Sunday Legislation in the Dominion Parliament
By George B. Thompson
EVER since the opening of the Dominion Parliament the Lord’s Day Alliance has been urging the passage of a bill which had been previously prepared, forbidding almost all phases of labor and recreation on Sunday. They claim to back up their demands with petitions representing four hundred thousand persons. Elder H. E. Rickard, president of the Quebec Conference, and Brother T. H. Robinson, of London, Ontario, have each spent some time in Ottawa, and have been successful in interesting some influential persons in the matter, and laying before them the iniquity of the proposed legislation. Prior to the opening of Parliament, special literature was prepared by the Canadian Union Conference, and sent to all members of Parliament, as well as to a number of other leading men. While the Alliance is backed by the professed religious element of the country, and the legislative power is hopelessly committed to the evil principle of religious legislation, still all is not smooth sailing in this matter. The puritanical methods of the Alliance are repugnant to many, and some of the leading papers, though favoring some kind of legislation, do not hesitate to denounce the Alliance. The most influential French-Canadian journal, La Presse, of Montreal, is quoted as saying that the Lord’s Day Alliance is “simply a disturbing factor, sowing discord among the different races and religions.” The position of this journal toward the proposed legislation is deemed by some a “heavy snag.” The Mail and Empire, of Toronto, in a recent issue called attention to the Seventh-day Adventists, and stated that they based their Sabbath observance on the rock of the fourth commandment, and pointed out with some clearness the effect Sunday laws would have upon them. In the April number of the Lord’s Day Advocate, a monthly published by the Alliance in the interest of their work, reference is made to a report that the Deering Company, of Hamilton, Ontario, is requiring unnecessary labor in their shops on Sunday. As one remedy for this they suggest a boycott, in the following language:— “Moreover, are not Sabbath-respecting Canadian rival concerns—for instance in this case, the Massey-Harris or the Frost & Wood Companies—entitled to protection at our hands against the ‘unfair’ competition of imported industries that do not hesitate to use the Lord’s day for advancing their business interests. Does not British fair play compel us to answer, Yes? The Canadian farmer will be apt to remember this in deciding where to purchase. He will be justified in so doing.” This stirred up the Hamilton (Ontario) Herald to speak editorially as follows:— “This is a direct incitement to the farmers of Canada to boycott the International Harvester Company. If the suggestion had been made after the company had been convicted of discharging employees who had refused to work on Sunday, some people might regard it as justifiable. But the Advocate makes a charge, allows the company against which it makes the charge no opportunity to make a statement in its own defense, assumes that the charge is true, and attempts to incite Canadian farmers to refuse to buy the products of the accused company, but to patronize its rivals. If this is the spirit and such the methods by which the Lord’s Day Alliance intends to carry on its work, it is sure to create more mischief than good in this country.” As usual the Alliance professes to be urging the proposed Sunday legislation in the interest of the laboring men of Canada. The Hamilton (Ontario) Spectator in a recent editorial punctured this bubble in the following manner:— “Nor is the unreasonable nature of their demands the only objection to the work being done by these Sabbatarian gentlemen. They affect to be working in the interests of the working man. They feel that organized labor, enlisted upon their side, would be of very great benefit to them in securing what they want, and they make much parade of enforcing the day of rest. But if organized labor were to decide upon Wednesday or Friday as their weekly day of rest,—and they have quite as much right to do that as others have to decide upon Sunday,—do you think the Sabbatarians would still be anxious to help the working man?—Indeed, they would not; they would drop him like a hot potato. Is it, then, quite honest in these agitators to make pretense that they want to secure a day of rest for the working man, when what they really do want is legislation to make Sunday like unto the Mosaic Saturday?” Just what will result from the agitation in Parliament can not at this time be accurately stated. The following statement of the situation up to date, I clip from the April number of the Lord’s Day Advocate:— “The attitude of the Dominion government toward the draft bill submitted for its adoption is still in doubt. There seems a disposition on the part of some members of the cabinet to avail themselves of the doubt the privy council seems to have left as to whether the provincial legislatures have still any power to legislate under their right to control local undertaking, property, and civil rights, for the preservation of the Lord’s day. The Dominion has often been accused of interfering with provincial rights. These gentlemen would not like to see it guilty in the matter of legislating to preserve the Sabbath. All admit that the Dominion can enact such a measure as is in the government’s hands, under its exclusive right to enact criminal law, but some would hesitate to exercise this right to the full if by so doing they would be covering ground that the provinces could also cover. Much of the ground only the Dominion could legislate to cover. Thus far, at least, it would seem the Dominion government can not escape going. The secretaries have evidence that there is among the members of Parliament a very general willingness to support the enactment of such legislation as is sought if the government will open the way.” “Meantime, the Ontario Legislation Committee has made application to the Ontario government for the passage of legislation re-enacting the law against street railways operating on the Lord’s day, and prohibiting trading and sales on that day, as well as labor in factories, and the like. But the provincial authorities do not seem to think they have any such powers in face of the privy council’s decision, and have, therefore, refused to grant the request until their jurisdiction is made clear. They are, however, willing to submit the privy council judgment to eminent counsel for an opinion as to its meaning, and whether in terms of it they, the provinces, have any power left to legislate on the subject, and if so, what.”