with all its blessings; and if the conditional unionists really believe that the bill is fraught with any of its alleged evil or injustice they would let it go through with these too, would they? They are willing to help it through if the civil courts will do so. I say that proves that nobody in this House is unalterably or unreasonably opposed to union. It proves that not even the conditional unionists consider that this bill is really a very bad one.
Perhaps I am compelled to withdraw the word " unreasonably," because after all I think our attitude should be to treat this matter largely on its merits, not to make an idol of the constitution of the church to the extent of saying that the technical reading of its constitution shall determine the life or death of this bill, quite independent of the merits or the demerits of the conflict and controversy which have been created around this particular measure. It is true that they ask us to run the risk of another conflict which is this: That if the Supreme Court will say that this parliament has jurisdiction to pass the bill as respects that part thereof which professes to deal with federal legislation, then they will be prepared to allow that part to go into effect and take the results. I say that in this respect it is another place wherein those who support this amendment,-the conditional unionists as I term them for the want of a better name, and I do not say that with any disrespect,-will find themselves under the most grave danger that the union bill would run that little risk. Because-and I think I may say this without incurring any risk of being guilty of bad taste-there is a statement from the Deputy Minister of Justice and there is no sounder lawyer within the bounds of the Dominion. He has given his opinion that there is no question that on this second branch of these two conditions the unionists are in the right and that this parliament has jurisdiction. I do not profess for a moment to be anything more than a very humble lawyer but I will say this-that if 
as between the provincial and the federal jurisdiction we have not the power to unite bodies of this kind it is high time we knew why, and it is high time that our constitution in that respect should be amended. Personally I have the belief that there is ample power, and that if the conditional unionists are counting on only a bare chance on that branch of their amendment they would lose.


Mr. BOYS:: The hon. gentleman has referred to the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice. That is very important. Was that opinion committed to writing, and is it available?


Harold Putnam: I could not say as to that,. I am very credibly informed that the Deputy Minister of Justice gave that opinion, and 1 asked my informant whether it would be proper to make this statement on the floor of parliament.


William Alves Boys: The hon. member has stated that the deputy minister has given such an opinion, and I have not the slightest doubt that when he makes the statement he is correct. But I think other members are entitled to the information if it is available. It is certainly very important inasmuch as it involves one of the very amendments to this bill.


Harold Putnam: I cannot guarantee that
we can get the opinion in writing; I have had no immediate experience in regard to that feort of request. I feel absolutely certain, 'however, that the opinion was unequivocally 'given by the Deputy Minister of Justice.


William Alves Boys: Will the hon. member tell
tne to whom the information was given?


Harold Putnam: If I gave the name it
'would carry absolute respect throughout 'Canada, but perhaps the hon. gentlemen will excuse me from linking up any further name in this connection.


William Alves Boys: I am not trying to pry into
anything of a private nature, but if we can get the information, it will prove advantageous to every member of this House. If this is a private matter I can assure the hon. member I do not wish to press my request, but 1 would have thought, however, that if the Deputy Minister of Justice had been asked for an opinion on this very important matter 'that opinion would have been available to dll the members.


Harold Putnam: I can only say that when
I have completed my few rambling remarks I shall be very glad to see the hon. member privately and ascertain whether Mr. New-

United Church of Canada
combe's opinion can be again disclosed and whether we can giet it in writing. I do not doubt the good faith or question the courtesy of my hon. friend in pressing his question as he has done. Now then, if we admit that there is at least a fair probability that on the last branch of this amendment the conditional 'unionists would lose and the real unionists "would win, it simply resolves itself into the sole remaining question of whether we are going to make such an idol of the strict technical interpretation of the constitution 'of the Presbyterian church as that it must 'permanently hold back a great movement of this sort, as that it must be considered as something upon which human hands may scarcely be laid at all.
Our friends who support the challenged amendments to this bill lappeal -bo the case 'of the Scottish church in the Old Country. I have no quarrel with that except that those 'gentlemen do not go the full length of the experience there. That is to say they settle tipon the result of the litigation: they will not go to the next step and look at -the re-'suLt, and look at the initiation, of the legislation. It is -true -that the two Presbyterian 'churches which tried to imite in Scotland- the Free church and the United Presbyterian-made a constitutional mistake. It turned upon a very small matter indeed, and as the case ran through the Scottish courts each one of those courts said that no mistake 'had been made; that the churches had -perfect authority to unite as they did without any recourse to parliament. It came up to the House of Lords, because that -body of course is the highest court of appeal in such a matter. They weighed the matter and they were divided -three to three. In that event, but for the death of Lord Shand, the decisions of the Scotch courts would have stood hod it would have been proclaimed -to-day that those churches united properly without any recourse to parliament. When Lord Shand died there was a re-hearing and the majority by four to two decided that be-'cau.se -the Free church departed in & slight 'particular on a. question of what was called patronage from the d-ootrine which i-t had believed in former years, but which even then had lain dormant for many years, it could not carry property with it, and therefore in h practical sense the union could not be con-'summated. What did they do? They immediately went to the Mother of Parliaments herself, and she gave corrective legislation Itpon w-hich -I am not going to dilate tonight. But when this Canadian Presbyterian General Assembly sought -bo bring about
'union they -apprehended this very thing. It 'is in their appendix of law, and -there they 'categorically refer to the unfortunate and technically unconstitutional experience of the Scottish church in getting into that little blunder and they said "We will make that right by making the legislation supersede the possible law suit". In Scotland -the law suit bame first and the corrective legislation- afterWards. Here we are putting -the "legislation first. We cannot prevent anybody from going -to law, but we want to -make -it -humanly 'certain that nobody can disrupt -this union by carrying tedious litigation into our civil courts for a pronouncement.


William Alves Boys: Would my hon. friend permit me a question on the second clause? He has dealt with -the reference which -the present bill provides -to t-h-e courts on a constitutional question under the British North America Act. Would he agree with me that is a question that those who are opposed to this act can "have tried no matter what this 'parliament does?


Harold Putnam: That they can -have
tried-is that what my hon. friend is asking?


William Alves Boys: Suppose we put the bill
through with that clause out, it would be quite proper in the pending suit to have that very question decided in the courts; in other words to ascertain whether or not the act would be ultra vires; and if the act were held to be ultra vires, you would then have the whole union which it was sought to consummate upset; and that is a right which they would have no matter what is done in this House.


Harold Putnam: I do not understand that
there is any pending litigation now which would settle the question. The pending litigation would settle only at most the present constitution of the Presbyterian church in one or two particulars. Of course I am willing to stand corrected. Does the hon. member say the suit now pending would deal with the wide question of the jurisdiction of parliament to pass the bill?


William Alves Boys: I have no hesitation in saying that the action which was commenced last January, in which issue has been joined, and which is now pending for trial in Toronto involves the two questions, namely the right of the General Assembly to do what they did, and also the question of property and civil rights. It is alleged that this very act assumes to deal with property and civil rights, and that therefore this act is ultra vires.

United Church oj Canada


Harold Putnam: If I could feel that there was any doubt about that latter point, I would think it a great pity that the point could not be decided before this measure is further dealt with.


William Alves Boys: That is the way I feel about
it. That suit will be pressed to a decision in any event, and is it not better to obtain a decision and know where we are, rather than to have union consummated, and then to have the courts decide that union is ultra vires? Such a decision would produce a chaotic condition.


Harold Putnam: I find myself unable to
take that view very seriously, namely as to whether this federal parliament has the right to go as far as it professes to go in this bill. I now therefore come back to my first position, that I do not think there is anything in the doctrine of the Presbyterian church which would tie the hands of this church forever if it wanted to consummate a union with some other body of worthy Christians. That is the effect of one branch of this amendment: Submit that to the civil courts and see what they think about it. Quite apart from that immediate aspect of the matter, the church is not supposed to run to the civil courts to have those courts pronounce upon its own constitution. In the Old Country it was decided, perhaps narrowly, that the church must do that. In the United States we find that the civil courts would refuse to review the constitution, the discipline, the procedure, or any such cognate matters, of the church as has been done in Britain. The matter simmers down to this:	If you could submit to an
American court the question of the constitutionality, the first branch of the amendment, to the United States courts, they would say, "We will not interfere with what the General Assembly of the church in the United States has done". That matter was decided in a case in the Supreme Court of the United States. I will read a few lines from the judgment in that case to show the view they held as compared with the British view. I refer to the case of Watson versus Jones, Supreme Court of the United States Reports, volume 80, pages 679-789, and I read from the controlling judgment as follows:
We can very well understand how the Lord Chancellor of England, who is, in his office, in a large sense, the head and representative of the Established church, who controls very largely the church patronage, and whose judicial decision may be, and not, unfrequently is, invoked in cases of heresy and ecclesiastical contumacy, should feel, even in dealing with a dissenting church, but little delicacy in grappling with the most abstruse problems of theological controversy, or in construing the instruments which those 
churches have adopted as their rules of government, or inquiring into their customs and usages.
Then the judgment gives the American view as fallows:
It is not to be supposed that the judges of the civil courts (in the United States) can be as competent in the ecclesiastical law and religious faith of all these bodies as the ablest men in each are in reference to their own. It would therefore be an appeal from the more learned tribunal in the law which should decide the case to one which is less so.
We have said that these views are supported by the preponderant weight of authority in this country, and for the reasons which we have given, we do not think the doctrines of the English Chancery court on this subject should have with us the influence which we would cheerfully accord to it on others.
Now when we consider that the Presbyterian Church in the United States is many times as large and wealthy an organization as the Presbyterian Church in Canada by reason of the population and wealth of that country, and when we consider that that church in the United States is renowned for its generosity and philanthropy, that it will not bow to the civil courts there upon any question of its own constitution, and is not compelled to do so, it is a fair question whether in Canada the Presbyterian church should not follow the rights of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, rather than to go to England for its law in an extremely close decision in that respect. In England the Lord Chancellor is technically head of the church and not afraid to grapple with questions of theology and church constitution.
The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) spoke very feelingly about the rights of the minority. He thereby made the confession that those who are not unionists are in the minority, which in a sort of hesitating way has been widely denied by those whose attitude is extreme. Now we have to take into account the rights of the majority as well as the rights of the minority. What chaos would follow, and what an abnormal condition of affairs would ensue, if the majority of the Presbyterians, and the overwhelming majority of those who speak in the Presbyterian church courts, and ostensibly all Canadian Methodists and Con-gregationalists, would find that, after all this preparation they were thrown back where they were before, and that they must therefore in the future lie helpless behind a strict interpretation of the constitutional procedure in the Presbyterian church. There is no question the Presbyterian church has the right to change its procedure. There is a question whether it can change it and carry with it the property.

United Church oj Canada
I was sorry to hear the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) go as far as he did in his contention, because he strongly suggested that this was largely a question of property or a struggle for property. As far as I have watched the motive of both sides in this unfortunate conflict, I think that is furthest from their thoughts. I think their motive is to do more good in the world by the agency of their United church than they have been able to do in the past. I am utterly at a loss to know whether their ambition will be accomplished. I am an adherent of the Presbyterian church myself, although I never felt myself worthy in spirit to enter into the full communion of that church, but from the evidence before me and from the spirit which I see on both sides, I resent the imputation that this is any squabble for property, and I hear men on both sides say that they wish they could divest themselves of the question of property and that they wish they could stand up and convince the onlooking public that they were animated by very much higher motives.
I know that some of the leaders on both sides would be willing to walk out without scrip or purse as regards the church property if thereby they could advance the kingdom which is so dear to them. Whether the unionists may realize their splendid ambition for the results of this union I myself have doubts. I have grave doubts* whether to some extent they shall not be disappointed. But I am asked by the supporters of this amendment to take the responsibility of holding back those people who wish to go forward in this great and spontaneous movement, because the constitution of the Presbyterian church, by a strict interpretation, must be held, as it might be 'held by a civil court, as forever impossible of being changed or departed from. I intend to look at the movement on its merits and to agree incidentally that if the technical church constitution must be over-ridden, it must. It was over-ridden in the Old Country, in Scotland the home of Presbyterianism, and it can be here, without violation of the conscience of any reasonable man. We have been told that there is injustice here. If anybody even at this stage can show wherein that injustice lies and can propose feasible amendments whereby, on the property question or on any other question where injustice is alleged, this bill can remove that injustice, I shall give it my support. But for the meantime-and I came to this decision after a great deal of thought; I have kept an open mind on the subject all through the hearings I have attendedalthough as an adherent I had at an early stage voted against this proposal for union,
I have come to the conclusion that it is my undoubted duty to support the bill with this cardinal amendment removed.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In the remarks which
I propose to address to the committee at this stage, I wish it to be distinctly understood that I am not speaking for the government of which I am a member. It is well understood that upon this great subject there is a division of opinion amongst the members of the government just as there is amongst members of the party to which we are attached, and amongst the member., of all the parties which are to be found in this House. Personally, my attitude in regard to this matter is that I am opposed to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown). I wish to point out to the committee the position in which that amendment stands and to raise the point that it should be ruled out of order. If the committee will direct its attention for a moment or two to the matter which I am about to submit to it, I feel sure that hon. members will agree with me in the conclusion at which I have arrived after considerable deliberation. I hesitated about bringing this question to the attention of the committee before I had thoroughly and completely satisfied myself as to the impropriety of the amendment of the hon. member and as to the position which I am taking being absolutely correct. The position of the matter is as follows: Section 2 in this bill is the matter under consideration and the question has been put by the Chairman. The hon. member for Lisgar gave notice that, in regard to section 2, he would move this afternoon as follows:
That the whole of section 2 of the said bill be stricken out.
The committee will notice that the proposition is that the whole of section 2 be stricken out:
And the following substituted therefor:
2.	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.
3.	And that section 10, subsection "B", be amended by adding thereto the words, "On matters affecting the disposal of property."
My hon. friend proposes first that the section be stricken out, and he proposes this by way of amendment. He also proposes that two distinct substitutions shall be made.
United Church oj Canada


John Livingstone Brown: The last part of the. amendment No. 3 is not part of the amendment that I moved this afternoon. That is an amendment that was intended to be brought up when that stage of the bill was reached.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If the hon. member wants to have the section that he has marked here, section 3, considered at a later stage of the bill, he had better give a new notice, because the notice is applicable to two distinct sections. I take it, of course, that my hon. friend moved only that portion of this clause of which he gave notice which is contained in the two proposals, first:
That the whole of section 2 be stricken out.
And second:
And the following be substituted therefor:
"This act shall come into force on the lOtih day of June, 1925."
The question is whether, under the rules of the House, it is possible absolutely to strike out a section in a bill or the whole of the terms of any motion or question that comes before the House for consideration and to substitute some other proposal for it. If we look at the rules in regard to the question, we shall find that in Beauchesne's book, rule 36 on page 93 states:
When a question is under debate, no motion is received unless to amend it.
That is, by changing in some way the proposed resolution or section or question:
To postpone it to a day certain; for the previous question; for reading the Orders of the Day; for proceeding to another order, to adjourn the debate; or for the adjournment of the House.
Other than for those purposes no motion can be made affecting a section or a question. Clause 331 goes on to state:
A motion may be amended: (a) by leaving out certain words.
In an existing resolution or section.
(b) By leaving out certain words in order to insert other words; (c) by inserting or adding other words.
My hon. friend does not do any of those three things. He proposes to destroy the clause altogether and to substitute another clause for it. In other words, he proposes to do two things at once; to strike out wholly section 2 of the bill and, second, to insert a new section in the bill. Under the rules he cannot do this. As to that the authorities are so clear that there can be no question about the matter. First in May at page 258 there is this statement:
The object of an amendment may be to effect such an alteration in a question as will obtain the support of those who, without such alteration, must either vote against it or abstain from voting thereon, or to present 
to the House an alternative proposition either wholly or partially opposed to the original question. This may be effected by moving to omit all the words of the question after the first word, "that", and to substitute in their place other words of a different import.
If my hon. friend had moved that section 2 of the bill should be amended by striking out all the words after the words_________
This act shall not come into force.
-and then substituted the words which he proposes, he would be within the rules, because he would be altering in some way a section in the bill and leaving the origination of that section, so that his substitution would be regular. But my hon. friend was proposing to do two things. This is the position that the House would be in. A resolution to strike out a section in a bill absolutely is a matter to which we might all give adherence. That is one issue. It would remove from the bill a section which provides certain things. But when my hon. friend goes further and moves not only to strike out a section absolutely, but to insert an entirely new and different clause, the House is asked to vote for two-propositions at the same time, one way or the other. It is up to every hon. member to say first whether he is in favour of striking out the clause or not. That is a substantive proposition. He is also compelled by reason of my hon. friend's proposition to consider whether he would vote for the substitution. Now, that is where my hon. friend runs counter to the rules. The point is so clearly stated by Redlich, third volume, page 94, that if the committee will follow me closely they will agree that no language of mine could make the situation more obvious. Redlich says.
It is irregular to move by way of amendment to omit a whole clause and to substitute another. Such a proposal is equivalent to proposing a new clause. The rules insist upon such a substitution being carried out in two stages: the old clause may be struck out first and the new one inserted afterwards. But the insertion of the new clause may only be made after the whole text of the bill has been gone through and all the amendments thereto disposed of.
According to Redlich therefore my hon. friend is clearly out of order. It is positively stated that it is irregular to move by way of amendment to omit the whole of a clause and substitute another, and that is what the hon. gentleman is proposing to do. That rule is observed for a very necessary and obvious reason which I have already given. If the hon. gentleman desired to have clause 2 struck out he should have moved that it be deleted, and given notice of a subsequent motion at any time for the substitution of a new clause. He could not, however, move at one and the same time that the old clause

United Church oj Canada
be struck out and the new one substituted therefor, because the two things cannot be done simultaneously under the rules. Therein my hon. friend has failed. Now, we have had a debate on this matter all afternoon and evening touching the merits of clause 2. How many hon. gentlemen have discussed the new amendment proposed by the hon. member? I do not think I have heard any hon. gentleman who has addressed the committee throughout the debate give any consideration for one moment to the new amendment which, if it were in order, my hon. friend is asking the committee to adopt. The course open to my hon. friend, if the committee is agreeable, is to withdraw the amendment he has moved. If he wishes to attack the existing clause in the bill he must do so by a specific notice of motion for the purpose, but he cannot by any possibility under the authorities I have quoted do the two things at once. As hon. gentlemen are aware, it frequently occurs in this House that an amendment is moved to a motion which is under consideration. What is the nature of such an amendment? It is to the effect, "that all the words after the word That' be struck out and that the following words be substituted therefor". That is the proper form in which an amendment should be stated. But if an hon. member moved that a resolution under con-
12	m. sideration should be amended by its being struck out and another resolution substituted in place of it he would be out of order, as would readily be seen. The ordinary practice in these matters is to preserve the integrity of the original motion by asking, in the amending motion, that "all the words after the word 'that' be struck out and that the following words be substituted therefor". My hon. friend however does not propose to do that in this instance and he runs counter to the rules; he asks the committee on a distinct issue to wipe out an existing clause in the bill. He can do that of course; but he cannot, as he is attempting to do, ask the committee to adopt a second clause in substitution therefor. The authority I have quoted from Redlich is positive on the point. Let me refer also to Blackmore's Speakers' Decisions wherein the rule is laid down:
A proposition which is of the nature of a substitution rather than an amendment cannot be put unless the question which it seeks to amend be negatived, when it is competent to submit the motion.
My hon. friend's motion is therefore not in order for the reasons I have given and I submit that the chairman should so rule.


George Newcombe Gordon: Does any hon. member desire to speak to the point of order? The objection advanced by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald, Pictou) has reference to a notice of motion by way of amendment appearing in the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons of June 17.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: May I interrupt you for a moment, Mr. Chairman?
I want to make it clear that the objection I am taking is based not only on the ground of irregularity; my hon. friend is proposing a new clause altogether, which he cannot do.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Do I understand the
minister to advise us that if the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) had left the word "that" in the amendment everything would be all right, but that the fact that he strikes "that" out as well as all the rest renders his motion out of order? In other words, that that "that" makes the difference?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The position I take is supported by the authorities I have already quoted.


William Alves Boys: Would not the minister consider this a notice of motion of a twofold character? I have my own idea as to what the committee did, and everyone knows that I support the committee. But I should think it a misfortune if we lost all this afternoon and evening's discussion and if the committee were obliged to go all over the subject again perhaps to-morrow or the next day. I have not had the opportunity of considering the authorities but one is impressed by what the minister has quoted and it would seem that the amendment is not in order. But if a notice of motion had been given to strike out the clause as it stands and a further notice were given that a substituted clause would subsequently be moved I take it from the authorities quoted that such a procedure would be in order. I do believe that it is the sense of the committee that we should get on with the bill and have it disposed of, and I would respectfully suggest to the minister that he treat this as a double-barrelled notice and that we now proceed with the only thing which as he says, has been under discussion namely, the striking out of the clause as it now exists. That can be disposed of and we can then take up the second phase of the question and deal with it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have not raised the point of order without a sense of the importance of having the debate ex-
United Church of Canada

pedited as much as possible, for I am just as anxious as any other hon. member to facilitate the business of the House. But I considered it my duty to bring to the attention of the committee the irregularity of the hon. member's amendment. Otherwise the rules of the House might be violated and the present procedure might possibly be regarded at some time in the future as constituting a precedent. Personally I have no objection whatever to any course by which the hon. gentleman can bring himself within the rides. As the hon. member has pointed out, if my hon. friend from Lisgar had given notice of motion simply that clause 2 of the bill be struck out he would be in order, and if he desired to propose a new clause later on he could do so. It is a matter for the committee to decide.


William Alves Boys: I do not rise to take exception to the objection urged by the minister. I said that so far as I could size the situation up from the quotations he had made, he was quite right. But I do make that suggestion, though I realize it could not be adopted without unanimous consent, and as the minister raises the point his consent would perhaps be riecessary above all. If my suggestion is favourably considered we could simply treat this to-night as a notice of motion that we are dealing merely with the striking out of that clause and with nothing else.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is entirely a question of the consent of the committee.
I he CHAIRMAN: As I have stated, the Votes and Proceedings of the 17th of June contain notice of this amendment. The question arises whether the amendment is therefore in order or whether it is objectionable upon the ground stated by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald). Rule 112 of the House provides that no important amendment may be proposed to any private bill in committee of the Whole House or at the third reading of the bill unless one day s notice of the same has been given. That rule applies only to private bills, and it puts private bills in an altogether different position from that of resolutions or any other matters that come before the House or the committee for discussion. Beauchesne, in his book on parliamentary procedure, cited by the hon. Minister of National Defence, at paragraph 331 states what is also indicated in May and in Bourinot:

A motion may be amended: (a) by leaving out certain words (b) by leaving out certain words in order to insert other words; (c) by inserting or adding other words.
The expression "certain words" would in my opinion mean those that are specifically designated or named or identified in such a way that no one could be misled. In May's Parliamentary Practice, at the same page as quoted from by the hon. Minister of National Defence, the reasons and the objects of an amendment are indicated and the manner in which it may be made. Such amendments are usually made by striking out all the words or a number of words after the word "that;" because all resolutions, as hon. members are aware, begin with the word "that." Of course in this particular section of the bill that word cannot be struck out because the section does not begin with "that." Hon. members wild note that the wording of the section is as follows:
This act shall not come into force until the first day of July 1926, and not then-
And certain sub-paragraphs follow. The amendment proposed is that this act shall come into force on the tenth of June 1925

after clause 2 is struck out, if the amendment, carries. The effect of ruling this proposed amendment out of order would be this: The vote taken in the committee would be taken directly on clause 2, which is the section providing for the act coming into force. If that clause was struck out the act would come into force upon receiving the royal assent. The amendment proposes to postpone the coming into effect, not, it is true, until the date mentioned in section 2, but until a different day. If I understand the minister correctly, Redlich does not go so far as to say that such an amendment would be out of order, though he does say it would be irregular. I am strongly inclined to doubt that its being irregular would mean that it would be out of order. Webster states that amendments are made by substituting something else in the place of what is removed. As was suggested by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), the matter really comes down to the point that if the first word of the section was left in, the amendment would be in order. With all due deference to the objection raised by the hon. Minister of National Defence, I cannot think we are bound by what may be interpreted as the English practice and that we are tied down to an objection of so highly technical a character, and I so rule.

United Church oj Canada


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I bow to
the ruling of the chairman, though I entertain my own opinion as to whether he is correct in overruling Redlich. I would venture to address a few words to the committee on the general principle of the bill.
I happen to represent more members of the Presbyterian Church in Canada than any other hon. gentleman here.


William Findlay Maclean: I doubt that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend disputes the 'honour with me; we will check up the census figures and see who is right. I make that claim because I represent a very large constituency, three-quarters of whose people are adherents or members of the Presbyterian church. They have given to Canada and to the church in Canada a number of very distinguished men, men who have played a great part in the history of this country. When I hear hon. gentlemen talk about getting away from the hand of the dead past, I wonder whether it is a good thing for Canada that the achievements of the great men who have gone before should be entirely forgotten, and that we should enter upon a period in which materialism should run rampant and in which all that has stood for solidity of institutions and for advancement in Canada shall have disappeared.
We have given to Canada from the Presbyterians of my constituency men like Sir William Dawson, the first president of McGill University; Doctor George M. Grant, of Kingston, Doctor Falconer, president of Toronto University, Rev. Doctor D. M. Gordon, second president of Queen's University. The Presbyterians of my county are opposed to church union. They voted against it by a large majority in 1915, and since that time they have been misrepresented in the assembly of the church by ministers and those who have the right to go to the assembly and who did not carry out the principle that ought to prevail in a democratic church of speaking for the people who are behind them. Out of ten congregations in my constituency, 3,222 people voted against union and 342 for union, a few months ago. That is an indication of the feeling of the people whom I represent, and I am here to speak for them. I therefore ask this committee, I ask this parliament, to hesitate before taking any step by which that church would be absolutely blotted out.
Let me read to the committee a statement which has been sent to me by the distinguished ex-principal of Queen's, Dr. D. M. Gordon; it puts the story reasonably from the standpoint of those who believe in the church, in
its history and in its great achievement. The statement reads:
Dear Mr. Macdonald,
Permit me to draw your attention to some considerations connected with the bill at present before parliament for the incorporation of the United Church of Canada.
For ten years (1905-1915) I was a member of the Union committee of the Presbyterian church and a warm advocate of the movement, believing that, if it could be accomplished with the general consent of the members, it would tend to promote very greatly the spiritual life of our people and the progress of the Kingdom of God in our country.
At the outset it was stipulated that the church would enter into the proposed union only on condition of the practically unanimous consent of the members. In the report of the Union Committee submitted to the General Assembly in 1905 it is stated that, "It was universally recognized that "a union of the churches to be real and lasting must carry the consent of the entire membership" (Assembly Minutes, Appendix, p. 280) and this was adopted unanimously by the assembly. (Aas. Minutes, p. 46).
I can say with the utmost confidence that if we had imagined that the proposed union could be secured only at the cost of the disruption of the Presbyterian church the movement would have ended with the initial proposal of it in our General Assembly.
That is a very important statement.
As negotiations proceeded year after year and the basis of union was gradually drawn up, opposition to it developed in the courts of the church, so that it was determined to submit the matter to the members to ascertain the mind of the whole church concerning it. Accordingly, the assembly remitted it to presbyteries, in 1911. to consult all the congregations of the church.
It has been contended that the constitution and laws of the church did not require the assent of the members, and that the judgment of presbyteries, synods and General Assembly should be a sufficient guide and warrant for procedure in this matter, as in other important movements within the church, these bodies being entitled to represent the entire membership. No organized society, however, makes provision in its constitution and forms of procedure for its own extinction, and, as the church consists not merely of its official courts but of its entire membership, and as it was now proposed to merge the Presbyterian church in an entirely new ecclesiastical organiration, this action in asking for the judgment of all the congregations and members was both wise and essential. Moreover, the pledge given at the outset of the negotiations to consummate union only with "the consent of the entire membership" could not be evaded.
When, in the assembly of 1912, the votes of the members were received and considered, we were greatly surprised to find a substantial minority opposed to the union. Out of a total registered membership of 287.944 only 155,033 voted; and of those voting only 106,755 approved, while 48,278 were opposed. That is, 54 per cent of the total membership voted: 37 per cent of the total membership for union; 17 per cent of the total membership against union. (See Minutes of Assembly for 1912, Appendix, p. 330).
In view of this opposition, the assembly resolved as follows:-"In view of the extent of the minority which is not yet convinced that organic union is the best method of expressing the unity sincerely desired by all. the assembly deems it unwise immediately to proceed to consummate the union, but believes that by
United Church of Canada

further conference and discussion practically unanimous action can be secured within a reasonable time". (Min. of Ass, 1912, p. 45). Meanwhile closer relations might be fostered between the churches and greater cooperation promoted in missionary, educational and social activities.
In 1915 it was again agreed by the General Assembly to consult the members of the church, but when the vote was received and considered by the assembly in 1916, we were surprised to find that the opposition had greatly increased, that while 106.534 members voted in favour of the Union proposals, 69,913 voted against them. (Ass. Min. for 1916, Appendix, p. 279).
Evidently it would have been wise at this stage to halt further proceedings, even although a majority of presbyteries favoured union. Clearly the time was not ripe for the proposed change. The mind of the church was not prepared for it; and organic union under such conditions would tend rather to hinder than to promote spiritual unity.
Instead, however, of calling a halt in the movement, the assembly in 1916 asserted its adherence to union as the policy of the church; ibut later, in 1917, the assembly agreed to suspend further action dn connection with it until a year after the close of the war. It was expected that the experiences of the war, in uniting all citizens more closely for other purposes affecting the national life, might also move the members of all churches to closer unity.
No further action has been taken since 1916 to ascertain the mind of the members of the dhurch regarding union. Within these intervening years many membens have returned from service overseas and thousands of new members have been enrolled, so that we cannot say what are the present proportions of advocates and opponents of union. Whatever weight we may attach to the many arguments that may be urged in favour of union, and whatever may be our personal predictions in regard to it, the outstanding fact is that there is resolute and apparently increasing opposition to it on the part of the membership of the Presbyterian church. The opponents are probably still in the minority, but they are quite determined that the Presbyterian church must be continued in its present organization.
It is evident, therefore, that if church union is consummated according to the bill for incorporation now before parliament, it must result in the very serious disruption of the Presbyterian church.
I will ask the committee to note the significant utterance o-f this father of the church 5n Canada, one of the most honoured and respected men that ever held a high position in the educational and religious life of this 'country, when he says:
It is evident, therefore, that if church union is consummated according to the bill for incorporation now before parliament, it must result in the very serious disruption of the Presbyterian church. And when it is stated, as in the preamble to the bill, that the Presbyterian church is a party to the petition for the act of incorporation, it should be noted that this is very far from being the petition of the entire church. Indeed, according even to the figures of 1916 (which now it is believed fall far short of representing the entire number of opponents) there is a smaller proportion of members in favour of the act of incorporation than would be required for the merging of two banks or other commercial institutions under the Joint Stock Company Act.

Will the minority, who are determined to maintain the existence and activities of the Presbyterian church, be denied the right to preserve the name of the church as hitherto known? This is to them a matter of serious moment. The. advocates of union claim that by the act of incorporation the Presbyterian church is merged in the United church and therefore ceases to exist as a separate organization. The minority claim that they will continue to be the Presbyterian church after the others have entered the new ecclesiastical organization. Of course, the minority could agree to form a Presbyterian church: not even parliament could prevent this, and the advocates of union admit it. And, for that matter, the body so formed would come to be known as the Presbyterian church. But the retention of the name and the claim of the minority to continue the present organization of the Presbyterian church might, if admitted, be held to carry with it the right to all the property of the Presbyterian church.	[DOT]
This has been one of the chief obstacles in preventing any conciliation between the two contending parties. It might, however, be a matter of agreement between the two parties that the minority should still retain the name but that the estate should be divided according to some equitable arrangement. The advocates of union might fitly be requested to make some agreement with the minority so that they would come before parliament with a united petition for the legislation required in the circumstances.
As to the terms and provisions of the act:-It may be noted that parliament is asked to pronounce upon the spiritual functions of the church as well as upon the tenure of property. This, however, is to ignore the proper functions of parliament. The church has the right to live and act as a free self-governing body with supreme jurisdiction in spiritual matters. It is only in connection with the tenure and administration of property that the church is in any way subject to the decisions of parliament or of courts of justice. In the proposed act, however, parliament is asked to ratify and confirm the Basis of Union and to guarantee to the church freedom to deal with her doctrines and teaching as the courts of the church may determine. While it is a grievous mistake for the church thus to ask the sanction of parliament in spiritual matters, it would surely be a mistake on the part of parliament, even at such a request, to take action outside of its own proper jurisdiction.
Parliament has, however, certain rights and jurisdiction in regard to the tenure and administration of property by the church, as by any other body of citizens,	and	much	of the act is	devoted	to the
transfer of the property of the negotiating churches to the United church.
The attempt is made to arrange for the assignment of certain properties to the " non-concurring " congregations. A commission is to be created to deal with all questions that may arise in connection with the division of the properties of the church, and the decisions of this commission are to be absolute and final, subject	to no	kind of review,	civil or	ecclesiastical.	The	effect,	and manifestly	the purpose, ofthis provision is to forestall and prevent any litigation between the contending parties by closing against them all the constituted courts of justice and forcing them to accept the decisions of this irresponsible commission. The appointment of such a commission could be justified only with the entire consent of both parties, otherwise it is grossly unjust. The minority, however,	are	not asked whether they agree	to this
arrangement, although they may, if they choose, be represented on the commission. It is offered to them as the only tvay to have their share of the propertv determined, and they are deprived of the right, which every citizen is supposed to possess, of access to the

United, Church oj Canada
courts of justice. This is compulsory arbitration with a vengeance! Surely 6uch a proposal cannot be sanctioned by the parliament of Canada as parliament stands for the protection, not for the coercion, of minorities.
Believe me.
Yours very faithfully,
Daniel M. Gordon.
I ventured at this late hour to read that letter to the committee because it is the statement of a man who stands apart from all the controversy that has been waged around this question-a venerable man whose long life has been spent in the service of the church and in behalf of the educational institutions of this country. Retaining in their entirety the magnificent faculties with which he was endowed he tells us that he Started out captivated by the idea that it would be a great thing to have union subject, however, as he put it, to the fact that that union in order to be efficacious should be unanimous. He tells the story of his disillusionment and to-day, in the evening of his life, he tells this parliament, after having viewed all that was likely to happen, that to pass this bill would lead to the disruption of the Presbyterian Church in Canada and inflict the evils that he complains of.
Is that picture a true one or is it not? It seems to me that some gentlemen in regard to this measure forget the genius of the people who for centuries have been connected with the Presbyterian church, the men of Scottish extraction who cherish with great devotion all the traditions of their race, and whose devotion to their church is of the very warp and fibre of their being. They forget the women who have had their children baptized within that church, who have been married according to its rites and the many over whose mortal remains its clergy have spoken the last word. They forget the older men and women who to-day stand looking out into the future. There comes to them some gentleman who says to them " All these treasures of which you are so proud are mere figments of the imagination; they amount to nothing. We will have an act passed in parliament whether you like it or not. We will take your religion from you and when you go out into the great unknown you will have nothing to solace you such as you have been accustomed to depend upon in the past."
_ There are hundreds of men and women in the constituency from which I come who are moved by intense feeling in this matter. I am here to speak on their behalf and to urge the House to hesitate before they take away from those people what they regard as the priceless things of life. Are minorities and their rights to be disregarded in this country?
Sir, I have been in parliament for almost twenty years. I have seen occasions when the rights of minorities were menaced, and the men who stood up for those rights are those who uphold the rights of minorities to-day.
I ask every fair-minded man here to realize that the rights of minorities must be religiously preserved in this country if we are going to maintain Canada as a happy and united country and if it is ever to realize the future we anticipate for it.
I do not propose to speak at any great length. One hon. gentleman in the early part of the debate spoke of the amendment under which this matter is referred to the courts as a challenge to the church. I think that was an unfortunate expression to use. A very large body of men connected with the Presbyterian church originated in good faith in the Supreme Court of Ontario an action to have it declared that the proceeding of those who constitute the General Assembly for the time being in coming to parliament and asking that their church should be destroyed was illegal. I understand that the pleadings in that suit have been closed, and the case stands ready for trial. I cannot recall any occasion in my experience in parliament in which parliament undertook to step in and take away from any litigant any right which in good faith he asserted he had. Hon. gentlemen will search the records of parliament in vain to find where this parliament in its long history ever passed legislation destroying the bona fide rights of any party who, in accordance with the laws of the land, has gone into court to seek remedies and justice. Yet that is what would be done if this bill is passed and the amendments that were made by the committee are disregarded.
These amendments are reasonable and fair. I am not going to travel over the ground that has been so well covered by hon. gentlemen who have discussed them from the standpoint of the view which I entertain, but they provide for an early and speedy determination of the issue on matters of right. That was the object of these amendments. It must be conceded that it is not fair to deprive people of rights which they are asserting in the courts. If we are going to have it laid down as a matter of law and practice in this country that people can be deprived of the rights which they are asserting in the courts that will be a very unfortunate thing indeed. It is proposed to strike out from this bill the provision for a speedy termination of the suit which has been entered relative to a very grave constitutional question that exists, as for instance the right of this parliament to interfere with trusts that have been created and which have been operated under the provisions of the laws of the
United Church oj Canada

provincial legislatures dealing with properties and civil rights. Surely it is not an unfair proposal to ask that this question be determined before the rights of individuals are destroyed and before the claims of those who want to remain Presbyterians are fully considered. That is why these amendments are fair and reasonable, and I submit this committee should not strike them out.
Of what use is a union if it is to be a forced one? The happy illustration given so eloquently by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) in regard to the result of coercive unions is so clear that I am sure it was patent to all. Surely nobody in this committee believes that any union which absolutely destroys or takes away the legal rights of those who want to be Presbyterians will be of any value. If they do, then I regret to say they utterly mistake the genius of the men and women who belonged to the Presbyterian church in the past. It cannot be done. If the action contemplated by the unionists is persisted in all that we have heard about the glories of union will vanish into thin air. There will be perpetuated in this country an embittered feeling, an antagonistic attitude between two great religious bodies; whereas if we act upon the lines of sanity and good judgment, enabling those who have legal or constitutional rights to have them determined before they are forced into a position where their identity is gone and all their property becomes merged in the new organization a very different feeling will prevail.
I appeal to the House to seriously consider before it takes a step that would accomplish no good but would produce evil and injurious effects in this country.


William Alves Boys: I should like to move with the consent of the Prime Minster that the committee report progress and ask leave to sit again.


George Newcombe Gordon: It has been moved by Mr. Boys that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. member who introduced the amendment should have something to say, I suppose, before the question is decided.


John Livingstone Brown: A little while ago I took the matter up with the Prime Minister as to the possibility of taking a vote to-night and he indicated that that would not likely be 
done. Moreover a number of hon. members have gone home. I think it would be very unfortunate that this vote should be taken at a time when a great many members interested understood it would not be taken. We would like to have an expression from the Prime Minister on this point.


William Alves Boys: I think it was understood that the committee would not sit later than twelve or a little after.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have been given to understand that a considerable number of members who have not yet spoken on this question desire to do so, and I do not think it would be altogether in the interests of the question before the House that the discussion should be kept up until an early hour in the morning. I think it would be better that we should follow the rule of adjourning at midnight, if possible, and resume the discussion on this question at another time. I hope, however, that members who have spoken will not consider it necessary to traverse the same ground on a subsequent day. I think the House will appreciate that it is important to get through the business as quickly as we can, but we should take up the business in good order and in good temper.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Perhaps we could take up this matter to-morrow while it is fresh in everybody's minds and get rid of it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it would be advisable to proceed to-morrow, were it not for the fact that there is an understanding already that the report on Privileges and Elections will be considered to-morrow afternoon. That is an important matter and should be disposed of as early as possible. However, I see no objection to taking up the church union matter on Thursday, if the House will agree to it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was going to suggest that this discussion should have the right of way and the other could come up afterwards. I think we would get through the business far quicker than by interrupting this debate in order to proceed with another.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think where a matter has been standing over by agreement between the different sides of the House it should not be delayed and in the end it would make very little difference.


Robert Forke: There is a good deal of
disappointment in the House, owing to the fact that it was arranged that this debate should commence on Tuesday and proceed until it was finished.

United Church oj Canada


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Robert Forke: That is the understanding I had.


William Duff: It will take a long time to
finish it.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is that a threat?


William Duff: No.


Robert Forke: However, it may have been
a misunderstanding. I think the right hon. ieader of the opposition understood that the debate was to continue. I think we made that arrangement on Monday. Probably the chairman heard it and he will know.	*


George Perry Graham: I want to straighten out
that difficulty. The report of the committee on Privileges and Elections was presented to the House some days ago, and the chairman was prepared to move its adoption on the subsequent day, but the member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) was ill; it was postponed till Thursday, and the announcement was made in the House several days ago. The hon. member for West Hastings and other members interested in that question are all prepared to go on to-morrow, and I think, after making that arrangement with the consent of the House, under the peculiar condition, it would not be wise to change it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So far as the
member for West Hastings and members in this section of the House are concerned, we are quite willing to give the church union bill the right of way. We think the House will make better progress by so doing, but it is a matter entirely in the hands of the House.


George Newcombe Gordon: This motion is not
debatable.


Mr. SHAW:: It has been debated quite a bit already. I desire to point out to the Prime Minister that a debate which has been adjourned on numerous occasions has already been fixed definitely for Thursday; so that I would suggest to the Prime Minister that his resolution should be that this debate be adjourned until Friday.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What was that debate?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: A debate on the Banking and Commerce committee report, which has been adjourned several times and definitely fixed for Thursday of this week.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not
heard of it.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I can substantiate the
statement made by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw). The report was to have Deen presented on numerous occasions by the chairman of the Banking and Commerce committee but for various reasons it was postponed, and next Thursday was definitely decided to be the date on which the debate was to take place.


George Perry Graham: By whom?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I understand the Acting
Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) made that statement. It is iquite immaterial to me, but I am simply substantiating what the hon. member for West Calgary says.


William Findlay Maclean: I think the House should resume, and we could arrange this matter with the Speaker in the chair.
Progress reported.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg to move that Private Bills be the Order of the Day for Thursday, 28th of June next.


Mr. GOOD:: There was a very definite
understanding by a number of members with the chairman of the Banking and Commerce committee and the Acting Minister of Finance, and every possible assurance that could be given was given by the Acting Minister of Finance that the report of the Banking and Commerce committee would be considered on Thursday next. I wish to protest, with all the vehemence of which I am capable against this motion. It will be a great injustice to those to whom the assurance was given if the report of the committee is not considered on Thursday.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I see personally no
necessity for this debate taking place on Thursday; but that is not the point. The statement of the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) is absolutely correct. Definite assurances were given time and time again that the report of the Banking and Commerce committee would be taken up on that date. It was postponed on numerous occasions and finally Thursday was definitely settled, and an assurance was given to the gentlemen who desired to debate it. I am not particularly interested because I do not care if the debate does not take place. I merely rise to confirm the statements which have been made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With regard to these various representations that have been made, the only object I have is to try to arrive at some agreement that will best suit the general convenience of the House. It is perfectly obvious that if the Acting
Business oj the House

Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) gave an assurance

and I have no doubt as to the correctness of the statements by hon. members that he did-that the debate on the Banking and Commerce matter would be fixed for Thursday, he understood that the present debate would be concluded to-day. I have no doubt he did expect it to be concluded. The Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham), who was leading the House at the time, intimated that he expected the debate would conclude in one day. It is very obvious it is going to take a considerably longer time, and I think there are as many hon. members who are interested in getting the church union question out of the way as there are hon. gentlemen who are interested in having the banking and commerce matter decided. As the church union question has come up first, it seems to me that it ought to have the right of way in a matter of this kind.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved the adjournment of the House.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What business
will be takein- up tomorrow besides the Murdock charges?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: After the
the House has considered the report of the Privileges and Elections committee, wp shall proceed with the resolution that appears in [DOT]the name of the Minister of Justice -respecting an -amendment to the British North America Act; tire bill in the name of the Minister of Railways and Canals to amend the Canadian National Railways Act, 1919; second readings of Bill No. 172, to amend the Indian Act, Bill No. 187 to amend the Dominion Lands Act; Bill No. 188 to amend the Land Titles Act and Bill N-o. 191, for the settlement of certain questions between -the governments of Canada -and Ontario respecting Indian Reserve Lands, in the name of the 'Minister of the Interior; -a resolution in the name o-f the Minister of Justice to be taken up in committee of the whole with respect to the Bills of Exchange Act. If we con-'clude those measures, we shall go on- to estimates and take up Mines and Trade and 'Commerce.


Henry Lumley Drayton: A good many
people a.re -interested in the Post Office estimates. Is it proposed to bring them 'down at an early date?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am unable
to say when the Post Office estimates will be brought down. As my hon. friend knows, the Postmaster General (Mr. Murphy) unfortunately has been ill most of this session. We are still hoping that he may find it possible to be in the House before the close of this session. I know that it is his desire t-o take up the estimates himself if he can be here, and I hope he may ibe here to take ihem up himself.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 12.45 am. Wednesday.
Wednesday, June 25, 1924