The students occupying Mendelson’s office had two initial demands: his resignation, and the University’s recognition of the referenda results for CKUT and QPIRG. Both referenda questions passed with a majority last November.

In Senate on Wednesday, Mendelson responded to questions posed by Arts Senator Jason Leung regarding the recognition of CKUT and QPIRG’s referenda.

“I would just like to inform Senate that I have not resigned,” he stated, before responding to Leung’s questions. “The CKUT question has been acknowledged…and the QPIRG referendum no longer stands,” he added.

Leung asked what steps the administration would take in order to reflect the student sentiment demonstrated by the majority vote in favour of the continued existence of CKUT and QPIRG, and how the administration will guarantee the respect of the democratic decisions made by students now and in the future.

Mendelson responded that, “The University cannot commit itself to accepting student referenda without question.” He said McGill would question referendum results in instances where a question brought to referendum could not be implemented by the University, or was misleading or confusing.

Senator and Associate Professor of Art History and Communications Darin Barney addressed concerns expressed by Mendelson about the ambiguity and lack of clarity to the referenda questions posed by CKUT and QPIRG.

“We should talk about the real reasons we are looking to maintain the online opt-out system,” Barney said. Mendelson stated that the opt-out system self-administered by CKUT and QPIRG prior to the University’s implementation of the online system in the summer of 2007 is not a system McGill can implement.

In an interview with The Daily after the meeting, Mendelson stated that the in-person opt-out system meant that “the University can’t exercise its fiduciary responsibility with respect to the collection of fees.”

“It’s not [the organization’s] money if the referendum says the fee is opt-outable… What’s their fee is the fee for all the students who stay in, not the students who opt out,” continued Mendelson. “[As a result], we don’t have fiduciary responsibility. The group can’t prove to us, or we have no way of knowing, did all the people who want to opt out get to opt out?”

He stated in the interview that the Memoranda of Agreement (MoA) between the University, and CKUT and QPIRG state “very clearly that the [student] fees are collected according to the University’s regulations.” “And University regulations about opt-outs is that the opt-outs are online,” he continued.

Kira Page, a member of QPIRG’s Board of Directors, spoke to The Daily regarding the method of student fee collections elaborated in QPIRG’s MoA with McGill. “The agreement that we have – as do the SSMU and all the [independent student groups] – is that students pay all their fees at the same time, and then those are distributed by the University,” she said.

Mendelson noted the problem of confidentiality concerning students’ personal information. He said in an interview after the Senate meeting that the in-person opt-out system required the University to give the organization the names of students. “In effect, we’ re giving the personal information of students to a third party, so that’s a matter of privacy,” he explained.

Page, however, told The Daily that regardless of the opt-out system, QPIRG still receives a list of all students who are fee-paying members of the organization and students who have opted out. “For us to run our Annual General Meeting, we need a list of our student members,” Page explained. “At the end of the opt-out period we get a list of everybody who is still a member, and those who are no longer members.”

In Senate, SSMU President Maggie Knight spoke to her view regarding students ’ concerns. “Students were never asked about the change to the opt-out system…I think that’s the ultimate concern – who has control over that change,” she said.

Mendelson maintained that consultation did occur prior to the 2007 implementation of the online opt-out system. Page told The Daily that QPIRG was not given any warning before the online opt-out system was implemented in 2007.

In Senate, Knight clarified that, though she recognizes different methods, standardss and results of consultation, “If our standard of consultation is student referenda, then that [was] not completed,” she said

       Since the arrival of the current principal, the McGill higher administration has systematically arrogated to itself the power to dictate its terms to every constituency on campus. It has hollowed out our already weak Senate. It unilaterally savaged the pensions and benefits of staff and faculty this past July. It has cynically presided over deteriorating teaching and learning conditions, all the while trumpeting rankings that are meaningless to everybody except our corporate partners (whoever they may be). It has dealt with labour issues in a consistently thuggish manner. It has repeatedly preempted the recognised processes of student government.

       The continued existence of QPIRG and CKUT – the issue behind the current six-floor action – is inextricably connected to the on-line system for opting-out of fees for independent student groups. This system was imposed by the higher administration in 2007 without student consultation: in spite of the objections of the affected groups and in spite of a subsequent SSMU GA and a referendum calling for the abolition of the on-line opt-out system and a restoration of the opt-out in person scheme that existed before 2007. The administration  refused to go back to the old system. It refused to work out, with the affected groups, any kind of mutually-agreeable alternative.

       This issue has galvanized student activists not simply because they have a sentimental attachment to a couple of groups on campus. You might never listen to CKUT programming. You might actively oppose every single cause taken up by QPIRG. You might care less which student groups have a future. But still you may not remain indifferent to this matter. The interference of the administration in student government is symptomatic of its high handed dealing with all of us. That, as much as anything, is what motivated the six-floor activists.

       McGill is not a “consequence-free environment”. Having acted in so high-handed a manner for so long, the administration must now learn to accept that it has alienated significant numbers in every part of our community. It should not be surprised that some students have resorted to direct actions to press their point. What are the alternatives? Consultation fairs and townhalls are opportunities for members of the community to vent, but nothing ever comes of that. Would those who have lost patience be better advised to arrange a meeting with, say, Tony Masi in the company of a local alley cat, with the hope of convincing the Provost to give a display of his great power by turning himself into a mouse? Then it would just be a matter of letting nature take its course.

Alison Laywine is an associate professor in the Department of Philosophy. She can be reached at a.laywine@mcgill.ca

McDonald retired from McGill in September 1988, after over two decades as a McGill epidemiology professor. According to a recent episode of CBC’s The National, McDonald received at least $1 million between 1966 and 1972 for research into the health effects of chrysotile asbestos from the Quebec Asbestos Mining Association, which received a large portion of its funding from the asbestos mining giant Johns-Manville.

McGill’s review is being lead by Rebecca Fuhrer, chair of McGill’s Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health. A group of academics and health experts published a letter last Friday calling for an external review of McDonald’s research. McDonald’s research holds that chrysotile asbestos is less harmful than other forms of asbestos, and only deadly when a person is exposed to large quantities of it.

“Hardly anybody else but the McGill team believed that,” said lead signatory of the letter and professor emeritus of Public Health and Preventive Medicine at the Université Laval Fernand Turcotte. “The rest of the world was really arrested by this,” he continued.

In a statement released last Thursday, Dean of Medicine and Vice-Principal (Health Affairs) David Eidelman said, “Holding scientific views that are different from those of the majority does not constitute research misconduct.”

Imperial Tobacco is also believed to have paid McDonald to review a paper on the health effects of tobacco. An October 1988 letter from McDonald to Imperial Tobacco states: “As agreed, our fee for this work is $10,000.”

A postscript to the letter adds, “I would wish to emphasize that there must be no publication of any part of this review under [my] name.”

Turcotte worked with McDonald early in his career, and described him as “one of the superstars of public health in this country” at the time. This fact, Turcotte continued, jeopardizes the impartiality of Fuhrer’s review.

“Because I have worked with Corbett McDonald in the past, I would have refused that kind of mission, and God knows that I have worked [with him] much less than his immediate colleagues in the departments,” he said.

“When I got the documents that proved that he worked secretly for the tobacco industry, it took me months to overcome my depression,” said Turcotte.

Politicians at the federal and provincial level have called for an end to the Canadian production and exportation of asbestos, a policy long defended through McDonald’s research. Westmount-based company Balcorp Ltd. is also seeking a $58 million loan from the Quebec government to re-open the Jeffrey Mine in Asbestos, Quebec.

Roshi Chadha, a member of McGill’s Board of Governors and director of the export company Seja Trade Ltd., took a leave of absence from McGill two weeks ago. Seja Trade, which exported asbestos – primarily to India – from the Jeffrey Mine for 16 years before the mine closed operations last fall, is a subsidiary of Balcorp.

Kathleen Ruff, senior human rights adviser for the Ottawa-based Rideau Institute, told The Daily that McGill’s review was coming at a “critical moment” for the Quebec and Canadian asbestos industry.

“The global asbestos industry has used Macdonald’s research constantly, and still today uses it to deny the harm caused by chrysotile asbestos,” said Ruff. “This is not an issue from the past.”

Another signatory to the letter criticizing McGill’s preliminary review, Edward Keyserlingk is a McGill professor emeritus of Medical Ethics & Health Law in the Faculty of Medicine. Keyserlingk lost his brother, Robert, to mesothelioma in December 2008. Robert’s widow, Michaela Keyserlingk, said he was exposed to asbestos on naval ships in the early 1950s.

“Forty years later they suddenly found that he had fluid on his lungs,” she said.

“It’s a horrible death. They are really suffocating. And if you think we have all the morphine and all the opiates available to modern medicine to mask all these horrible symptoms, and nobody in India has that and these people must be dying the most excruciating death I can possibly imagine,” she said.

“I think McGill would do well choosing people outside of their own community. I think this is much too serious to have your own people investigating your own people,” Keyserlingk added.

Last Thursday, VP (Health Affairs) and Dean of Medicine David Eidelman announced that the faculty had appointed Rebecca Fuhrer, chair of McGill’s Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, to conduct a preliminary review of the research of John Corbett McDonald, an emeritus professor in the department.

Fuhrer has not given a deadline for the completion of her preliminary review, but in an email she wrote, “The timeline for this preliminary review will depend on the time that is needed to respond accurately to the remit I have been given by the Dean.”

In a statement, Eidelman said Fuhrer’s review “is being undertaken to ensure that the research of Professor McDonald was conducted according to the rigorous scientific standards for which McGill is known.”

“The outcome of Professor Fuhrer’s review will determine whether there is a need for a more detailed investigation, in accordance with our standard policies and procedures,” continues Eidelman’s statement.

Kathleen Ruff, senior human rights adviser for the Ottawa-based Rideau Institute, said the circumstances of the review “are such that it clearly raises issues of conflict of interest.”

“It is not acceptable; it does not have credibility to do an in-house investigation of the department, by the department,” continued Ruff.

A group of academics and health experts ­– many of whom, including Ruff, initially condemned McGill’s asbestos connections – have signed a letter criticizing the internally-conducted preliminary review. The letter was published last Friday.

The letter calls specifically for McGill to revisit a complaint filed in September 2002 by David Egilman, a clinical associate professor at Brown University and signatory to the letter. Egilman’s complaint, addressed to Robert E. MacKenzie, the then-associate dean of graduate studies and research, alleged that McDonald had manipulated data and cited supporting data that did not exist.

“I asked them three questions. I think they should answer those three questions, and they need to publish the answers to those three questions,” said Egilman in an interview with The Daily.

With regards to his 2002 complaint, Egilman received a response from McGill 16 months later, stating that his grievance was “unfounded.”

“If the data’s there, [Eidelman] could end the investigation in about five minutes,” continued Egilman.

Egilman sent his three questions, along with his supporting evidence, to Eidelman last Saturday, copying both Fuhrer and six news outlets – including The Daily – on the email.

Fuhrer replied the next day, confirming that Egilman’s documents “will be added to those that we are collecting.”

Fernand Turcotte, lead signatory of the letter and professor emeritus of Public Health and Preventive Medicine at the Université Laval, said that the outcome of the current review is crucial to “preserving the credibility of McGill as an institution.”

“If this second attempt at dealing properly with the questions – that were perfectly legitimate, [which] were raised by Dr. Egilman – if this is missed a second time, well that’s going to become a problem on its own,” said Turcotte.

Eidelman addressed Egilman’s 2002 complaint in an interview with the Montreal Gazette.

“It’s a very painful episode for us at McGill to have these allegations made, but we have to follow standard procedure,” Eidelman told the Gazette. “If you ask me, we are unlikely to find anything this time either.”

Ruff believes Eidelman’s statements supporting McDonald have prejudiced Fuhrer’s review.

“The instructions and statement that Dean Eidelman gave create a tainted atmosphere, create a prejudiced atmosphere, which makes the whole exercise suspect,” she said.

Esli Osmanlliu, president of the McGill Medical Students’ Society, said he felt comfortable with the faculty’s response, though he added that it was “shocking to hear those allegations” against McDonald.

“I don’t have access to the sources justifying the allegations in the documentary, but it is still worrying to think that there may have been some influences from the industry when the research was conducted,” he said.

“I believe [Fuhrer] is very well suited to undergo this review,” he continued. “I think the review is actually a very good thing, because as long as it stands, those are allegations.”

SSMU President Maggie Knight said the review would likely come up at this Wednesday’s Senate meeting.

“It’s an issue that’s very much related to the academic premise of the University and the academic integrity of our research,” said Knight.

“We come here, we work hard, and we want to know that people have faith in the research that comes out of McGill,” she continued.

In the Senate meeting, a motion from the floor to encourage the issuing of a public statement regarding asbestos research at McGill was tabled until Fuhrer’s review is completed.

The absence of Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson, and any of his staff, from #6party negotiations was particularly noticeable, considering that it was his office that was occupied, that one of the party’s demands concerned his position at the University, and that their primary demand – to recognize the decision of the nearly ⅔ majority who voted in last fall’s CKUT and QPIRG referenda – falls under his portfolio. Instead, Associate VP (University Services) Jim Nicell was the administration’s sole negotiator, and his negotiations consisted of repeating how the administration would not negotiate. Nicell represented the administration in his capacity as manager of Security Services, underscoring the administration’s position that the occupation was an issue of campus security and not student life.

The fact that students cannot even speak with a specific administrator when occupying his office for five days only goes to show that the administration will only consult with students on their terms.

Furthermore, the absence of comment from our Principal until hours after the o ccupiers’ eviction – even though she later acknowledged that she made a special effort to stay on campus throughout most of the occupation – goes against the promises she made after November 10 to be more engaged in campus life. The Principal’s comments after-the-fact were designed to illegitimize the occupation, dismissing it is an inconvenient campus disturbance as opposed to the last resort many students felt was left for them to get their voices heard.

The administration’s first and most decisive response to the occupation was to implement a provisional protocol granting themselves ambiguous liberties to disperse campus protests. While McGill should have guidelines for campus protests – until now they have had no such guidelines – a protocol that gives Security the ability to call the police should a demonstration “impede University activities” is a strike against free speech. These new powers are too far reaching and can easily be abused: whatever you think of calling police on an occupation, just about any kind of protest can be said to “impede University activities”. That’s no reason to ban them outright. Indeed, student protests are themselves a time-honoured and integral university activity.

In Senate this week, the Principal responded to student concerns with the protocol, saying that some points of the protocol are not up for discussion. The Principal did not specify which clauses will be immune to student amendment, only adding: “When we speak of ambiguity, I would say, welcome to the real world.”

The administration has promised consultation on the protocol, but it is now clear that this consultation will not address it as a whole – an unnerving power play that does not bode well for the administration’s post-November 10 relations with students.

Such a basis respects the lessons to be learned changed to learned because “learnt” suggests completed action, not what the author intends from the Occupiers, those who have vocalized staunch criticism of the protest, and the opinions of those caught in between. Beneath the surface of hyperbolic, denigrating language and passionate disagreement, this basis appreciates the effort and sacrifices made by those who strive to make our University progress towards a future of equitable, accountable, and inclusive practices.

It does not, however, condone the unequal power relationships that were let slip [kind of a contradiction in terms; cut most explicitly] in an MRO message sent by Provost Anthony Masi. In that email, the Provost made clear that the administration reserves the right to overturn referenda if it does not conform with their vision of students’ best interests. While empathizing with the work done by senior administrators and their staff, the proposed basis of unity condemns isolated, unilateral, and unaccountable decision-making processes. It pinpoints a lack of opportunities for non-administrators to engage in University governance as a main source of alienation and, ultimately, apathy. It dictates that a level playing field implies putting control of student decisions in student hands – in this case, the right for students to decide opt-out procedures. Similarly, it advocates for pension decisions to be put in the hands of those who are affected by them, namely union members.

This basis of unity envisions a future where those who give a substantial part of themselves over to the University receive a piece of it in return. Where those who pour their hearts and souls into teaching, learning, researching, building community, and ensuring the University’s smooth operations are entitled to make decisions that affect them, instead of the CEO of Telus making such decisions. Where those unaffiliated with the University, yet affected, have their voices heard, such as the victims of asbestos-related diseases intimately related to the wealth of McGill Board of Governors member Roshi Chadha. It sounds so obvious; this basis of unity recognizes, however, that no amount of consultation or dialogue can be substituted for actual change. It calls for Principal Heather Munroe-Blum to stop talking about a united, equal community, and to actually build one.

Finally, this basis of unity calls for civility amongst those who disagree. It is time to end the vicious name-calling and incredibly harmful statements made in the Milton Avenue Revolutionary Press, the QPIRG Opt-Out Campaign, and other places. We are all adults capable of making educated, informed decisions, while also respecting divergent viewpoints and not resorting to hateful tactics. It is time, in our campus discourse, to announce the victories of love, honesty, and integrity over hate, blame, and shame. It is time to unite and make the changes our University needs to remain a special place.

Eli Freedman is a U2 Philosophy student and blogger at bloggingthereclamation.wordpress.com. He can be reached at eliyahu.freedman@mail.mcgill.ca

Over 600 people gathered on Tuesday for speeches, music, and a march down Ste. Catherine from Cabot Square to Phillips Square for the Memorial March for Missing and Murdered Women.

The march is part of the Justice for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women (or “Missing Justice”) campaign, initiated by the Montreal-based 2110 Centre for Gender Advocacy. It is the third annual Memorial March to take place in Montreal, though others have been held each year since 1991 in cities across Canada.

Performers and speakers included the drum group Tiohtiake Drum; Michèle Audette, the president of Quebec Native Women (QNW); Moe Clark, an artist and spoken word poet; and Joey Shaw, a poet and hip-hop artist.

43-year old Norman Achneepineskum, who performed with Tiohtiake Drum at Phillips Square, described lifelong experience with female native survivors of violence while growing up on a reserve in northern Ontario. “I spent much of my young life bringing women to Thunder Bay, to a women’s shelter. I learned [about the issue] when I was young, because my mother harbored women in our home,” he said.

This year’s march took place in the context of the federal government’s cessation of support for the Sisters in Spirit initiative. The initiative produced a database of cases of violence against Aboriginal women and held workshops to raise awareness of the high rates of such violence in Canada. Funds are being shifted away from research activities to an RCMP database of missing persons, which many have pointed out would not reflect the high rate of violence specifically perpetrated against indigenous women.

Also under discussion were efforts to spur a United Nations public inquiry into violence against native women in Canada. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, composed of 23 independent experts from around the world, wrote a letter to the federal government last December concerning the issue of missing and murdered aboriginal women, Status of Women Minister Rona Ambrose has denied that an official investigation is underway.

Aurélie Arnaud, communications officer for QNW and a participant in the march, said that one of this year’s goals for many of those attending the march was to pressure the government into publicly cooperating with a UN inquiry. “The more we put pressure on the government, the less they can ignore the issue. If they say no [to the inquiry], they’re saying they don’t care about it,” she said.

Maya Rolbin-Ghanie, one of the March’s organizers, believes that the official statistics compiled by Sisters in Spirit were still a low estimate of cases of violence against native women in Canada, since much of the information relied on RCMP and media reports.  “They’re seen as doing groundbreaking research, even though the numbers are inaccurately low,” said Rolbin-Ghanie.

Rolbin-Ghanie blamed unreliable and inconsistent police procedure for much of the gap in statistical records, citing a highly critical Amnesty International report. The report specifically notes, “significant gaps in how police record and share information about missing persons and violent crimes means that there is no comprehensive picture of the actual scale of violence against Indigenous women.”

Statistics Canada recorded cases of violence in 2009 at a rate three times higher among Aboriginal women than non-Aboriginal women. Some at the Memorial March said that native women were five times more likely to die violently than non-native women.

Missing Justice plans to conduct panel discussions and direct action, and to push for curriculum change in Canadian schools to include the issue of violence against indigenous women. Activists will also be lobbying the UN and federal government to proceed with a public inquiry.

In an earlier version of this article, it stated that participants in the March numbered around 200 people, and that it has taken place since 2005. In fact, the March numbered over 600 people and has been held since 1991. The Daily regrets the errors.

Christina Colizza reports from the February 13 demonstration on McGill in which staff and students discusses publicly their responses following the previous week’s five-day occupation of Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson’s office. Next Peter Shyba shares his experience at the birthplace of “psychedelic,” the Weyburn Mental Hospital in small-town Saskatchewan.

Hosted by Christina Colizza, produced by Erin Hudson with Michael D’alimonte. 

Access was limited due to security concerns and concerns about being able to conduct Senate business, explained Principal Heather Munroe-Blum. The meeting was live streamed to the Redpath Museum.

Munroe-Blum stated the live streaming of future meetings would be decided on a “case-by-case basis, due to demonstrations set to continue into the spring.”
In her opening comments, Munroe-Blum addressed last week’s five-day occupation of the office of Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson.

She stated that “the events of the past week serve as a further reminder, [and] I don’t think we needed any,” of the need to consider the scope and limits to freedom of speech on campus, as recommended in Dean of Law Daniel Jutras’ report on the events of November 10.

Student Senator Ian Clarke raised his concerns regarding the provisional protocol, describing it as “ambiguous and perhaps even regressive.” He pointed to the omission of the third clause of Article 5 in the Code of Student Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures, which states, “Nothing in this Article or Code shall be construed to prohibit peaceful assemblies and demonstrations, lawful picketing, or to inhibit free speech.”

Clarke expressed concern regarding the omission, and noted the March 22 demonstration against tuition hikes as an incentive to rectify the ambiguity for the benefit of McGill Security agents and students.

Munroe-Blum responded that, within the provisional protocol, “some points are up for discussion, some are not.”

When we speak of ambiguity, I would say, welcome to the real world,” she continued.

However, Munroe-Blum noted that “elements of the provisional protocol may well be advised.”

A message regarding allegations of research misconduct against Professor Emeritus John Corbett McDonald was delivered from Dean of Medicine and Vice-Principal (Health Affairs) David Eidelman.

Vice-Principal (Research and International Relations) Rose Goldstein then gave a summary of McGill’s five policies concerning research practices.

Eidelman said he planned to share the conclusion of the preliminary review and whether a further investigation is necessary at a future Senate.

“We’re trying to ascertain if there’s been a breach of research conduct,” he said. “The media has had what’s known of as a ‘field day.’”

Student Senator Mahmoud Almasri asked whether an external review might be established to operate parallel to the internal review to be conducted by Chair of the Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health Rebecca Fuhrer.

Eidelman said he felt it was important to “follow a consistent policy and due process.”

Student Senator Emil Briones asked for clarification on what research policies were in place during the 1960s and 1970s, when McDonald’s research was conducted.

Goldstein responded, “We don’t have knowledge that goes that far back.” Though she added that policies had been developing “considerably” over the last 20 years.

A motion from the floor to mandate Senate to encourage the issuing of a public statement regarding asbestos research at McGill was brought forward by Senator for the Faculty of Law Richard Janda and Senator for the Faculty of Medicine Edith Zorychta.

Janda explained the motion’s intent was to respond to public scrutiny over the issue, and to how McGill’s name is being used in media reports on the alleged research misconduct.

“We are a timid body,” Janda said regarding McGill’s Senate. “We need to take our responsibility for goodness’ sake.”

Eidelman, however, expressed concern with McGill taking a stance on “social policy.”

Munroe-Blum also voiced concerns. “I think we run a very serious risk. The notion that University officials would weigh in attacks academic freedom…and the extent to which it opens [McGill] up to lobbying.”

“At the end of the day, anybody…is free to speak out on these issues,” she added.

The motion was tabled until the results of the preliminary review are presented to Senate.

Other agenda items included the presentation of the Annual Report on Student Life and Learning by Mendelson. Following the presentation, a discussion on best practices for advising and mentoring occurred.

Vice-Principal (Development and Alumni Relations) Marc Weinstein also presented, giving an update on Campaign McGill, a fundraising campaign launched in 2007. This year the campaign has raised $65.1 million, a 22 per cent increase over last year, according to his data.

Provost Anthony Masi presented McGill’s budget and finances. He explained McGill is currently in the planning phase of its next five-year budget, which spans from 2012 to 2017. Masi projected a deficit of $6 million for this financial year.

The conference – hosted by McGill’s Faculty of Law – was a joint effort between the Aboriginal Law Students’ Association, Environmental Law McGill, and the International Journal on Sustainable Development Law and Policy.

According to the organizers, the aim of the conference was to address the “many questions that remain with regard to the measures which will be taken to flesh out the government’s commitments and achieve its stated goals.”

Plan Nord is a provincial government development project aimed at attracting investment into industrial activities like forestry, mining, and hydroelectricity in Quebec’s northern territories. The plan will be executed over the course of 25 years.

The area Plan Nord will be applied to consists of 1.2 million square kilometres – 72 per cent of Quebec’s geographic area. According to government estimates, the plan is expected to create, on average, 20,000 jobs a year and bring in $80-billion in investments, however local communities and environmental groups fear the project could cause widespread environmental degradation.

The panelists analyzed the consultation process, the commitments, and the legal obligations the provincial government has toward Aboriginal communities residing in Northern Quebec with regards to the Plan Nord project.

One of the panelists, Ugo Lapointe – spokesperson for the Coalition pour que le Québec ait meilleure mine – questioned the consultation processes around Plan Nord and called for “further investigation.”

“We need to worry about Plan Nord… We are missing consultation with the Quebec and Aboriginal population,” said Lapointe.

“Information and transparency are missing,” he continued.

John Paul Murdoch, panelist and a McGill Faculty of Law alumnus, said he was “very excited for Plan Nord.”

“Finally, people are talking about the North before they get there, or before they try to find it…there is so little that people know about the North,” he said.

Born and raised in a Cree territory in northern Quebec, Murdoch referred to past instances in which the government has shown little interest for investing in northern territories, due to it not being “not economically viable.”

Murdoch, a legal consultant who negotiates agreements between energy companies and aboriginal communities, stated that he is a “big fan” of the Plan Nord because “it is putting a value on the North.”

“It doesn’t bother me that they’re putting a value on our territory in the north. I’m quite thankful, because, to be honest, when you sit down to negotiate, it’s annoying how far back you start.”

Aurelie Arnaud, a panelist and representative from the association Femmes Autochtones du Québec (FAQ), discussed the role of Aboriginal women in Plan Nord.

“Aboriginal women are present, but how many are actually in the negotiating tables for Plan Nord?” said Arnaud.

Arnaud also noted potential negative impacts from the mining industry entering the northern territories, such as “prostitution as a result of increased demand and violence against women.”

“We are scared. What are we going to do to ameliorate the impacts [of the introduction of mining] on aboriginal women?” she asked.

The text of QPIRG’s question – which was voted on from November 4 to 10, 2011 – read, “Do you support QPIRG continuing as a recognized student activity supported by a fee of $3.75 per semester for undergraduate students, which is not opt-outable on the Minerva online opt-out system but is instead fully refundable directly through QPIRG,” with the understanding that a vote of ‘no’ would terminate student funding of the organization.

The J-Board case, filed by students Zach Newburgh and Brendan Steven, was heard last week in the Lev Bukhman room.

QPIRG board member Kira Page said that the organization is “dismayed and disturbed” by the results, and is deciding how to proceed. Page said that an official statement from QPIRG will be issued by the end of the week.

J-Board’s decision was released two days after the end of the #6party occupation of the James Administration building, which demanded that the administration recognize the results of both QPIRG and CKUT’s referendum questions.

The McGill administration and QPIRG have been in discussion regarding the organization’s Memorandum of Agreement and fall 2011 referendum question. It is unclear how the J-Board ruling may affect discussions between McGill and QPIRG. Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson announced in January that the administration had decided to invalidate the results of the fall 2011 referendum.

The second part of the petition, which challenged the actions of Elections SSMU Chief Electoral Officer Rebecca Tacoma during the campaign, was dismissed.

“Based on all of the evidence before us, including the written and oral arguments, as well as the testimonies, the respondent’s decisions seemed justified, transparent and intelligible,” the ruling read.

The ruling requires a ratification vote by the SSMU Board of Directors (BoD). BoD will not meet until after the February reading week, and would require 4/5 of the Board to reject the ruling in order for it to be overturned.

SSMU President Maggie Knight said that SSMU is not planning on releasing a statement, but that information about the ruling is available on SSMU’s website.

In terms of an appeals process for BoD, Knight said that SSMU is in “a little bit of a legal gap.”

“We will let people know that we are going to be discussing it at the Board of Directors meeting, and we will invite anyone who is particularly concerned and think there has been some sort of egregious miscarriage of justice to come forward with their concerns,” Knight said.

There will be a referendum question regarding the structure of the BoD and setting up an appeals process, but voting on winter referendum questions will not take place until March.

Steven and Newburgh released a statement on Tuesday afternoon. “We are satisfied with the Judicial Board’s ruling to invalidate the result of the Fall 2011 QPIRG Existence Referendum,” it stated.

“We call on the Board to respect the principles of natural justice and due process by affirming the decision outlined in the verdict. The integrity of the SSMU’s referendum process demands it. The SSMU cannot set a precedent, which allows referendum questions to stand when they do not provide members of the SSMU with a clear choice when voting,” it continued.

Shortly before 4:30 p.m., about 300 demonstrators – many of whom were students from l’Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM) – marched up McGill College and congregated outside of the James Administration building.

Demonstrators chanted, “UQAM, McGill, same struggle.”

Six security agents stood by the front entrance of the building.

In front of the building, one demonstrator with a megaphone addressed the crowd.

“No matter where you go – UQAM, McGill – the police always come to clamp down on those who demonstrate for their rights,” he said in French, referring to the events of November 10, which included a 30,000-person march against tuition hikes and an occupation of the James Administration building, which prompted a demonstration that was ended by riot police.

Demonstrators entered the McConnell Engineering building and marched through the building until exiting by the Schulich Library of Science and Engineering. Demonstrators marched off campus at 4:40 p.m.

Associate Vice-Principal (University Services) Jim Nicell sent out two emails to the McGill community, one at 4:25 p.m. and one at 5:06 p.m., informing staff and students of the demonstration’s presence on campus and subsequent exit.

No police officers or vehicles were seen on campus. 11 police vehicles were seen along Sherbrooke and McGill-College trailing the demonstration.

McGill Security Operations Manager Christopher Carson, who was present at the scene, declined to comment regarding the action. Nine McGill Security employees were gathered at the Y intersection by 4:45 p.m. when demonstrators moved off campus.

Frank Lévesque-Nicol, a sociology student at UQAM who participated in the action, said demonstrators initially met at Café Campus on Prince Arthur for a General Assembly. According to him, the demonstration was the debut action for the first wave of the student general strike.

As of Tuesday morning, 11,000 students at UQAM and Université Laval were on strike as part of the first wave of the unlimited student strike organized by the Coalition large de l’Association pour une solidarité syndicale étudiante (CLASSE). CLASSE currently represents 70,000 students in Quebec CEGEPs and universities. McGill’s Arts Undergraduate Society (AUS) recently voted to alter the AUS Constitution so that the General Assembly is the highest governing body of the Society, as per requirements to be a member of CLASSE.

“We went out on strike this week to serve as a springboard for the mobilization of CEGEPs and universities. In the next week, we will be driving up and down in Quebec so as to help [student] associations holding strike votes this week,” said Camille Toffoli, spokesperson for the UQAM student associations on strike, in a press release.

The UQAM student associations currently on strike are the faculties of Political Science and Law, Humanities, and Fine Arts.

“[We] all voted for the strike and started the strike today, so we’re doing what we call a strike-commencing march or demonstration. We’re very happy about what’s going on, we’re showing people that we’re on strike, and we’re also rallying McGill with it,” said Lévesque-Nicol.

He explained that demonstrators had marched through UQAM’s Complexe des sciences Pierre-Dansereau, located just north of the Place-des-Arts metro station, before marching to McGill.

Though she said she had not been aware of the action prior to demonstrators marching on campus, McGill graduate student Sunci Avlijas participated in the action.

“I joined in because these are students from another university in Quebec that are fighting for free tuition, or at least to oppose the hikes,” she said.

In March 2011, the Quebec government announced a tuition increase of a total of $1,625 over the next five years. The increases in tuition will begin as of September 2012, at the rate of $325 per year until 2017.

“I think that is something that affects McGill students a lot, and a lot of McGill students aren’t aware of the implications of the tuition fees, or whether those increases are even necessary,” Avlijas continued.

“I think it’s a great way to at least get people talking about the tuition hikes at McGill,” she added.

The day before, Munroe-Blum also issued her first response to the five-day occupation of Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson’s office in the James Administration building. The students occupying, known as the #6party, were evicted by Montreal police earlier that morning.

The Daily spoke with Munroe-Blum by phone Monday afternoon. Click here to read the story on Munroe-Blum’s response to the Jutras Report.

The McGill Daily: Why was your response to the Jutras Report released today?

Heather Munroe-Blum: Well, it was always scheduled to come out right after the consultation with Board. As you may recall from December, I said that I wanted to continue the on campus consultations that began after November 10, and it would have come out two weeks earlier but for the interruption of the Board meeting and us rescheduling it so that we could get that input. And then as you know we were a little preoccupied, so the special board meeting to respond was a week ago today, and it would have been out then on Wednesday so I would have a chance to incorporate some of the feedback from the Board meeting, but then the events of the week overtook it and it didn’t seem appropriate to let it out then. But I did want to get it out fast because we want to start the open fora.

MD: So, if anything, it was delayed because of the events of last week?

HMB: Well, really because of the inability to have the consultation with the Board when it was scheduled, because of reasons you know.

MD: In your response you list a number of initiatives the administration is or has already been undertaking. Were most of these in effect since before the second occupation of James Admin?

HMB: All of them were underway.

MD: Why does the senior administration feel that a stronger relationship with the Montreal Police is necessary going forward?

HMB: Well, you’ll notice that Professor Jutras actually had that as one of his own recommendations, and public universities and any public institution – you could put hospitals and so forth into that group as well, where you have a community of people assembled – should have very good neighbourhood relations, and good relations with the local police. In fact, our relations, of course, have been longstanding. I can’t recall if it was five or six years ago, there was an incident on campus which made it clear that both because of linguistic differences and difference in operational procedures and so forth, we did not have a team relationship with the local police. So efforts were made then, five years ago roughly, to develop a much more proactive relationship with the local police. And that’s added value, you may have noticed, that during frosh week, for all kinds of very positive reasons, we’ve had police on our campuses – during orientation, people come from out of town, that kind of thing. But the events of November 10 showed that depending on the time of day or night that events occur, we had not developed as continuously engaging a relationship with our local police, no matter what shift it was on, what time of day. So we really have been looking at best practices for that. There was a strong sense, with the presence of the riot police on campus and my own meeting with the chief of police just after those events, that the views of the city, especially given the acts of violence in post-secondary institutions – and if you look at the protocols of our sister universities, has had a very different approach to protests and peaceful demonstration than the protocols on our own campuses. And so having had a chance to speak with the chief of police about what might be a values difference, and also an informational difference – because our community is a newer and more external community than many of the other universities and CEGEPS in the city – that there was much more we could do to be proactively informing each other, learning from each other, so that if either good opportunities are there, or in the rare event that there’s a safety issue or a management concern with respect to our ability to secure the safety of the campuses, we know who each other are, we have some things talked out in advance and its not working through it for the first time. So its good community relations is the bottom line on that, and we thought we were there, but you know, you learn from every new experience, and I think it will be a positive outcome.

MD: And will this meeting take place at the beginning of every year?

HMB: No, I really think the notion of what I put in the response is kind of the minimum. The ideal is that we have a much more open, collaborative relationship. And some of, as I say, is developed in the context of the Milton-Parc Community and the University and the police and so forth, to acknowledge it as a University neighbourhood. So that’s kind of to ensure that the chief of police can pick up the phone to the principal and the principal can pick up to the phone to the chief of police. But that’s not what the activity is, the activity is a much more partnered relationship that, you know, to do all of the normal things that we do in the community and the neighbourhood – welcoming big populations on our campus – and that we know each other if things turn in another direction.

MD: I noticed in your response that you referenced the job titles rather than the names of the senior administrative figures. Was there any reason for this?

HMB: No, there was nothing behind that.

MD: Many of your recommendations include increased consultation with the University. Will all of this be done through Dean Manfredi’s Open Forum?

HMB: No, not at all, and, in fact, many new avenues have been opened up through the fall, into the winter, particularly in the second half of the fall. And some are channels that were there, but that we’re using more actively. But I really believe that the Open Forum will be really important to the extent that we can encourage people to come out, given the size of our community and the mission of the University, there will be diverse views. It’s really important to have fora that allow a range of views to be expressed, with us and with each other, but this has to be a broad community undertaking. I hope classes and different groups will be doing all kinds of different things. And at the level of the faculties and the departments it’s very important because those are the day in, day out communities that people live in.

MD: Why were you not on campus throughout the second occupation?

HMB: Well, I was here for a good part of the second occupation. I was scheduled to be out of town, at meetings, on the Tuesday and Wednesday. And I actually stayed in town because of the events on Tuesday – I wanted to stay close. And then I was out for one day overnight and then back on campus on the Thursday.

MD: So is everything back to normal in James Administration with this being the first day back at work since the occupation?

HMB: Look, I don’t think you call it back to normal. We have a whole bunch of people who work here in service of the University who feel their work place is not the safe place it should be, and some who feel quite traumatized by the events. We’re hoping to get back to a sense of people feeling secure in their workplace and able to conduct their service in support of the University, but we’re not there today.

MD: Why did you not release a statement on the occupation until yesterday?

HMB: Because we had an occupation on. We had a team doing their jobs and we had the person leading it, as the main communicator with the community. So, had I felt that there would be value added to that, I would have, but I certainly wanted to communicate yesterday.

—compiled by Jessica Lukawiecki

Nearly two months after the release of the internal investigation into the events of November 10, Principal Heather Munroe-Blum has issued her response.

The Jutras Report, which was conducted by Dean of Law Daniel Jutras at the request of Munroe-Blum, was released to the public on December 15. The report made six recommendations to University authorities.

The recommendations came in the wake of the November 10 occupation of the James Administration building, which ended with Montreal riot police driving demonstrators off campus using pepper spray and tear gas.

Munroe-Blum has accepted all six of Jutras’ recommendations. In her response, she outlined the various ways that senior administration has already begun, and will continue, to follow the recommendations.

Munroe-Blum pointed out that “the senior administration also has a responsibility to the community to promote and protect this culture and, additionally, to ensure the safety, security, and well being of all on the McGill campuses.”

In response to Jutras’ first recommendation – that “University authorities should provide and participate in a forum open to all members of the University community to discuss the meaning and scope of rights of free expression and peaceful assembly on campus” – Munroe-Blum announced that Dean of Arts Christopher Manfredi will be chairing an Open Forum, supported by an Advisory Group.

The Group will include “faculty, students, administrative and support staff, and alumni or other engaged members of our community.” Manfredi will report at the end of his consultation, and the report will be shared with the University’s governing bodies and the McGill community. The Open Forum has a blog, on which Manfredi states that he “looks forward to hearing from all McGillians.”

According to SSMU President Maggie Knight, SSMU has been asked to contribute to the nomination of people to Dean Manfredi’s work group.

“It’s not always completely clear to what extent we are expected to be able to affect what actually happens, versus just listening to us,” she added. “Something [the SSMU] have been striving to communicate is the importance of communicating how feedback from students has been incorporated.”

In an interview with The Daily, Munroe-Blum explained that Manfredi’s Work Group would not be the only venue for consultation with the University.

“Many new avenues have been opened up through the Fall, into the Winter, and some are channels that were there, but that we’re using more actively,” she said.

“I really believe that the Open Forum will be really important to the extent that we can encourage people to come out… It’s really important to have fora that allow a range of views to be expressed, with us and with each other, but this has to be a broad community undertaking.”

Munroe-Blum added that all of these initiatives had been underway since before the second occupation of the James Administration began. The occupation, which began on February 7, lasted five days.

Munroe-Blum has also called for a review of Security Services’ standard operating procedures – to be conducted by Vice-Principal (Administration and Finance) Michael Di Grappa – and to be reported to her by April 15.

Referring to the concern raised in the Jutras Report that McGill’s Security Services agents are not clear as to what McGill expects of them in the event of acts of civil disobedience, Munroe-Blum explained in her response that Di Grappa “has implemented appropriate clarifications.”

“[Di Grappa] will make further changes as appropriate, pending the conclusion of his review of McGill Security Services’ standard operating procedures,” she wrote.

In terms of emergency management, Munroe-Blum reported that “some initial steps have been taken,” giving the examples of the “use of available technologies to communicate quickly and effectively with the McGill community.” McGill’s use of the Alertus emergency notification system was announced last month.

Munroe-Blum also referred to the provisional protocol on demonstrations on campus in her response, released publically to the McGill community on Sunday.

The provisional protocol – signed by Provost Anthony Masi and Di Grappa – states that “the events of the last few days clearly indicate the need to issue an interim set of guidelines” regarding campus protests.

“If any type of occupation occurs, and the occupiers refuse to leave when requested to do so, civil authorities will be called,” the protocol states.

According to Munroe-Blum’s response, elements of the protocol may be revisited as a result of the Open Forum, and a formal protocol will be released to the University community by the end of the calendar year.

Finally, Munroe-Blum wrote that “work is underway, and has been since immediately following the events of November 10, to clarify the values and aims of McGill with respect to the relationship with police, to enhance effective communication with the SPVM, and to develop together the most effective means of ensuring the safety of McGill’s campuses.”

She added that she and Di Grappa would invite the Chief of Police to meet with them annually on campus “in order to facilitate and grow mutual understanding and positive working relationships between the Montreal Police and the McGill Community.”

Speaking with The Daily, Munroe-Blum explained that “what I put in the response is kind of the minimum. The ideal is that we have a much more open, collaborative relationship.”

“Having had a chance to speak with the chief of police about what might be a values difference, and also an informational difference…there was much more we could do to be proactively informing each other, learning from each other, so that if either good opportunities are there, or in the rare event that there’s a safety issue or a management concern with respect to our ability to secure the safety of the campuses, we know who each other are, we have some things talked out in advance, and we’re not working through it for the first time,” she said.

Knight explained that “there can be different types of responses to the events that have been seen.”

“One generally results in more security, harder lines, and the other one is – if part of the problem is that people feel the lines are too hard, we need to discuss that,” she said.

“When you have a power imbalance like you do between the administration and students, then it’s obviously easier for the stronger party to be the one to open up,” she added. “So I think it’s not totally clear from the Principal’s statement exactly what will happen in that regard.”

It was only a few thousand years ago that much of North America was covered in kilometer-thick layers of ice. The ices ebbed and flowed across the continent over the course of millenia due to natural warming caused by the Earth’s wobbly orbit around the sun. Our current place in the complex ‘wobble’ would ordinarily put us at the beginning of another period of giant ice sheets scraping across the continents. But we’re not only stopping this ice age, we’re going much further: The forecast for the Anthropocene is that it’s to be an age of extreme warming.

In the best case scenario: we collectively dump only a half-trillion ton slug of carbon dioxide equivalent gasses, and the world becomes two degrees Celsius warmer. What does a world that is two degrees warmer actually look like? We need only look 130 thousand years back in time to see a world that was about that much warmer – the Eemian Interglacial period.

Based on what we know about the Eemian , we can very likely expect a shifting of natural ecological ranges in the next few thousand years. It is unlikely that today’s animals will be able to move with these ranges, because humans are in the way of any migration. We are currently living in the beginning of a massive, planet-wide extinction event that could rob our descendants of 50 to 90 per cent of the biodiversity that exists today. The Eemian Arctic was likely seasonally ice-free, which is an ignoble milestone we will see again in our lives. However, the Eemian interglacial period cooled off when the wobbly orbit of the planet caused enough of a temperature drop to allow glaciers to flow once again, which won’t happen this time, as the warming is happening due to humans and not a wobble.

To get an idea of the worst case scenario, we must look much farther back, to 55 million years ago, to the Eocene. This was the last time the planet experienced what paleoclimatologists call a “super-greenhouse”. A super-greenhouse is caused by an quick, enormous dump of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, on the order of one to five trillion tons of CO2 equivalent gas. Much of this may have come from methane-ice known as clathrates, which are very sensitive to oceanic temperature. Whatever the initial cause, this gigantic mass of extra carbon caused a global warming event that involved extreme changes that would be reflected in the climate for millions of years. If our industrialized society continues business as usual – and we do indeed have sufficient reserves to do so – burning gas, oil, and coal reserves could potentially release trillions of tons of CO2 in the next few hundred years.

Today, around 60 per cent of the carbon we emit annually is absorbed into the oceans, which makes them much more acidic. The acidification during the Eocene global warming period was so severe that it actually burned a red mark in the global sea sedimentary deposits. About half of all coral species, but particularly the deep-water variety, disappeared from the fossil record. Modern day species that may be vulnerable to any future acidification of the oceans include the global coral reefs (themselves the base of a staggering amount of biodiversity), lobsters, crabs, oysters, and many deep-sea microscopic life forms that form the root of the oceanic food chain.

The excess CO2 in the Eocene was sufficient to raise the global average temperature by as much as ten to twelve degrees Celsius, warmer at the poles than the tropics. Fossil evidence from the time indicates that even the northernmost point in the Arctic Circle was warm enough to support tropical species of plants and animals, suggesting a polar heating change of over twelve degrees Celsius.
From the point of view of a human lifespan, the extra carbon that we are putting in the atmosphere will be there essentially forever, as will the effects on the climate and biodiversity. The outcomes of pollution might seem apocalyptic and outlandish, but the reality of the situation is that extreme greenhouse gas emissions have caused large changes to the environment in the past. It is irresponsible of us to refuse to understand the very long-term implications of our actions today. So, on behalf of those without the benefit of having the choice, who will come long after we’re gone, we ought to decarbonize our economy now. Welcome to the Anthropocene: let’s make this next geological era a good one.