Bishops resist motion for papal apology

next week.

The Catholic bishops gave a variety of reasons for opposing the motion, including that the Vatican was not directly involved with the schools, that Pope Benedict had already “expressed sorrow and regret for the abuses suffered in the residential schools” in 2009, and that Pope Francis has said he’s open to coming to Canada and meeting with Indigenous leaders.

“Our concern is it’s important to clear up any misconceptions that may be out there,” said Richard Gagnon, archbishop of Winnipeg, who said Catholic leaders at various levels have apologized over the years. He argued that Pope Francis was only saying he wouldn’t respond to the specific commission recommendation that the apology had to occur in Canada within a year.

“Whenhesaysheisopen to considering to come to Canada, he’s not saying he will not apologize,” Gagnon said. “If you place Pope Francis among Indigenous people and he hears these horrible stories, what do you think he’s going to say?”

But the bishops could not say when such a visit might happen, and it was also unclear whether Pope Francis would consider a formal apology on behalf of the institution, as opposed to expressing sorrow in response to the stories (as Pope Benedict had done).

Bishop Lionel Gendron, president of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, rebutted a suggestion that a Papal apology was necessary due to the systemic involvement of the Catholic church in the residential school system.

“When there are bishops, cardinals involved, it’s not the whole church,” he said.

In background material given to MPs and Senators on Monday, the bishops say the Catholic church is a “decentralized structure,” and that only 16 of its 61 Canadian dioceses were directly associated with the schools.

“The Catholic Church as a whole in Canada was not associated with the Residential Schools, nor was the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops,” it said.

In a later news conference, Angus said this statement “pushes this church towards very irresponsible historical revisionism; it is not acceptable.”

He said “the church and the bishops were intimately involved in the development and the promotion of the residential schools ... the bishops were the champions, the defenders, the colluders and, in many cases, the abusers in that brutal system.”

He added: “When (Pope Francis) said he was personally not able to respond, and then he said he’s in discussions with the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, our understanding is that it’s the role of the Canadian Catholic church to reach out to the Pope and say this has to be done,”hesaid.

On stage with him were NDP MP Romeo Saganash, who is a residential school survivor, Evelyn Korkmaz, another survivor, and Senator Murray Sinclair, who headed up the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Sinclair said the commission’s report called for a formal apology because the Catholic church had fully supported the schools and believed “fervently” in their necessity.

The Commons motion also called on the bishops to “respect their moral obligation and the spirit of the 2006 Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement” and to “turn over relevant documents when called upon by survivors of residential schools, their families and scholars working to understand the full scope of the horrors of the residential school system in the interest of truth and reconciliation.” for $1.6 billion.

A different judge, the now retired Frank Newbould, tossed the first lawsuit in August of 2016, saying that Moyse had no confidential information about WIND to give, that West Face in any case had set up a strict confidentiality wall to keep Moyse away from the deal, and that Catalyst had voluntarily walked away from its bid to acquire WIND when VimpelCom abruptly demanded a “break fee” in case the deal didn’t close.

Catalyst appealed the Newbould decision, and lost the appeal last month at the Ontario Court of Appeal.

In a statement issued Wednesday evening, Catalyst spokesman Dan Gagnier said the company “has instructed legal counsel” to also appeal the Hainey decision.

Catalyst is “disappointed” by the ruling, Gagnier said in the release, and still strongly believes “its rights…were violated in the WIND transaction” and will continue to fight “to enable the truth about what happened in the WIND sale to be fully examined.”

What Hainey said in effect was that a litigant isn’t entitled to two kicks at the can in the same case, with the same parties, on the same set of facts.

As he said at one point in his 32-page decision, “Catalyst is attempting to re-litigate the same causes of action in this proceeding that it did in the Moyse/West Face action.

“In my view, this proceeding amounts to litigation by instalment.”

Not only would allowing it be unfair, Hainey said, but it would also violate legal doctrines that hold that there should be finality to litigation and that, in the words of a leading Supreme Court decision on the subject, “a litigant, to use the vernacular, is only entitled to one bite at the cherry” and “a person should be only vexed once in the same cause.”