INSOLVENT BANKS AND TRAD- the Lake Athabaska and Hudson Bay ING CORPORATIONS BILL.

HON. MR. TRUDEL-The amendment is to the first clause. It will be to cover the case of companies which are TECUMSEH INSURANCE COMPAnow in process of liquidation.

The motion was agreed to and the Bill Insurance Company of Canada." He was read the third time and passed.

THE SENATE.

Ottawa, Wednesday, April 5th, 1882.

The Speaker took the Chair at three o'clock.

Prayers and routine proceedings.

THIRD READINGS,

The following bills, reported from standing committees of the Senate, were read the third time and passed.

Bill (13), "An Act to authorize and provide for the winding up of the Dominion Fire and Marine Insurance Company." (Mr. Hope.)

Bill (45), "An Act to reduce the capital stock of the Ontario Bank and to change the nominal value of the shares thereof, and for other purposes."--(Mr. Gibbs.)

BILL INTRODUCED.

Bill (66), "An Act to amend the Act of the late Province of Canada intituled: An Act to incorporate the Board for the management of the Temporalities Fund of the Presbyterian Church of Canada in

connection with the Church of Scotland," and the Acts amending the same.

SASKATCHEWAN DIOCESAN
SYNOD BILL.

THIRD READING.

HON. MR. VIDAL moved the third reading of Bill (51), "An Act to incorporate the Synod of the Diocese of Saskatchewan and for other purposes connected therewith."

Mortmain or other Acts, laws or usages to the contrary thereof notwithstanding: Provided always, that in order to the validity of such deeds and conveyances the same shall be made and executed six months at least before the death of the person conveying by the same, and shall be registered not later than six months after his decease."

The powers given in this clause are in addition to those in the second clause which is as follows:

"The said synod may meet and frame a constitution and regulations for the general management and good government of the church of England in the said diocese, and and amend the same, and in such manner from time to time as they shall see fit, alter and by such proceedings as they shall adopt, make regulations for enforcing discipline in the church, for the appointment, deposition, office therein of whatever order or degree, deprivation, or removal of any person bearing for the acquiring and disposing of property, and for the convenient and orderly management of the same and the temporalities, affairs, and interests generally of the church in matters relating to and affecting the same, and the officers and members thereof, and not in any manner interfering with the rights, privileges or interests of other religious communities, or of any person or persons not being a member or members of the said church of England."

Now, the following are the words which

tions for enforcing discipline in the church, propose to strike out: "Make regulafor the appointment, deposition, deprivation, or removal of any person bearing office therein, of whatever order or degree."

In proposing the amendment which I have just read, I wish to say that I object to this legislation on principle, because the church of England in this Dominion stands on the same footing as any other religious body, and I am not aware that the Roman Catholics, or the Presbyterians, or any other body, have asked for legislation such as this, and had such legislation been necessary, they probably would have demanded it. It is, in my opinion, a vicious principle of legislation for this Parliament to delegate such extensive powers to a church court of any denomination of Christians. The practical effect of it will be just this: unfortunately, in "The said Synod is hereby authorized and the church of England it is perfectly well empowered to take and hold lands and here- known, more, I am happy to say, from the ditaments for the uses and purposes of the experience in England than in this said Church of England in the said diocese, country, that a great many unpleasant and every deed or conveyance of land or any estate or interest therein to the said synod questions have arisen, and serious difficulshall be valid and effectual, the Acts of Par- ties have been produced by the attempts liament commonly called the Statutes of of persons in that communion to break

HON. MR. DICKEY-I wish to call the attention of the House to some extraordinary provisions in this Bill, and, amongst others, to the very extensive powers taken in the fifth clause, which is as follows:

the law. And they are dealt with there thought proper to strike out these sweepin a manner different from that which ing powers. Under these circumstances, obtains here, because the church there is I hope my hon. friend who has charge of the church established by law, and is the Bill will, for the reasons I have given, therefore under the law. This Bill pro- consent at once to have these words poses to establish these church courts for struck out, and not establish a precedent the trial of ministers, for their deposition such as this for legislation which may be and deprivation of office, and will have the followed by other denominations. The practical effect of enabling the synod to effect of such courts will be just this: you get rid of any obnoxious person who may will leave the parties just where they are; be conscientiously carrying out what he you will leave them subject to the laws conceives to be the laws of the church of and regulations of their own church. In England in that remote district of the this very Bill you empower the synod to Saskatchewan. For instance, a great make regulations for the good order and many of these difficulties have arisen in general management of the church, and England over the question of wearing a when a party is dealt with in a summary coat or stole or a surplice, or such ques- manner he is within the protection of the tions as the clergyman turning to the east law binding him to show that he has not and so on. The House will see that violated any of the rules of the church to while these burning questions have pro- which he belongs; whereas if you pass duced such disastrous results in England, this Bill you put him under the control of it would be in the power of the synod to a church court established by law, and enforce regulations on those points or without any appeal to any other tribunal kindred points on any member who may whatever. If we talk of precedent, I conscientiously believe, and rightly believe, think I pointed out one the other day, on that these regulations that have been this very bill, where this matter was fully adopted by the synod are not in con- discussed, discussed for a week in the formity with the laws of the church to Legislature of which I then happened to which he belongs, and in that way he have the honor of being a member-the may lose his living and lose his bread. I Legislative Council of Nova Scotia-when, object to it, therefore, on the ground after hearing the evidence, the whole that I have stated, and I may House, composed of twenty-one members, say that such a bill this would with the exception of four, rejected the not be tolerated for a moment in the Par- Bill altogether. The Bishop of Nova liament of England, and so far as I know Scotia on that occasion was content to it is not a provision which has ever ob- take a bill to simply give them corporate tained in this country. It may be said powers not nearly so extensive as this Bill that there are precedents for this legisla- gives, but corporate powers for the regution, but, hon. gentlemen, is this House a lation and holding of property; and I slave to precedent? Have we not had in have yet to hear, after the lapse of twenty this very session a great many instances years since the Bill was passed, of a single where both Houses of Parliament have difficulty or suggestion in any sense such departed from important principles which as this Bill now proposes. I think, under had been incorporated in previous legis- the circumstances, the House will have no lation? I need only refer to this great difficulty in amending the Bill in the diquestion of amalgamation, the sweeping rection I have suggested. clauses of amalgamation which have crept

into our legislation, and which this House

HON. MR. VIDAL-It is very seldom

and the other House, in their wisdom, that I venture to differ in opinion from my have struck out of such legislation. Only hon. friend who has just spoken, more esyesterday we had an instance of that kind. pecially when that opinion relates to matWe had a cable company bill before us, ters of law and matters of history; but I and it was pressed upon us, that only last am obliged to say to-day that he has failed year and the year before we had passed to convince me of the propriety of the alcable bills with similar powers of amalga- teration which he suggests should be made mation, and yet the committee taking a in the Bill now before the House. I must new departure, and the House taking a confess that I am not a little surprised new departure, on these questions have when I hear the hon. gentleman say it is

unprecedented legislation; that, in Eng- in the Diocese of Ontario; and, as a matland, such a Bill would not be tolerated, ter of fact, it prevails in every diocese in and such a Bill would never be tolerated in the country. They have all got this law. this country. What are the facts? That Moreover, hon. gentlemen, I think it is for twenty-five years the Province of Can- absolutely necessary that the Synod should ada has had a law of that kind on the have this power of enforcing discipline, Statute book. That law has been in ope- and of deposition. The very instance ration, with the identical words which the the hon. gentleman mentions shows not hon. gentleman now seems to think are only the propriety, but the necessity of fraught with so much mischief, and no having such a law. If any clergyman such mischief has ensued. In 1856 an connected with the church should venture Act was passed to enable the members of the United Church of England and Ireland in Canada to meet in synod, and to give them certain powers and privileges when thus met in synod. Among these I find the identical words which are now complained of:

"The bishop, clergy, and laity may meet and frame a constitution and regulations for the general management and good government of the said Church of England in the said diocese, and make regulations for enforcing discipline in the church, for the appointment, deposition, deprivation, or removal of any person bearing office therein of whatever order or degree."

to follow practices or preach doctrines which are contrary to the rules and teachings of the church, there should be power to depose him. Such a law is absolutely necessary for the well-being of the church. As to any injury resulting from the granting of powers such are set forth by these words, I would respectfully remind the hon. gentleman that they do not supersede the law of the land, to which any person who may consider he has been injuriously dealt with may appeal. There is nothing in this statute which would justify the synod in doing anything illegal or oppressive. I cannot, therefore, consent to the amendment which my hon. friend proposes, believing, as I do, that it is taking out of the Bill a very material clause—a clause which I find has been on the statute book of the country for the last twenty-five years, and has operated satisfactorily. Had I known that the hon. gentleman was going to allude to the 5th section of the Bill, I should have looked up the

should have been prepared to justify what we find embodied in the proposed statute. He did not read, however, the whole of that section; he read as far as "the Acts of Parliament, commonly called the Statutes of Mortmain, or other Acts, laws, or standing." He should have gone on and usages to the contrary thereof notwithread:

Then follow words that are not in the present Bill: "any rights of the Crown notwithstanding." This was a statute of Canada passed in the year 1856. It was regarded as a measure of very considerable importance, and it is not impossible that the objection which my hon. friend has now raised against the present Bill was authorities on it, and, I have no doubt, I raised at that time also, because I find that the measure was not sanctioned by the Governor, at the close of the session, with other Bills, but was reserved for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure thereon. The Bill was sent to England, was there brought under the special notice of Her Majesty in Council, and there, in England, "where such laws would not be tolerated," we find that Her Majesty is advised to grant her sanction to the Bill. The royal sanction was given, the Act was proclaimed in May, 1856, has been the law of Canada from that date to this, and I have yet to hear the first word of complaint of any of those injurious results springing from that legislation. It was A provision adopted to prevent any of again considered in 1862, when the Dio- the improper practises which we read of cese of Ontario was incorporated, and in history as having been followed by there the same principle is recognized; the Act which I have read from is quoted, and its provisions are brought into force

"Provided always, that in order to the validity of such deeds and conveyances the same shall be made and executed six months at least before the death of the person conveying by the same, and shall be registered not later than six months after his decease."

persons to obtain the property of others in their last moments, when perhaps they are unable to form a correct judgment, or

are too enfeebled to resist the solicitations | giving the authority of Parliament to these of those who may be around them. I regulations, and further going on to say think, however, that provision secures the that so far as their property is concerned, public from any injury resulting from such they could enforce any of their cause. I think I have shown reason claims in the civil courts. I enough to convince the House that this think, therefore, in all such cases as I alteration is not necessary, and I am not have quoted-where a body to whom therefore disposed to accept the these privileges were given was not the amendment.

established Church of the country-that Parliament would not be conferring any very extraordinary powers; and if any of those who may unfortunately be brought under the provisions of that Act have any just grounds for complaint, as to the injustice of any sentence passed upon them, they have the most ample redress open to them in the courts of the country. I think it would be an unusual proceeding, after having passed similar Acts for almost. every diocese in the country, to refuse now to pass this.

HON. MR. ALLAN-I think the hon. gentleman from Amherst has raised a phantom of his own imagination for the purpose of knocking it down again. The Bill simply gives the Synod of the Diocese of Saskatchewan the right to enact certain laws or regulations under which, if a clergyman is guilty of scandalous conduct he may be suspended for the time being from his office. It does not give the Bishop of the Synod any power to inflict fines or penalties, and if the gentleman. who is removed from office thinks himself HON. MR. KAULBACH—I must say aggrieved, he has a perfect right to appeal I fully agree with my hon. friend who has to any of the courts of the country for just sat down, that this relates purely to redress if he has been improperly removed regulation of Church matters, and it is in or suspended under the laws or regulations the hands, not of the bishops alone, but of the Synod. I am quite aware that it is of the laity-of the whole synod, in fact, not always safe to follow precedents. It composed of bishops, clergymen and is quite possible that the Legislature may laity. They are only asking for power sometimes enact laws that are not good, to regulate their own matters the same as but if the Parliament of the country, and any other corporation in the way of passif those who are specially charged with ing by-laws, etc., for the proper managethe duty in Parliament of considering the ment of the affairs of the Church. legal effect of the different measures which diocese in the far West is not to be allowcome before them have repeatedly passed ed to manage its own affairs, but must acts of this kind, I think it is a fair argu- apply to the Civil Courts in order to enment to use that there was good ground force its discipline to remove persons for passing them, and that they are not from office, etc.-it seems to me that they open to the very serious objections which will have scarcely any of those privileges have been urged against this Bill by the which are ordinarily enjoyed by similar hon. gentleman from Amherst. In addi- bodies. I am strongly of opinion that in tion to what has fallen from my hon. friend a country like that where the laity will opposite as to the Bill that was passed in have much to do in the management of the British Parliament being retained for the affairs of the Church, and where 'there Her Majesty's assent, and the assent is no other Court to arrange these matters, having been given, on looking over some these powers should certainly be given to of the authorities in the Library the other this corporate body. day I had my attention drawn to a statute

of the Imperial Parliament incorporating HON. MR. DICKEY-I think I shall the Wesleyan Methodist Association or have no difficulty in convincing the House Society, I think they called it, in Ireland, that the answers which I have received where certainly the Wesleyan Methodist have been of a very weak and inconseChurch is not the established Church of quential character. (Cries of Hear, hear.) the country. To this act was appended My hon. friends say "hear, hear " but it a long schedule, setting forth the rules is a fact that they have based their conand regulations which should be enforced tentions upon a statute which was passed upon all the members for this object, and in the Imperial Parliament to regulate the