THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, COMMERCE AND THE ECONOMY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 30, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy met with videoconference this day at 11:29 a.m. [ET] to study Bill S-1001, An Act to amalgamate The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Ottawa and The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall, in Ontario, Canada and for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and, in camera, to study matters relating to banking, trade and commerce generally.
Senator Pamela Wallin (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Hello to everyone here with us in the room and those joining us online. This is a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and the Economy. My name is Pamela Wallin and I serve as the chair of this committee.
I will introduce the members of the committee today: Senator Loffreda, our deputy chair; Senator Cardozo; Senator C. Deacon; Senator Gignac; Senator Marshall; Senator Miville-Dechêne; Senator Clement; Senator Ringuette; and Senator Yussuff.
Today, we have a busy day. Later on in the meeting, we will review our report on housing, but we begin with our examination of Bill S-1001, An Act to amalgamate The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Ottawa and The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall, in Ontario, Canada.
We have the pleasure of welcoming in person Richard Pommainville, Chief Administrative Officer, Archdiocese of Ottawa-Cornwall, Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Ottawa; and Ryan Kilger, Partner, Vincent Dagenais Gibson LLP.
Welcome to you both. We will have an opening statement from Mr. Pommainville. We will take questions if there are any, but I think we will quickly go into our clause-by-clause study. Our witnesses have agreed to answer questions about the amendments so that we can do some of that during that part of the process.
Please go ahead, Mr. Pommainville.
Richard Pommainville, Chief Administrative Officer, Archdiocese of Ottawa-Cornwall, Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Ottawa: Good morning, honourable senators. Thank you for the invitation to testify before your committee. We are here to see the adoption of the private bill Bill S-1001, An Act to amalgamate The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Ottawa and The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall, in Ontario, Canada.
At the outset, I would like to thank you for the work that you do on behalf of Canadians serving in the Senate of Canada.
On May 6, 2020, the Holy Father, Pope Francis, announced the official canonical amalgamation of the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall and the Archdiocese of Ottawa into one ecclesiastical circumscription, creating the new Archdiocese of Ottawa-Cornwall.
The amalgamation was undertaken to continue supporting the faithful and the community at large by ensuring more efficient management of church resources while also respecting the bilingual nature of the region of eastern Ontario.
[Translation]
Amalgamation was chosen as the method of bringing the two dioceses together in order to ensure that the property, the liabilities and any claims of the amalgamating dioceses will be the responsibility of the newly amalgamated corporation. The details of the effect of amalgamation are elaborated in clause 4 of the bill.
The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Ottawa, commonly known as the Archdiocese of Ottawa, was incorporated by an act of the Parliament of Canada, being chapter 104 of the Statutes of Canada, 1884.
In accordance with the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church, the archdiocese was amalgamated with the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Alexandria-Cornwall, which was incorporated by an act of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, being chapter 98 of the Statutes of the Province of Ontario, 1891, which itself was amended by a further act of that legislature, being chapter 100 of the Statutes of the Province of Ontario, 1977.
The two corporations must be amalgamated under Canadian civil law so that they may be aligned with the church’s Catholic law, thereby ensuring their continuity.
[English]
Amalgamation was chosen as the method of bringing the two dioceses together in order to ensure that the property, the liabilities and any claims of the amalgamations of the dioceses will be the responsibility of the newly amalgamated corporation. The details of the effect of that amalgamation are elaborated in clause 4 of this private bill.
The Archdiocese of Ottawa-Cornwall, being based in Ottawa, wished to maintain federal private act status and amalgamate under the laws of the Parliament of Canada. Therefore, to complete the civil law amalgamation, we require a private bill in order to amalgamate the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Ottawa and the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall in Ontario, Canada.
I solicit your support for the continued progress and eventual adoption of this private bill. Until this private bill is approved, we have to operate under both federal and provincial jurisdictions, leading to inefficiencies with respect to our resources and dealing with external organizations.
There is one typographical correction that we are seeking to amend in the bill. The name in French is “La Corporation épiscopale catholique romaine d’Ottawa-Cornwall”; in English, however, it should be “The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Ottawa-Cornwall,” removing the words “for the Diocese” in a few locations.
With that, we thank you, honourable senators, for the work you do. I would be pleased to answer any questions if that is the wish of the committee.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I’m sure we can accommodate the changes. We have these issues all the time doing things in both official languages.
There are a few questions.
Senator Loffreda: Can you elaborate as to the rationale for merging the two dioceses, and on what ways the bill would change how the diocese operates? Will there be any changes in operation or simply a merger per se?
Mr. Pommainville: From a canonical perspective and with regard to the clergy, obviously there are efficiencies to operating under a single entity.
With respect to an actual operations perspective, I’ll give you a perfect example. Today, if we have a priest that is located in Cornwall and they were to move to Ottawa, because they are under separate civil organizations, dealing, say, with Canada Life or Telus Health, we have to deal with these two separate organizations to transfer their benefit or their pension plan, and so on. There are inefficiencies not only on our side but also for the organizations that we work with.
There are multiple scenarios like that, but from a general operations perspective, it’s really to standardize across the board while respecting the bilingual nature of the diocese.
Senator Loffreda: Will this allow the diocese to operate more efficiently?
Mr. Pommainville: That’s exactly it, yes.
Senator Loffreda: It’s a positive move, then?
Mr. Pommainville: It’s a positive move, yes.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you very much for being here.
I have two short questions, Mr. Pommainville and Mr. Kilger.
I don’t have to tell you that, upon amalgamation, the two corporations will become a single entity carrying on the activities of the amalgamating corporations. Consequently, any liabilities, known or unknown, of the amalgamating corporations become the responsibility of the newly amalgamated entity.
Can you elaborate on how this bill will impact potential lawsuits, particularly if new allegations of child abuse by the Catholic Church come to light?
[English]
Ryan Kilger, Partner, Vincent Dagenais Gibson LLP, as an individual: I wouldn’t say I would describe it as an advantage for our client in that sense. It was a public policy decision undertaken by the organization to ensure that any future liabilities that currently exist against either of the amalgamating corporations would be followed into the new corporation.
For instance, any existing claims, whether known or unknown at this time, that would still have been pursued against either of the amalgamating corporations can still be pursued against the amalgamated corporation, the newly formed entity.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: That’s reassuring for the victims.
Mr. Kilger: That was the intent of the organization at the time we had discussions. We had multiple options presented to the archdiocese, and they chose this one specifically for that purpose, to ensure that any debts — and any bequests as well, any positive liabilities — are followed to the new corporation. More importantly, they wanted to be upfront with the residents of the diocese, as well as any potential claimants, and say that they’re not trying to hide anything. It’s there. Any potential claim is still available to anybody moving on into the future.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Great. I have another quick question.
You consulted parishioners extensively. Why didn’t the diocese meet with Indigenous peoples when it sits on the traditional territory of the Akwesasne and Haudenosaunee Mohawks?
Mr. Pommainville: The consultations we conducted were generic. We didn’t specifically decide not to consult with Indigenous peoples. As you may have heard, we are in a period of reconciliation across the country. We are currently fundraising to support specific projects in Indigenous communities, so we are making those efforts.
The Archdiocese of Ottawa does have a parish that represents Indigenous peoples, St. Regis, in Valleyfield. In light of that reality, we didn’t conduct any targeted consultations.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much for being here. Have you had any opposition to the amalgamation? When I read the bill and the material that’s been provided, it seems like it’s not that controversial compared to other bills we receive here. Have you received any opposition? That’s my first question, and I have a follow-up question.
Mr. Pommainville: We have not received any opposition. It’s basically, as was mentioned before, a way to actually improve the overall operations.
Senator Marshall: Is it linked back to the problem that a lot of the churches are having with regard to attendance, the cost of maintaining the church and the availability of priests and clergy? Is that part of the backdrop?
Mr. Pommainville: All religions today, whether Christian, Muslim, Jews and so on, are facing a challenge in regard to attendance. The merger itself is not specifically in relation to attendance. We are not doing this with that in mind. As part of overall operations, now that canonically it’s merged, we will be able to look at it from a more regional perspective to serve the actual community.
Senator Cardozo: How many dioceses across Canada do you think have a specific act of Parliament that incorporates them at the federal level? Is this an anomaly?
Mr. Kilger: Our firm has represented a number of dioceses. I can’t tell you the exact number, but it’s not uncommon. A number of dioceses were incorporated by a special act of Parliament. More importantly, they are mostly done at the provincial level.
I believe there’s one other diocese that was incorporated pursuant to an act of the Parliament of Canada. We have done this process in Nova Scotia. I’ve done it in Toronto — so with Ontario as well — so it’s not uncommon for a diocese to be incorporated by a special act of the legislature.
Senator Cardozo: Since you are taking this step, did you give any thought to getting out of having it done through an act and instead just having it under the Canada Corporations Act like all the other corporations in the country?
Mr. Kilger: That is a very good question. This is a discussion we had with the client whenever we were discussing options.
Senator Cardozo: Wouldn’t it be a lot easier to —
Mr. Kilger: There is some benefit to it for day-to-day operations, filing — however, the reasoning behind remaining under special act is that this act is specific to this organization and tailored to its activities.
There are references to the Archbishop’s powers. These are specific, canonical powers that we are able to capture in this specific act.
As well, it’s prestigious to be under a special act, for lack of a better term. The thought process was the archdiocese here in Ottawa being incorporated by an act which predates Confederation was important to the organization to maintain consistency.
This organization was incorporated pre-Confederation. It has been around for over 100 years. It will be around for another 100 years. It will be long-standing. They saw this as an advantage from a political standpoint, to show that they have been around and a corporation of long standing.
There are advantages to this remaining a private act, such as stability. The process of changing the act is not easy, and the archdiocese would like to remain a stable corporation moving forward without a lot of quick amendments. This is one of the main ways of protecting that.
Senator Cardozo: Maybe it gets you one step closer to God at the end of the day.
Senator Yussuff: It’s unusual that we’re dealing with a matter of this nature regarding the church, because there’s always been this long-held view with regard to the separation of the state and the church, obviously.
Putting that aside, were the parishioners in both dioceses consulted in regard to the amalgamation?
Mr. Pommainville: Yes, there was a whole process in regard to the overall consultation. This fundamentally started about eight years ago. There have been discussions previously, but full consultation basically goes back to about eight years ago. You have the general consultation of parishioners. Ultimately, those consultations have to go back up. It is actually the Vatican and Pope Francis that ultimately say we will merge. It’s not something that is done with a snap of the fingers.
Senator Yussuff: Senator Miville-Dechêne asked this question earlier. There have been claims and liabilities against the church in regard to ongoing sexual violence issues. Will the liabilities of those claims not disappear as a result of the amalgamation and remain with the new entity?
Mr. Pommainville: That’s right. That’s the fundamental premise of the approach. All potential claims, liabilities and basically everything else is there. It remains.
Senator Yussuff: It is not unusual for us to be dealing with issues around the Canada Corporations Act in regard to these matters. Is there some reward for senators who acquiesce to this request?
The Chair: We will move along here.
Senator Martin: Thank you for your testimony. As my colleagues have said, this is a unique situation for us, being a part of this process, which has been very long.
At a very different level, I have also been involved in an amalgamation of two churches, and it’s quite a long process. It didn’t actually work out in the way that everyone had hoped. My question is actually related to the long-term strategic goals of the amalgamated diocese and how this bill will facilitate the achievement of these goals.
Mr. Pommainville: From a canonical perspective, we are already operating as one entity. Obviously, there are always some adjustments. We are always reminding ourselves we’re one big family from a canonical perspective.
Today, from a civil perspective, we actually have two separate corporations. I gave the example a bit earlier of interacting with Canada Life or Telus Health in regard to pension plan benefits. We currently have to file two separate financial statements. That means two specific audits have to be done. Fundamentally, a lot of it is a duplication of efforts. This will help us as we move forward.
We are in the 21st century with new technology, so this is making sure that the same technologies are applied across the board and there’s no distinction. For example, with regard to the protection of information, we are making sure that it’s consistent across the board as we introduce new technology. It’s really bringing forward improved processes and reducing costs. Ultimately, what we want to do is ensure that donations from our donors are actually used for the good of the community and not a duplication of efforts from a civil perspective.
Senator Martin: I know my colleague asked about this earlier, but in terms of the parishioners of the two dioceses, is everyone very much in support of moving forward in this way?
Mr. Pommainville: Yes, there has been no opposition to actually doing the merger. Canonically, it’s already been done. It’s been accepted. This is just to complete the process from a civil perspective.
The Chair: We will move to a final question from Senator Clement, who is the sponsor of the bill in the Senate.
Senator Clement: I want to come to the amendments because I think we will move to that space, so I just want to ask you to clarify. These are clerical amendments. There are three. Can you just speak briefly to them?
Mr. Pommainville: Yes, these are strictly clerical. If you go, as an example, to page 1, the first one is in the summary. It is on the English side. The official title should be “The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Ottawa-Cornwall,” so just removing “for the Diocese.”
The Chair: We will delve into this when we actually read through it.
Mr. Pommainville: Yes, so it’s just clerical. In French it’s okay. It’s just in English that it has to be corrected.
Senator Clement: I would like to briefly — but emphatically — express gratitude to Senator Ringuette, who started this process. It is a complicated process and has taken a lot of effort and work, and I was proud to take that on. I want to thank Emma Meldrum from my office. Again, there has been a lot of work building this file, so I want to formally thank her. Senator Martin, as critic, gave a wonderful speech, and I thank you for your patience and understanding.
I am a parishioner in this diocese, so I’ve been proud to sponsor the bill. I was there for the consultation period. I was one of the parishioners consulted. I have to tell you, as the smaller entity being amalgamated with the larger one, there were some concerns in Cornwall; however, they were properly dealt with, and the community continues to work through that positively and respectfully, so I wanted to say that for the record.
I am also grateful to Senator Petten, who gave me her seat so that I could formally move the amendments.
The Chair: Thank you, and our thanks to Mr. Pommainville and Mr. Kilger. We will ask you to stay in place in case anybody has any other technical questions.
We will proceed to clause-by-clause study in public if everybody is fine with that.
Clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-1001, An Act to amalgamate The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Ottawa and The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall, in Ontario, Canada.
Here are a few points: I will call each clause successively and in the order they appear in the bill. I remind senators that when more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of a clause. If at any point, a senator is not clear where we are in the process, please just stop the proceedings and ask for clarification.
I want to make sure we all are on the same page, literally and figuratively.
If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, I would remind you that in committee, the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but rather to vote against the clause as standing as part of the bill. Also, some amendments that may be moved might have consequential effects on other parts of the bill. Should that be the case, it would be useful if any senator moving an amendment identified to the committee where this impact might be felt.
Staff will endeavour to keep track of the place where this might occur. If committee members have any questions about the process or propriety of anything occurring, they can raise a point of order, and the committee is the ultimate master of its business within the bounds established by the Senate.
As chair, I will do my best to make sure that all senators wishing to speak on these amendments have an opportunity to do so. If there is any uncertainty about the results of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll call, and we can always do that.
Are there any questions at this point? No? Thank you.
We will now go right into our process.
Senators, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-1001?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The chair will begin the process here. Shall clause 2 carry? I believe Senator Clement has comments at this point.
Senator Clement: Would this be clause 1, page 1?
The Chair: It’s clause 2, and the reference for your information is BC-S1001-2-2-15, if you have a copy of the amendment in front of you.
Senator Clement: I move:
That Bill S-1001 be amended in clause 2, on page 2, by replacing line 15 of the English version with the following:
“poration of Ottawa-Cornwall as amalga-”.
The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Clement:
That Bill S-1001 be amended in clause 2, on page 2, by replacing line 15 of the English version with the following:
“poration of Ottawa-Cornwall as amalga-”.
I know that sounds odd to the audience, but we just change the words that need to be changed on a specific line.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Shall clause 2, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Shall clause 3 carry? And again, I believe Senator Clement has a comment.
Senator Clement: I move:
That Bill S-1001 be amended in clause 3, on page 2, by replacing line 25 with the following:
“of Ottawa-Cornwall” in English and “La”.
The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Clement that Bill S-1001 be amended in clause 3, on page 2, by replacing line 25 with the words that she has suggested.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the clause as amended?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Clause 6?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Clause 7?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Clause 8?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 9 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Clause 10?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Clause 11?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry? I believe Senator Clement again has a comment.
Senator Clement: I move:
That Bill S-1001 be amended in clause 1, on page 1, by replacing line 25 of the English version with the following:
“pal Corporation of Ottawa-Cornwall”.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry as amended?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: It is agreed that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make technical, grammatical or other required, non-substantive changes as a result of these amendments. Thank you for that agreement.
Does the committee wish to consider appending any observations to the report?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Is it agreed that I report this bill as amended to the Senate of Canada?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I want to thank our witnesses again and Senator Clement for your work here today. I wish everything moved quite as expeditiously as that. It’s wonderful.
We will now go in camera so that we can continue our look at our housing mini-study.
(The committee continued in camera.)