GC45 HF03 Remit and Proposal Integrity Policy for Summer 2025

Origin: Rev. Amadeus Pyralis and Rev. Alison Miculan

1. What is the issue? Why is it important?

The Remit and Proposals process was designed to allow for democratic input from the appropriate groups within the denomination so that the decision-making process is upheld with integrity to ensure our identity as a conciliar church and to give voice to all. We have recently witnessed “legal loopholes” allow for prior Remits to be circumvented using the Proposal process.

We believe God/Jesus/Holy Spirit is calling us to:

• Protect the Remit process to uphold its integrity within our democratic and conciliar denomination
• Close up “legal loopholes” that permit the Remit process to be circumvented by other processes and groups within the denomination.

2. What is happening now?

In the wake of events like the General Council Executive closing its doors on Broadview’s presence at meetings, creating a system that emboldens transparency while bolstering integrity is essential to keeping our system democratic and fair, counting as many voices as possible in our decision-making.

The Proposal Process (The Manual, Bylaws F, Initiating Action and Change) does not prescribe any methods for ensuring this process for decision-making does not conflict with another, specifically Remits, thus creating an opportunity for “legal loopholes” to circumvent the will of the denomination as recognized in the remit process. While it should not be the case that proposals can take the place of or contravene Remits, we have seen recent cases of loopholes being used for this purpose.

The Entry into the Order of Ministry via an expedited process of Ordination for Designated Lay Ministers in 2023 was an obvious “end-run” around the “One Order of Ministry” Remit of 2016. General Council used the Proposals process to circumvent the will of the Church. This kind of legalistic thinking is not in line with the spirit of our denomination and General Council has used this “legal loophole” in the form of a Proposal to bypass the Remit process to move denomination-wide decisions through General Council instead of consulting, or adhering to, the wisdom of the church.

The recent issue involving the General Secretary dissolving the National Indigenous Council manipulating the understanding of “Autonomy” and “Self-Governance” was another example of the Remit process being undermined.

We are not a business. We are a church first and foremost and thus “legal loopholes” should not be the target of any one group to find satisfaction.

Exploitation of the process degrades our denomination in the eyes of our parishioners, congregations, churches, and our integrity within the public sphere as well.

3. What is the recommendation?

1. We must make a public and consistent commitment to the Remit process by affirming and enforcing who General Council is accountable to when Remits are circumvented…
   1. With a mandate to name exactly who General Council is accountable to, and a process for when these events do arise along with appropriate guidelines on process to remedy the situation.
   2. The party General Council is accountable to should have unbiased and appropriate representation to promote a fair decision in the remedy.
   3. The mandate should be specific, and the guidelines should seek to not encumber or burden those reporting the situation needlessly
2. We must mandate that any Proposal coming through its meetings will be checked against previous Remits to ensure they are not in conflict with one another in spirit and in verbiage...
   1. This effectively closes the “legal loophole” that has been used to make decisions within the denomination that were previously turned down through the Remit process.
3. We must advise the Manual Committee to close these “legal loopholes” by editing the wording of section F.1. to include the following:
   1. “The General Council will, with due diligence, check its records for Remits that match or resemble the Proposal under consideration to ensure there is no conflict with a previous decision of the denomination. If such a conflict exists, the Proposal should be turned down in favour of the party attempting the Remit process again to see if the wisdom of the church has changed”,
   2. “General Council will not pass any Proposal that conflicts with a previously passed or failed Remit without consulting with the same bodies that previous Remit came from. In that event, a tertiary Remit can be initiated to see if the wisdom of the church has changed”,

4. How does this proposal help us to live into our church’s commitments on equity?

The Remit process relies on various entities within Body of The United Church of Canada to make its final decisions on various matters that affect the church as a whole. Category 3 Remits require the contributions of all communities of faith through their boards. When these matters are circumvented by a separate process that does not count their voices in any way, we cheapen our democratic roots and degrade the unique and valuable voices of our denomination. This proposal ensures that ALL voices, regardless of gender, race, ability and other identities are all heard.

For the body transmitting this proposal to the General Council: 
Please select the appropriate option and provide the key discussion points for items being forwarded to the General Council: 
☑ Agree
☐ Disagree without forwarding to the General Council
☐ Disagree and forwarding to the General Council

If you have questions regarding this proposal, please send them to: GCinfo@united-church.ca