Remit within The United Church of Canada has its roots in The Barrier Act but is specifically found in the safeguards referenced by The United Church of Canada Act article 28(b):
"That nothing in this Act contained shall be deemed to limit the independent and exclusive right and power of The United Church to legislate in all matters concerning its doctrine, worship, discipline and government, including therein the right and power from time to time to frame, adopt, alter, change, add to or modify its laws, subordinate standards and formulas and to determine and declare the same or any of them, but subject to the conditions and safeguards in that behalf contained in the Basis of Union." [cf. 3(b), p. 5 of the Manual]
and found in the Basis of Union article 8.6.2(1)
"8.6.2(1) to legislate on matters respecting the doctrine, worship, membership, and government of the Church, subject to the following conditions: First, that before any rule or law relative to these matters can become a permanent law, it must receive the approval of a majority of the Presbyteries, and, if advisable, Pastoral Charges also"
[note the difference of "doctrine, worship, discipline and government" and "doctrine, worship, membership, and government" in the respective documents].

As suggested in the appended request for ruling, remit might properly apply to the conditions which comprise the Basis of Union excepting the safeguards found in the present articles 8.6.2(1) and 8.6.2(2):
"8.6.2(1) to legislate on matters respecting the doctrine, worship, membership, and government of the Church, subject to the following conditions: First, that before any rule or law relative to these matters can become a permanent law, it must receive the approval of a majority of the Presbyteries, and, if advisable, Pastoral Charges also, the votes of which are received by the designated date, provided that at least two-thirds of the eligible courts have responded by that date. Second, that no terms of admission to full membership shall be prescribed other than those laid down in the New Testament. And third, that the freedom of worship at present enjoyed in the negotiating Churches shall not be interfered with in the United Church;
"8.6.2(2) to legislate on all matters respecting property, subject to the limitations elsewhere provided in the Basis of Union, and subject also to the approval of the Conference in which the property is situated;"
[note the remit authorized by rop 1988 p. 132 to change 8.6.2(1) added:
", the votes of which are received by the designated date, provided that at least two-thirds of the eligible courts have responded by that date"
may be ultra vires depending on the ruling of the General Secretary, and in the eyes of many changed the intent of the safeguard cf. rop 1990 pp. 656-657 which was rejected by the decision of the General Council p. 190].

The question being, "if we change the safeguards, as a specific restriction of the independent and exclusive right and power of The United Church to legislate in all matters concerning its doctrine, worship, discipline and government, do we cease to be the church framed by the architects of The United Church of Canada Act?".

Secondly, there is prevalent misunderstanding of authority within The United Church of Canada.

The United Church of Canada Act article 28(b) permitted:
"the United Church to legislate in all matters concerning its doctrine, worship, discipline and government, including therein the right and power from time to time to frame, adopt, alter, change, add to or modify its laws, subordinate standards and formulas and to determine and declare the same or any of them, but subject to the conditions and safeguards in that behalf contained in the Basis of Union".
The safeguards include:

and that legislation respecting property is:

The United Church of Canada Act article 18(h) permitted the church:
"to make such by-laws, rules or regulations as it may deem expedient for the exercise of any powers conferred by this Act".

The United Church of Canada Act article 24 permitted:
"all resolutions passed by the General Council shall have the force and effect of by-laws..."

The expression "in essential agreement" has wrongly been used in reference to official statements of the church as the Manual uses the term only with ministry personnel, and nowhere permits its courts to deviate from matters of doctrine, worship, discipline or government as found in the Basis of Union without remit.

The principle of unreasonableness would question a court responsible for legislation making official statement "in essential agreement" for that which it could not legislate, given "all resolutions passed by the General Council shall have the force and effect of by-laws...".

So:

Thirdly, there is concern that the editorial rights given the Executive of General Council:
"to receive recommendations from the General Secretary of the General Council together with the Manual Committee, with regard to those changes to The Manual that are required because of policy established from time to time by the General Council or by its Executive on referral from the General Council, and to make changes in The Manual that clarify ambiguity or intent, reorganize text, move or group sections, or change format. Where in the opinion of the General Council Executive the policy or its intention is clear, the General Council Executive shall authorize the necessary changes to The Manual, such changes to take effect on the release of the record of proceedings of the immediately preceding General Council. Where in the opinion of the General Council Executive the policy or its intention is unclear, the General Council Executive shall refer the matter to the next General Council for clarification;" Manual 524(d)
have editorially displaced the remit process, even when the approved remit gave no such authority.

cf. the editorial displacement of the former Basis of Union 9.4:
" 4. A minister by his or her own action and a Pastoral Charge through its constitutional representatives may, by such a date before the annual meeting of the Settlement Committee as the General Council shall determine, seek a change of pastoral relation by means of an application through the Presbytery to the Settlement Committee. All such applications shall be in writing."

The basic documentation is found in:
ROP 1988 Resolution 11 pp. 90-92
ROP 1990 "The results of Remit 3..." p. 390
ROP 1990 9.[4]5 p. 404
ROP 1990 Resolution 19 p. 412
[remit #3 is appended].

Simply resolution 11 addressed the ambiguity of whether presbytery or settlement committee was the body which made a decision upon a request for change in pastoral relation initiated by a minister or pastoral charge. Amendment to the resolution provided that there may be other instances where presbytery had to make a decision, but added no new instance not already found in the Basis of Union [to wit, a minister or pastoral charge may initiate change in pastoral relations without cause and presbytery may initiate change in pastoral relations with cause].

The rop 1990 misinterpreted remit #3 "(which gives Presbytery the authority to dissolve a pastoral relationship)", and added that "the General Secretary of the General Council has ruled that the General Council or its Executive has the power to approve editorial changes to the Basis of Union as long as they do not affect any existing rule or law".

The rop 1990 p. 390 "Some of the changes proposed in the Basis of Union require a Remit..."; applies to extensive changes to 10 pages of the Basis of Union per "The General Secretary of the General Council has ruled that the General Council or its Executive has the power to approve editorial changes to the Basis of Union as long as they do not affect any existing rule or law" [p. 390], and changes to 64 pages of bylaws.

The former article 9.4 of the Basis of Union and the explicit wording of remit #3 have been editorially displaced, with nothing to replace "the right of a minister or a pastoral charge to seek a change of pastoral relation". More significantly, presbytery was interpreted as being given the authority to dissolve a pastoral relationship [without cause], which is different than the Basis of Union 6.4.16 "to have the oversight of the conduct of members of the Order of Ministry on its roll".

Fourthly, and possibly the most significant in this consideration, a dissenting colleague was questioned:
"if the process was fair, whatever the outcome, could you accept it as where the United Church is at?"
to which he unhesitatingly responded, "yes".
More than all the rhetoric above, the process must be both fair and seen to be fair by all members of the church.....

Appendices

Theological Basis
All things should be done decently and in order. 1CO 14:40 RSV

Whereas

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the ruling of the General Secretary be requested whether the safeguards referenced in article 28(b) of The United Church of Canada Act and found in article 8.6.2 of the Basis of Union are themselves subject to remit.

REMIT #3
(Regarding "Authority To Dissolve A Pastoral Relationship")
Is Presbytery in favour of amending The Basis Of Union so that Sections 5.12.4 9.4, 9.5 and 9.6.2 will read as printed here? (the additions/changes are underlined deletions are in [brackets]):

Yes ___

No ___

Date of Vote: _______________________________________________, 1989.

Name of Presbytery: ______________________________________________

Signature of Secretary: ____________________________________________

Deadline for receipt of the ballot in The General Council office June 30th, 1989. (85 St. Clair Avenue East,  Toronto,  Ontario M4T 1M8)

hmm/fld
January 27, 1989.

Note: If a two-thirds (2/3rds) Majority of eligible presbyteries approve, by authority of GC32, these changes will be made operative at the November 1989 Executive of General Council meeting.