According to Centraide’s Territorial Analysis for 2015-2016, Parc-Ex is the poorest neighbourhood in Montreal, with a poverty rate of 44 per cent. 61 per cent of residents are immigrants, and 63 per cent are racialized. Rents in Parc-Ex are some of the cheapest in Montreal, but even so, 44 per cent of tenants spend at least 30 per cent of their income on rent. In the last few years, the neighbourhood has been undergoing what some describe as hypergentrification. According to a report from LaPresse, some landlords are forcing evictions and tripling rent, while others keep their rents low but provide no maintenance, thereby rendering the remaining cheap apartments in Parc-Ex unsanitary. As a result, many low-income tenants have been, or are being, displaced. Comité d’action Parc-Extension (CAPE) Community Organizer Amy Darwish told the Daily, “people are being scattered to the far ends of the city, far from their support networks.” She emphasized that Parc-Ex has a thriving community system, which risks being lost as more residents are being displaced. Though gentrification has been occurring in the neighbourhood for some years, community activists point to the MIL Campus and to the AI firms opening in a former industrial area west of Little Italy (now marketed as the “Mile-Ex”) as major contributors to this new round of hypergentrification.

UdeM’s inauguration of the campus took place on September 20, which was attended by many elected officials including Quebec premier François Legault and Montreal mayor Valérie Plante. CAPE members and Parc-Ex residents attended the inauguration as well. According to the Daily’s sources, they dropped a banner that read “le campus MIL gentrifie Parc-Ex” [“the MIL campus gentrifies Parc-Ex”] during the rector of UdeM’s speech, while chanting slogans and dropping flyers onto the crowd below. The banner drop, carried out around 10:30 a.m by 10 people, was organized by members of CAPE and the Parc-Extension Tenants Association. They were quickly escorted out by campus security, but reconvened outside the building and continued chanting.

The following day during UdeM’s “citizen’s party” to “celebrate the birth of the Quartier MIL,” protestors gathered at Acadie metro. Residents and organizers (namely members of the CAPE) spoke from 4 p.m. until 4:45 p.m. At 4:45 p.m., the protestors commenced a “tour” of the new campus. They walked across the new pedestrian bridge and through the MIL campus to the Outremont side, where the “citizen’s party” was taking place. The protestors chanted slogans, such as “Park Ex is not for sale” and “ni campus, ni condos / on veut des logements sociaux” [“no campuses, no condos / we want social housing”], interrupting kiosk transactions and DJ sets. After walking through the kiosks and back, the protestors returned to Acadie metro. Final speeches were made thanking protestors for coming and encouraging residents to continue organizing against gentrification in Park Ex. Saturday’s action was orchestrated by CAPE, and received support from the Front d’action populaire en réaménagement urbain (FRAPRU).

Darwish said that these two actions were important because they challenge the narrative that the MIL Campus will revitalize Parc-Ex, as put forward by the university and by mainstream media. Darwish told the Daily that “for many, revitalization means displacement. Gentrification doesn’t improve quality of life. It creates more poverty as rents rise, as evictions increase, and as local businesses close.” Furthermore, she said that “Parc-Ex doesn’t need to be revitalized because Parc-Ex isn’t dead. We don’t need luxury restaurants or expensive condos and businesses. We need rent control and more social housing.”

The post “Nothing To Celebrate” appeared first on The McGill Daily.

On February 12, AUS issued a statement via email claiming that “necessary information” was not provided or present at the council meeting of January 30. Due to the “time-sensitive” deadline for the course approval, “the decision was brought to the Executive Committee [Exec]” rather than back to council. The Exec voted in favour of the course by a slim majority. According to anonymous sources, four members of the Exec voted to overturn Legislative Council’s vote, two against, and four abstained. Arts Representatives also participated in this vote on the basis that they are paid as though they are Executives, a depart from standard procedure. Senators are also paid as though they are Executives, but they did not have a vote.

From comments made at the February 14 AUS Legislative Council, it seemed that the Arts Representatives all voted to overturn the original decision.  Sources suggest that former VP Internal Billy Kawasaki also voted in favour of overturning the Legislative Council vote. He has since resigned. At Legislative Council on February 14, AUS President Maria Thomas suggested that he resigned after feeling pressured to vote a certain way.

The internal proceedings of the Executive vote are unclear, as they happened last minute via Facebook and Slack. Executives gave contradictory reports of their conversations when questioned during the February 14 Council meeting . While there was debate over the constitutionality of publishing Slack and Facebook communications as though they were minutes, the discussion was inconclusive.

It was implied that Arts Representative Andrew Figueiredo, the initial motioner of POLI 339, put pressure on the Exec to overturn Legislative Council’s vote. Figueiredo admitted to having sent a member of the Exec messages asking, “is there anything I can do to get you to vote yes?” He was asked if he intended to resign by Bee Khaleeli, a member of the gallery. He said he was not.

The Secretary General, a neutral third-party observer charged with maintaining the accountability of AUS, has launched an investigation into how the Exec handled the situation. As a result, the Exec’s vote has been suspended. At Legislative Council, AUS President Maria Thomas said that the Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning (DPSLL)) had said that they would cease action if SSMU agreed. SSMU President Tre Mansdoerfer stated that SSMU would take measures to stop action based on the Exec’s vote in favour of POLI 339 as long as the DPSLL agreed. Neither SSMU nor the DPSLL has yet confirmed that they are halting action taken by the AUS Exec.

On Saturday, AUS posted a statement from the Secretary General and Deputy Secretary General on their Facebook page. The statement said that the Secretary General had been receiving information requests regarding the Exec’s vote and related Facebook chats. They went on to say that Facebook messages are not confidential according to AUS’ constitution. At Legislative Council, some said that the vote was confidential, while others said they were not aware of any such decision. According to the statement, the Secretary General concluded that the Exec did not conduct such a vote, and thus the meeting notes “are deemed public.”

According to various sources, there is mounting pressure on AUS to release screenshots of Facebook messages and Slack conversations related to the vote. The Secretary General’s statement suggests that there is no constitutional basis to not do so.

The post AUS & POLI 339: Secretary General Suspends Exec Vote appeared first on The McGill Daily.

We watched it in DeSève Cinema in the JW McConnell Building at Concordia. Beforehand, I remember waiting for Alex on the corner of Maisonneuve and Mackay. I remember it was a sunny day, and the September sun made the white concrete Hall Building shine.

The film was shocking: I was shocked by the scenes of computer punch cards floating out, smoke billowing out of the Hall Building’s windows, and I was shocked by my own ignorance of a crucial moment in such a familiar building’s history.

In retrospect, it isn’t surprising that I didn’t know about it then. The Sir George Williams Affair is not taught in schools. It is barely talked about now; even today, fifty years after the occupation of the ninth floor of the Hall Building. When I bring this up with friends who have also grown up here, I’m met with shock and curiosity.

But still, I felt like I should have known.

WHAT HAPPENED?

On April 28, 1968, six students – Kennedy Fredericks, Allan Brown, Wendell K. Goodin, Douglas Mossop, Terrence Ballantyne, and Rodney John – at Sir George Williams University lodged a complaint with the Dean of Students. Today, Sir George Williams University is known as Concordia University: the institution was renamed after a merger with Loyola in 1974. In the complaint, the students stated that biology professor Perry Anderson was repeatedly giving Black students disproportionately low grades, sometimes lower than their white peers for the exact same labs. They mounted a case against Anderson to prove that he was treating Black students in a discriminatory manner. The Dean of Students met with the students in May. Anderson denied these charges and no action was taken.

Ostensibly, university administrators hoped that the students would lose interest over the summer. The students, knowing they had a strong case, increased pressure on the administration when they returned in the fall. The administration, however, played dirty, according to students. The students met with the Dean of the Biology department. To counter the students’ claims that Anderson had repeatedly missed class unannounced, and without logging it, the Dean presented notes from white students that were supposed to prove that Anderson was in fact present on those dates. Those documents were dated as having been on Tuesdays and Thursdays, despite the fact that classes were on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. When the students pointed out the error, the Dean dismissed their claim and moved on. Later in the semester, rumours spread that the Black students were threatening violence. The students, having suggested nothing to the effect, discovered that the rumour was started by  Vice Principal O’Brien. In a letter to Anderson, O’Brien wrote that there was a “probability of violence.” When the students confronted O’Brien and asked him to apologize for having spread such an incendiary falsehood, he claimed the students had kidnapped him. As a result, three students faced criminal charges. In December, the administration, Anderson, and the students decided on a committee that all parties agreed on. However, in January, a number of professors on the committee resigned. Students demanded a new committee be formed, but the administration went ahead with the hearing anyway.

On Wednesday, January 29, 1969, the hearing regarding the charges of Anderson’s racism began. The hearing committee had not been agreed upon by the students; no one on the committee represented the interests of the students. Deeming the hearing committee a sham, student organizers led 200 students up to the ninth floor of the Henry F. Hall Building where the university computers were housed. Rodney John said that this idea stemmed from the minutes of a meeting between administrators, wherein they said that the computer centre had to be guarded from student occupation due to the value of the goods within (see page 7). LeRoi Butcher, a participant in the occupation, described this action as “an effort to bargain from a position of strength.”

The demands of the students were the following:

“A public rejection of the hearing committee

A meeting between all parties to lay the ground rules for a new, reconstituted committee

An atmosphere free from all threats of reprisal and punitive action

Due consideration for the academic status of blacks who have lost study time organizing the protest

A dismissal of the civil and criminal charges facing three Black students”

Students occupied the “liberated data centre” for nearly two weeks. Between 200 and 400 people are estimated to have occupied the space for the majority of 13 days. Sir George students, of course, participated, as did students and activists from around the city. The occupation was led by Black students, but many of the occupiers were not Black, and joined in solidarity. The occupation is often overlooked in discussions of the Affair, in part because “you just had to be there,” in the words of Rodney John.

Participants described the occupied ninth floor as orderly and lively. Meetings were held daily at a set time in order to collectively make decisions regarding the space itself, as well as future action. Michelle Serano, a student protestor involved in the occupation, said that it was “incredibly exciting and stimulating at times. Other times, it was very boring.” Occupiers would come and go. Some stayed the night while others went home. Some students would leave the ninth floor to attend their classes.

On February 10, an agreement was about to be reached wherein University authorities would recognize the demands of the student occupiers. Later that evening, the Faculty Association vetoed the agreement. Many students occupying the computer centre, who were under the impression that the occupation was about to end, began to leave. Others stayed to clean up.

Up until February 11, the ninth floor had been kept clean and the computers had remained untouched. Student occupiers guarded the door to the computer lab itself, promising to only go into the lab if the police were called: they hoped the police would be less likely to beat them in a room full of expensive equipment. As described in the testimony of student participants, students viewed the occupation of the computer centre as leverage and as a potential guarantor of their safety, but ultimately wanted to protest peacefully and to return to their classes.

After negotiations broke down, Chet Davis, a Black professor at Sir George Williams, pleaded with acting Principal D.B. Clarke to allow the students to leave peacefully. Despite Davis’ attempts, and despite the fact that students had threatened to destroy the computers if the police were called, Clarke decided to call in the police.

On February 11, the local police arrived around 4:10 am. At this time, the police had no specific orders to arrest students, so they did not force their way further into the centre. They left shortly thereafter.

The students now knew that the police had been called, and they expected the riot squad to follow. Occupiers barricaded both entrances to the centre. They moved into the computer room and began to throw various objects out of the windows of the Hall Building. Most notably, computer punch cards were thrown out the window. By 9 am, the punch cards littered Mackay street.

Not long thereafter, a fire broke out. Legally speaking, the cause of the fire remains unknown.  At the time, most reports blamed the students. These reports seem to ignore how absolutely suicidal setting a fire in a barricaded space would be. Those who were on the ninth floor alledge that the police set the fire in order to, as one student wrote, “smoke them out.”

Students on the ninth floor were only able to escape the smoke by axing down a back door, but they escaped only to be embraced by the batons and blows of the police.

Black students were especially targeted. Police punched, kicked, and hosed the students; they burned them with cigarettes and beat them with riot clubs. Students were forced to stand with their hands on a wall for three hours. They were not allowed to move. If they did, they would be struck on the back with a baton.

While this was happening, protesters in support and in opposition to the occupation gathered on Maisonneuve, Mackay, and Bishop. Seeing the smoke coming out of the Hall building, counter-protesters shouted horrific, vitriolic chants, including “let the n***** burn.”

Ninety-seven students were arrested. Forty-two were Black. Thirty-five were women. Forty-four were Canadian, while 46 were foreign nationals. Those arrested were denied bail. They remained in jail for two weeks. Rosie Douglas, Anne Cools, and Brenda Dash, all participants in the occupation, served extended prison sentences. Some students were deported. Douglas, as well as many others, believes that Coralee Hutchison lost her life as a result of police battery: she received a blow to the head from a police baton on February 11. She later died due to a blood clot in her brain.

The occupation of the computer centre was the largest student occupation in Canadian history. It resulted in two million dollars worth of damages, more than any other act of civil disobedience in Canada. At least half of the damages were a consequence of the fire. This emphasis on numbers, however, effaces the impact that the Affair had on the lives of individuals. Being arrested, assaulted by the police, spending weeks in jail, getting deported: all of these consequences drastically altered the lives of those involved. Their lives are far more important than damages to physical property.

HOW THE AFFAIR HAS BEEN REMEMBERED

In short, it hasn’t. The Affair has by and large been forgotten. People just don’t know about it. If people do know, they are informed by how the Affair has been told by the media and by those who do remember it. Reports from 1969 immediately sided with the police and administration, demonizing student occupiers as “violent.” Property was valued more than lives, and reports played on preconceived notions tying Blackness to violence.

Little has changed. In a recent article in the Toronto Star, Sidhartha Banerjee writes that “the university called in police to quell the riot on Feb. 11.” What riot does he speak of? Students peacefully occupying the ninth floor for nearly two weeks? Students throwing punch cards from the windows after Clarke called the police on them? Banerjee simultaneously overstates the violence (if damaging physical property can even be called that) of the students  and neglects any mention of police brutality. He thus perpetuates the framing of students as violent and police as “keeping the peace,” despite the fact that all testimony would suggest the opposite.

In his seminal text Discourse on Colonialism, Aimé Césaire writes that colonial projects employ a “forgetting machine.” Maintaining power requires maintaining a certain narrative. Nearly every Montrealer I have mentioned this to had no knowledge of these events, or had only found out about it recently. No matter how we find out, we are shocked that we did not know. By demonizing students, the narrative ostracized students and made them pariahs. As a result, participants were silenced and the history of the Affair has been nearly erased.

But the history hasn’t been completely erased. Throughout the 50th anniversary of the occupation, a series of events called Protests and Pedagogy took place. A permanent exhibition based on archival photographs from the Affair was housed in the Fourth Space in the JW McConnell Building. These events, the space the central exhibition takes up, the play Blackout – they all contribute to a reinsertion of the Sir George Williams Affair into our collective memories.

Protests and Pedagogy’s exhibition displays previously hidden photos of the occupation; they are projected on screens around the room. At night, the projection reflects onto the windows which face the Hall Building. These windows become a double exposure of past and present. Printouts of The Georgian, one of Sir George William’s student newspapers, tell the story in their own complicated way. TV screens play clips from the meeting on January 29, 1969. The use of archives brings stunning photos out from the shadows. The black floors, the white surfaces, the museum-like stillness, however, felt a bit antithetical to the protests themselves: the sterility of the space puts the events staunchly in the past and is at odds with the dynamism of the occupation itself. Still, it is a space that makes room for memories of the Affair to be unearthed.

Conversations in the space bring it back to life. Many of those who were involved came to speak for various events. With such a lack of information on the protests, their testimony was illuminating. The predominant narrative surrounding the Affair denies the protesters agency, and this space gave them room to share their experiences.

One of the events in the Protests and Pedagogy series was a walkthrough of the ninth floor, led by Rodney John, Philippe Fils-Aimé, and Michelle Serano. Post-fire renovations have drastically altered the ninth floor, making it difficult to imagine the spatiality of the occupation. Nevertheless, the physicality of the space, the way that it seemed to bring back memories for the speakers themselves, gave the occupation and the events of February 11 a certain vivacity.

Blackout, a play presented by Tableau D’Hôte Theatre and developed in collaboration with Playwrights’ Workshop Montreal, engages with these events in a completely different way. By fictionalizing the Affair, the play is able to step into the world of Sir George Williams in 1969. The modern adaptation, filled with contemporary references that varied from pop culture to Black Lives Matter chants, merged the events of the past with the ongoing struggles of  the present. The all-Black cast emphasized this and allowed actors to eerily denaturalize white racism; Black actors act out and speak the racism of white characters, making the audience hyper-aware of the racism portrayed. The largely feminized cast also shifted 1960s Black Power movements, including the Sir George Williams Affair, away from their masculine mythology. Photos of Black Power in the 1960s, including photos of the Affair, mainly feature male participants; in contrast, the play’s feminized cast emphasized the role of women in the movement, even if they were not seen. By performing and fictionalizing the events ten floors below the site of the events themselves, in a theatre named after the acting principal during the events, D.B. Clarke, Blackout brought the Affair into the present.

On the whole, this event series helps us remember what has been forgotten: that the Sir George Williams Affair happened, and it happened in ways very different from how it has been told by  mainstream media. While commemoration can be limited in its political implications, remembering ultimately counters the idea of the “forgetting machine.”

WHY REMEMBER?

We must remember the Sir George Williams Affair for those who lived through it, who felt the consequences of their action, and for Coralee Hutchison, whose death was likely linked to police violence. We must remember the events to oppose Césaire’s “forgetting machine.” We must also remember the Affair to inform our own practice. University administrations – bureaucratic institutions of all kind – are resistant to change. We look at 1969 to understand the workings of the institution and to understand how action was met with brutal repression. Of course, this is not to say that the Affair should or could be repeated; it is to say that change comes from action, and it most effectively comes from action that has learnt from the past.

THE PAST AND PRESENT MERGE INTO ONE

The Concordia archives are tucked away on the West side of the tenth floor of the Hall Building, directly above where the computer centre was. I visited the archives last semester to do research on the “computer centre riots,” as the events are formally known there. Between stacks, I looked up at the windows, bolted shut since February 11, 1969. As I flipped through photos, I thought about them in relation to where I was sitting.

It was snowing when I left the Hall building, but given that it was late November, there was only a dusting. I walked out, onto the same street I had just seen covered by crowds, covered with so many computer punch cards that it looked like snow. For a brief moment, the past and the present seemed to merge into one.

The post Memories of the Sir George Williams Affair appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Those in favour of the course, by and large, argued that the course was an “academic opportunity.” Some argued that this “exclusively procedural” vote was being turned into a “proxy vote” for debates concerning Palestine. It was argued that voting against this fee would be hypocritical since the AUS Legislative Council had voted in favour of a course to take place in Italy.

Those opposed to POLI 339 reasoned that the motion was political; by approving the fee, AUS would be endorsing the course, they argued. They maintained it was wrong to endorse POLI 339 because Israel participates in ongoing settler-colonialism through its occupation of Palestine. Many opponents said the vote was not a proxy vote; rather, it was about students of all backgrounds being able to access the course. Opponents argued that students holding certain passports, students of Palestinian descent, and/or students involved in pro-Palestinian activism could be detained at the Israeli border, as in the case of American student Lara Alqasem who was detained for two weeks in an Israeli border detention facility. Endorsing such a course would create unequal opportunities for McGill students based on nationality, race, ethnicity, and political opinion, according to the dissenters of POLI 339.

Endorsing such a course would create unequal opportunities for McGill students based on nationality, race, ethnicity, and political opinion, according to the dissenters of POLI 339.

In a statement following the vote, McGill Students in Solidarity with Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR) has alleged that “many students who spoke against this program [were poorly treated].” Students who spoke against the motion were allegedly filmed by other members of the gallery. Additionally, a representative from World Islamic & Middle Eastern Studies Student Association’s (WIMESSA) point of personal privilege was repeatedly and harshly dismissed by the speaker. The point of personal privilege was about the emotional discomfort of Palestinian students at the candid discussion of villages from which their families were expelled. According to Robert’s Rules of Orders, which govern AUS Legislative Council meetings, points of personal privilege relate to matters that may affect an individual’s comfort or safety. A number of other points of personal privilege were addressed before the representative to WIMESSA’s point was rejected.

The Legislative Council voted for a confidential vote. All gallery members were asked to leave and representatives voted on ballots rather than by raising their placards.

According to anonymous sources, the vote was 13 for, 14 against, and four abstentions. After the vote, the rest of the agenda was tabled to the next meeting.

SPHR hailed the vote as a “victory,” while supporters of the motion were heard discussing ways to bring the motion to higher governing bodies.

This article was edited for clarity on February 15, 2019. The following sentences were added:
“Many opponents said the vote was not a proxy vote; rather, it was about students of all backgrounds being able to access the course.”
“According to Robert’s Rules of Orders, which govern AUS Legislative Council meetings, points of personal privilege relate to matters that may affect an individual’s comfort or safety. A number of other points of personal privilege were addressed before the representative to WIMESSA’s point was rejected.”

The post AUS Vote on POLI 339 appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The post Photos of Mérida, Mexico appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Background I: 1997 Supreme Court Decision

In the 1997 Delgamuukw v British Columbia case, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Wet’suwet’en people “had not given up rights and title to 22,000 spare kilometers of Northern British Columbia.” According the Canadian Encyclopedia, “the ruling also clarified the government’s duty to consult with Indigenous peoples, and affirmed the legal validity of oral history.”

Background II: 2010-2018

In 2010, a number of companies showed interest in using traditional Wet’suwet’en territory to transport oil and gas from Alberta to the West Coast. In response, Wet’suwet’en Nation members Freda Huson, of the Unist’ot’en House, and Warner Naziel (also known as Smogelgem), Hereditary Chief of the Laksamshu Clan, reoccupied traditional, unceded Wet’suwet’en territory. They built a camp on this reoccupied land “as a way to resist what [Huson and Naziel] see as unauthorized encroachment on their territory,” according to an APTN News article.

The camp is now known as the Unistot’en Camp, and acts as a permanent home for a number of residents. Huson told APTN News that the camp is “not a protest camp. It’s a homestead. We actually live here and we get visitors from all over the world that want to learn about what we are doing.” The Unist’ot’en Camp is also the site of a healing centre.

The Unistot’en Camp is located on the bank of the Wedniz Kwa, or Morice River. The bridge over the river is the only road access in or out of the camp. Similarly, Morice River Road, a 700 kilometre-long logging road, is the only road access to the camp.

Unistot’en Camp residents established a “Free, Prior, and Informed Consent protocol” for visitors of the camp to undergo before entering.  

On July 17, 2015, RCMP officers attempted to enter Unist’ot’en territory without permission, which led to the construction of a wooden gate on the bridge by Unistot’en residents. On July 23, representatives from Chevron, a multinational energy company that proposed the Pacific Trails pipeline, asked permission to enter the territory, offering a case of Nestlé bottled water in exchange. They were denied.

In 2016, representatives from the Northern Gateway pipeline, twin pipelines carrying unrefined oil from Alberta to the Pacific coast, attempted to access the Unistot’en Camp, but residents turned them away. The project was rejected by the Trudeau government later that year.

November-December 2018

More recently, Coastal GasLink, a 670-kilometre pipeline that would run from Dawson Creek to Kitimat, B.C., is projected to run through the Unistot’en Camp. TransCanada representatives attempted to enter the Unistot’en Camp, but they were denied access.

While the elected chiefs and councils of the five Wet’suwet’en bands have approved the pipeline, the nation’s hereditary chiefs oppose any such development on their traditional territory. Hereditary chiefs argue that they retain jurisdiction over the nation’s traditional territory, while the elected chief only has jurisdiction over the band’s reserves. Since the proposed pipeline will go through traditional Wet’suwet’en territory, hereditary chiefs say their approval is required.

In November, Coastal GasLink filed an injunction with the Supreme Court of British Columbia against four Unist’ot’en residents, including Huson and Naziel. Coastal GasLink claims they cannot reroute the pipeline. On December 14, the provincial Supreme Court sided with Coastal GasLink, ordering the gate across the Wedniz Kwa bridge to be removed. The gate was not removed. Instead, the Gitdimt’en Clan established another checkpoint beyond the injunction zone.

January 2019

On January 4, members of the RCMP’s Aboriginal Police Liaison division met with the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs. According to Naziel’s Facebook page, the RCMP indicated that specially trained forces would be used to enforce the injunction. This action, as Naziel puts it, would “forcibly remove Wet’suwet’en people from sovereign Wet’suwet’en territory,” which goes against Article 10 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Over the weekend of January 5-6, there were reports of “busloads of police” in the nearby towns of Houston and Smithers.

In an RCMP document, “Background on B.C. RCMP’s role in enforcing injunction order,” the police force states that “the RCMP respects the Wet’suwet’en culture, the connection to the land and traditions being taught and passed on at the camp, and the importance of the camp to healing” and that “the primary concerns of the police are public safety, police officer safety, and preservation of the right to peaceful, lawful and safe protest, within the terms set by the Supreme Court in the injunction.” Some commentators have pointed out  that the use of “specially trained tactical forces,” and the fact that the RCMP refused to provide details of the operation to hereditary chiefs, suggests that the RCMP aimed to “surprise and overwhelm” the Wet’suwet’en land defenders.

The Facebook page for the Wet’suwet’en access point on Gitdimt’en territory reports that the RCMP arrived at the checkpoint around 10:45 a.m. on Monday, January 7. The RCMP blocked access to the camp, meaning that the Hereditary Chiefs of the Wet’suwet’en Nation, members of the nation, the media, and the public were denied access to the camp. Communications were allegedly cut off soon after, a claim the police force denies. Video footage and various reports released after the events show that armed RCMP officers climbed over the gate, despite land protectors warning the RCMP that they would be trespassing by doing so. By 5 p.m., fourteen people, including Gitdimt’en spokesperson Molly Wickham had been arrested. Some land defenders moved closer to the Unist’ot’en camp and built more barricades. Carmen Nikal, one of the people arrested, was released that night. Others were brought to Prince George, which is over four hours away, to await a hearing with a Justice of the Peace. By Tuesday evening, seven of the remaining thirteen people arrested were released, and by Wednesday those remaining in custody had been released.

Tuesday, January 8 was declared an international day of solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en Nation. There were protests in over sixty cities around the world. In Montreal, there were two. Approximately 150 people gathered outside of Justin Trudeau’s constituency office, near Crémazie metro, during the morning demonstration. Marlene Hale, a Wet’suwet’en Frog Clan member, spoke. The demonstration turned into a street protest, blocking traffic on rue de Liege Est, an access road to the TransCanada highway, for about twenty minutes. The protest was declared illegal around noon, but no arrests were made. In Ottawa, protesters forced their way into a government building and delayed Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s speech.

By Wednesday evening, Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs reached a deal with the RCMP. According to a statement on the Unistot’en Camp website, the Hereditary Chiefs were not willing to risk the “injury or death” of their people for an interim injunction. The deal stipulates that Coastal GasLink will be allowed to temporarily work in Unistot’en territory. The Hereditary Chiefs, as well as the Unistot’en and Gitdimt’en land protectors, insist that this agreement is by no means consent to the Coastal GasLink pipeline. The RCMP said that it will also cease to block access to the Unist’ot’en Camp.

Many commentators have criticized B.C. Premier John Horgan and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s response to last week’s events. Horgan said that “the [UNDRIP] does not mean a veto; however, UNDRIP Article 10 requires free, prior, and informed consent of Indigenous peoples if they are to be removed or relocated from their territories, which the development of a pipeline through Unistot’en would require. At a town hall event in Kamloops, Trudeau and an audience member, Tilly, had a heated exchange. Trudeau discussed the history of colonialism and discussed reconciliation. Tilly, however, demanded more concrete answers and solutions. At the same town hall event, Arnie Jack, of the Shuswap nation, called the RCMP’s presence at Unist’ot’en a “national disgrace.”

Conclusion

Both the Unistot’en Camp and Gitdimt’en access point Facebook pages report that residents of the Unistot’en Camp were escorted back to their homes by the RCMP. At 11 a.m. on January 11, Coastal GasLink employees arrived at the Unistot’en Camp with a “heavy duty tow truck” and dismantled the blockade on the Wedniz Kwa bridge. Statements from Wet’suwat’en maintain that the survey crews that have been allowed in are wasting their time, since “no pipelines will be built on Wet’suwet’en territory.”

The post Understanding the Unistot’en Camp appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Julie Lassonde, chair of the Ad Hoc Senate Committee on Teaching Staff-Student Intimate Relationships, delivered the committee’s report at McGill’s Senate meeting on December 5. The committee was established as a response to student concerns over the McGill administration’s lack of action in the wake of numerous allegations of staff-student relationships, and instances wherein staff perpetuated sexual violence.

In April of this year, students held a demonstration to call on McGill to address the issue. The committee’s mandate was to make recommendations intended to inform subsequent policy.  

Report

Lassonde first discussed the committee’s composition and process, both in terms of consultations and its consensus-based nature. Then, she discussed the committee’s recommendations.

The committee recommends that relationships between students and teaching staff be prohibited when both parties are in the same academic unit, or if the staff member has an advising role on a student’s thesis. There are two exemptions to these stipulations. First, “the teaching staff has no supervisory/evaluative/teaching role over the student AND the relationship will not create the reality or perception of any unfair advantage or disadvantage to the student concerned or to other students in the unit AND the relationship will not place an undue burden on other faculty members within the unit who are obliged to make accommodations for their colleague;” second, “the relationship existed prior to both parties participating in the same academic unit AND each element of the category 1 exemption applies.”

Lassonde also emphasized the importance of disclosure, mandatory trainings, clear definitions of key terms, and transparency for proper implementation of the policy.

Notable Questions and Comments

After Lassonde delivered the report, the floor was opened to Senators’ questions and comments.

Arts Senator Madeline Wilson stated that based on students present, it would seem that consensus was not met. She then asked why a full ban was not recommended by the committee when students had consensus on recommending a full ban. Lassonde responded that she was not in a position to reveal information regarding individual responses, and that the recommendation of a full ban did not reach consensus.

Citing a recent Tribune article by the student members of the committee, which alleges that the committee on teaching staff-student relationships has failed students, Senator Nicholas Dunn, PGSS representative on the Senate, asked how consensus was reached. Lassonde explained consensus and responded that there was no request for a minority report.

Senator Jacob Shapiro, SSMU VP University Affairs, followed up on Wilson’s question. Lassonde responded by saying that three out of seven is not a majority view.

Senator Angela Campbell, Associate Provost (Equity and Academic Policies), then gave comments, saying that a complete ban is not legally possible. She also emphasized the administration’s various concessions to student demands.

Chair Suzanne Fortier, Chancellor of McGill University, also stated that complete bans, which have been instituted at Harvard and Yale, are new, and as a result, the consequences are not yet known.

Senator Sameer Zuberi, Diversity and Engagement Officer in the Faculty of Medicine, noted that the focus of the policy is on professors, but that attention should be paid to staff who interact with students. He also asked how those who have committed gendered and sexual violence against students will be held accountable. This raised a demand for the policy to outline clear consequences for those acting outside of the framework to be instituted.

Shapiro gave the last comment; he responded to various mentions of “both sides,” saying that the topic at hand is students’ safety, and that he hoped there was only one side on that matter. He asked why there was no ban, arguing that there had been no substantial response to the repeated question. Lassonde reiterated that the committee did not feel a full ban was necessary.

Student Presence at Senate

During the meeting, the back row of Leacock 232 was lined with about 20 students, who stood up when Lassonde was called to deliver the report. Most held signs, two of which read “we need a ban” and “don’t fuck your students.”

The meeting began at 2:30pm, and discussion of the committee’s report started around 4:00pm. As of 3:45pm, students were denied entry to senate, allegedly because Leacock 232 was at full capacity. Despite the fact that senators were leaving and reports of empty seats, security maintained that letting more people into the room would be a fire hazard.

Students chanted “we want a ban” as discussion of the committee’s report ended. Trying to speak over the chants, Fortier asked that students respect the work being done and suggested that they be quiet or leave. After a few more rounds of “we want a ban,” students stopped chanting and filed out.

More to come.

The post BRIEF: Report of Ad-Hoc Committee on Student-Teaching Staff Intimate Relationships appeared first on The McGill Daily.

History

Settler

Indigenous justice practices were disrupted, attacked, and displaced by the invasion of settlers and settler notions of law. Colonial ideas of “policing” came along with French and European colonizers, and, according to European models, a watchman system was established in 1651 in Quebec City. In 1840, Montreal established its police force, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) was created in 1873. The RCMP based its organizational model upon French traditions, as it was based more on military organization and strong leadership than on traditional policing.

The history of the introduction of settler ideas of justice and policing is intertwined not only with colonialism and violence against Indigenous populations, but also with the protection of capital and private property. Montreal’s history of policing goes back to the creation in 1663 of a volunteer militia made up of 120 men, which was charged with protecting farmland outside the walls of Ville-Marie rather than policing crimes within the settlement. For the next century, Montreal was policed by civilian militias, whose main goal was to protect the stores of the city’s growing merchant businesses. After the establishment of the City of Montréal in 1843, neighbourhood police, known as quarteniers, were created to keep watch over city districts. The Montreal Police Department was founded in 1865, expanding and specializing its duties as the city’s population increased. While earlier iterations of police forces in Montreal had been limited to watchmen duties and “chasing thieves,” the police force grew to include special sections including an Antisubversive Squad, Traffic Section, Major Offences Section, and a bafflingly-named “Morality Squad” (ironically, but not particularly surprisingly, four cops on Montreal’s Morality Squad were arrested in 2016 on accusations of sexual misconduct and perjury).  The Service de police de la communauté urbaine de Montréal was established in 1972, and consolidated all policing forces on the island of Montreal into one. This island-wide police force changed its name to the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM) in 2002.

As more formal policing organizations grew, they relied upon both “fostering voluntary compliance with the desired order” and “forcibly insisting on it.” Today, public police forces in Montreal are “armed paramilitary services charged with the general responsibility of social control.”

As protectors of a status quo within society, police play as an important role in reinforcing social, political, and economic norms, often through “implicit or overt threat of force,” which is the “ultimate coercive resource available to police.” The function and structure of Canada’s police forces have also been strongly shaped by a focus on police surveillance of the population and intelligence gathering, as the grid system of patrol was designed to create the most effective and wide-reaching net of police surveillance possible.

Now

Policing in First
Nations and Inuit Communities

Modern-day policing within Indigenous communities is based largely on settler/colonial conceptions of policing. For example, the Kahnawake community is policed by the Kahnawake Peacekeepers.They are trained like RCMP officers, the only difference being that at the end of training they do not swear allegiance to the queen. Communities that adhere to these methods of policing are severely underfunded. As a result, they have no freedom or funds to explore alternatives to settler policing. Often though, police “support” is sent from nearby stations in order to “handle” issues within Indigenous communities. This “support” is often in the form of settler police reinforcement and often times the police do not even speak the community’s language. However, other communities have decided to form different modes of “policing” within their communities according to their long-standing traditions and conceptions of justice. The Bear Clan Patrol in Winnipeg, for example, uses nonviolent techniques of to help ensure the safety of their Winnipeg’s North End. Other communities, such as the city of Chiliwack, provide units from the RCMP like The Upper Fraser Valley Regional Detachment First Nations Policing Section to police reserves. This organization extends its services to a variety of communities in British Columbia and serves to provide culturally sensitive approaches to policing, such as restorative justice.

As of November 15, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Ralph Goodale has announced that the Canadian government will allot $88.6 million over the period of seven years to focus on making the work environment of First Nations and Inuit police officers as safer. However, providing funds for more police officers will not help Indigenous communities. The police will always remain an oppressive force, especially within Indigenous communities. Adam Olsen, Green Party MLA of the Saanich North and the Islands’ electoral district, says that providing money for more police officers does not solve the issue of distrust First Nations people have in the police. Olsen, who is a part of Tsartlip First Nation, states, “when we are talking about the restoration of Indigenous languages, what we are talking about is investing in our culture of people. You can’t replace that with the addition of more police officers.” Although many people see the increased funding as an improvement, it still keeps police in power: as former Indigenous police officer Lloyd Alcon states, “we want to cut those ties of having to keep relying on everybody and actually build.” Indigenous communities should not have to constantly rely on outside help to define and police their nation; only autonomy and the allowance of alternative solutions to police can help.

Bear Clan Patrol
“Reclaiming Our Streets”

The Bear Clan Patrol is a volunteer safety group. Initially operating in the mid-1990s, the Bear Clan Patrol was resurrected after the death of Tina Fontaine in 2014. The group operated in Winnipeg’s North End, a neighbourhood with one of the highest densities of urban Indigenous populations in Canada. The group was re-formed almost immediately after news of Fontaine’s death; as co-founder James Favel told Vice in 2017, “people were crying out for direct action, boots on the ground, no more cops—to do something.”

Volunteers walk through the neighbourhoods, splitting into groups to cover ground and changing their route nightly. They respond to the needs of the people they encounter and give out donations. If someone is visibly intoxicated, they make sure that the person can get somewhere safe. They also help diffuse and de-escalate situations. Increasingly, they respond to drug overdoses. To respond to the latter, many Bear Clan Patrol members were trained to administer naloxone, a drug which can reverse overdoses, and volunteers carry kits on them. Bear Clan Patrol members are also trained in first-aid. However, when the situation is severe, the Bear Clan Patrol calls on paramedics.

The Bear Clan Patrol works, in part, by having established relationships with people in their neighbourhood and by building public trust. By knowing members of the community and by building ties over several years, the Bear Clan Patrol is able to help protect its community without dealing with the police.

The Bear Clan Patrol offers a clear alternative to policing. It shows how communities can build networks to protect themselves, without relying on the police. This autonomy is particularly important for Indigenous communities, who historically have been and who continue to be antagonized by police. The Bear Clan Patrol’s model has spread across the country: similar groups have formed in Regina, Thunder Bay, Kenora, and Toronto.

Future

MAP OF POLICE SHOOTINGS MONTREAL 2003-2018
Blue indicates injury. Red indicates death.

[special_issue slug=”police2018″ element=”footer”]

The post History of Policing appeared first on The McGill Daily.

“Aboriginal Soldiers Among Canada’s Top Snipers in First World War” by Nelson Wyatt, The Globe and Mail

“The Story of Canada’s WWI All-Black Military Battalion” CBC Kids

“Forgotten Muslim Soldiers of World War One ‘Silence’ Far Right” by Rahil Sheikh, BBC Asian Network

“My Grandpa, a Soldier Forgotten on Remembrance Day” by Stanford Li, CBC Montreal

These articles glorify service to the nation-state, specifically military service and sacrifice. As per Wyatt’s article, “modern sniping was born amid the muck of the battlefields of the First World War and some of its deadliest practitioners were soldiers from Canada’s First Nations communities.” This quote is evidence of how the “intersectional imperialist” discourse attempts to prove the worth of Indigenous people through their military success. It is dehumanizing to value individuals on the basis of their military success; people should be valued irrespective of their value as manpower to an imperialist Western state.

Reading these articles makes me think about marginalized communities seeking to be included in this narrative. While individuals wanting to “integrate” is understandable, the broader trend here, which justifies militarism, is concerning. Li writes, “it pains me to see that every year, a large number of people, like my grandpa, are left out of commemorations on Remembrance Day.” Perhaps the desire to be integrated into mainstream commemorations stems from respectability politics, wherein marginalized people conform to societal conceptions of respectability in the hopes of advancing their position within the social hierarchy.

It is dehumanizing to value individuals on the basis of their military success; people should be valued irrespective of their value as manpower to an imperialist Western state.

In a more extreme example of respectability politics, Hayyan Bhabha told the BBC Asian Network: “the core far-right narrative is that Muslims have never done anything for us. Well, actually, with facts that are over 100 years old, we can say Muslims fought and died for the history and security of Europe.” Here, Bhabha attempts to challenge the far-right’s Islamophobia by emphasizing the contributions of Muslims in both World Wars. He is arguing that Muslims should be valued because they “fought and died for the history and security of Europe.” It is preposterous to think that xenophobic, Islamophobic groups will repent upon the discovery that Muslims have proven their worth by fighting for Britain. Racism and Islamophobia are ideologies that will not be defeated by engaging with racist or Islamophobic rhetoric. They must be challenged by valuing Muslims for their inherent worth as people.

Furthermore, by focusing on the actions of individuals, the state and military are absolved of responsibility for their systemic violence, be it the violence of war or the violence of colonialism.

In terms of the literal violence of war, none of these articles mention any of the atrocities of WWI or WWII, apart from vague mentions of “sacrifice.” In Li’s article, he writes “it’s only by honouring all sacrifice, no matter the nationality, just like at Langemark, that we can erase past animosities and avert future conflict.” This line begs the question, sacrifice for what? Talking about sacrifice in the abstract – i.e. without talking about the individual and material ramifications of war – is meaningless. In Wyatt’s article, he writes “foremost among them was Cpl. Francis Pegahmagabow, credited with 378 kills during his four years on the shell-shattered front lines of Europe.” To speak so casually of his “kill score” is also dehumanizing to those killed. Military killings are sanctioned, sanitized, and normalized in these attempts to integrate marginalized peoples into the mainstream military discourse.

In the article about Muslim participation in the World Wars, absent is any mention that the subcontinent was under British colonial rule until 1947. Therefore, there is obviously no mention of the violence of British rule in India or of the coercive dynamics that led to such large populations of South Asians fighting in the World Wars.

Talking about sacrifice in the abstract – i.e. without talking about the individual and material ramifications of war – is meaningless.

The CBC Kids article discusses the existence of an all-Black battalion in WWI, which became “one of the most important military units in Canadian history.” The article specifies that Black men were initially told they could not enlist. However, there is no mention of the structural economic and social barriers that Black people would continue to face for over 100 years, be it discrimination, economic barriers, or state sanctioned violence (i.e. police brutality). Similarly, the piece on Indigenous snipers glorifies their participation while making no mention of the ongoing cultural genocide of Indigenous people perpetuated by the Canadian state. Residential schools, for example, were in full swing in the 1910s. To emphasize the service of Indigenous people in the Canadian Armed Forces without discussing the state’s forced assimilation is to erase the latter.

Not only does talking about individuals in a vacuum erases the state’s violence, it also is historically inaccurate. Significant outcomes of WWI were the anti-war and pacifist movements. By forgetting these condemnations of war, we are distanced from the horrors many hoped to avoid. None of these articles engage with war in the contemporary context, nor do any commemorations: they are stuck in the past. More true to the spirit of the Armistice are the actions of London activists who laid orange (read: lifeboats) wreaths at the UK Ministry of Defense. The vigil has happened annually on Remembrance Day since 2016. It is a protest against the UK government’s inaction in the face of an ongoing humanitarian crisis; 16-17 people die every day attempting to cross the Mediterranean sea to seek refuge in Europe, 33,000 people have drowned since 2000, and 5,000 people died trying to reach the UK. The protestors argue that the British government’s lack of aid in the form of long term solutions to the situation amounts to violence, particularly given the devastating impacts of British colonialism and neo-colonialism in the Middle East. To these protestors, to remember war is to remember ongoing violence. This vigil engages with the present and demands a response to the ongoing crisis.

We must resist attempts to integrate historically marginalized people into pro-military narratives. We must value people of colour for their inherent worth, not because they served “King and Country.” We must remember why we oppose war and continue to oppose conflicts today

The post “The Military Is For Everyone” appeared first on The McGill Daily.

On November 9, students at McGill and Concordia organized banner drops to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the Kristallnacht. The Kristallnacht, or The Night of Broken Glass, was a pogrom against Jews throughout Germany and German-controlled territories on the night of November 9-10, 1938. Synagogues were burned, Jewish owned businesses were looted and vandalized, and many Jewish homes were attacked and destroyed. At least 91 Jews were killed, 30,000 Jewish men were sent to concentration camps, and many others were tortured and raped.

At McGill, students gathered in front of the main entrance to the McLennan Library. The banner, placed along the railing on the pathway leading to McLennan, read “Jews Against Fascism,” with the Antifa flag within a Star of David. Abigail Drach opened with the lines: “we gather to show that the Jewish anti-fascist resistance is still here, and that we will outlive them.” The protest lasted about 70 minutes, during which time, those gathered sang “Ale Brider,” “Oyfn Priperchik,” “Ose Shalom,” “Partisan Lid,” and “This Little Light of Mine.” They also distributed flyers to people passing by. Drach told the Daily that they “received a lot of support from students passing by.” Within an hour of leaving the site, their banner – which had been left up – disappeared.

Drach also told the Daily how the presence at the banner drop of Arts Representative to SSMU, Andrew Figueiredo affected the demonstration. She said that she was concerned when she saw the representative “taking pictures of the banner and the people gathered around it, who were mostly Jews and/or POC.” She further stated that “he called to us ‘smile’ in a tone that made [her] feel threatened. Such behaviour, regardless of intention, is completely inappropriate at a Holocaust commemoration where people are grieving massive loss of life. Moreover, the dynamic of a non-Jewish white man surveilling a group of predominantly Jewish and/or POC non-men at an antiNazi event is disturbing.”

Representative Figueiredo responded to the statements in an email to the Daily, saying that “I can be found attending or observing events hosted by a variety of groups to better understand different perspectives. I took one picture of the rally and greeted those in attendance. I’m a friend of the Jewish community and will always advocate for the best interest of Arts students and McGill community more broadly.”

At Concordia, students unfurled a banner from the balcony of the mezzanine of the Hall Building which read “Jewish Anti-fascism,” with similar imagery to the banner at McGill. Then, from the ground floor, Tali Ioselevich gave a speech. In their speech, they said “[on the anniversary of the Kristallnacht,] we are reminded that the same words that were used to persecute Jews and deny them entry into safer countries as refugees in the 20th century are being revived today to persecute and deny safety to people of many religions and ethnicities.” Participants sang “Ale Brider.” Ioselevich then reread the speech, so that it would be heard by a new wave of passerby.

Both protests disrupted foot traffic. Both also emphasized the importance of contemporary antifascist organizing. Ioselevich said “the memory of Kristallnacht moves us to highlight the rise of fascism today. […] This is not history; this violence is our reality.”

The post Jewish Antifa Rally appeared first on The McGill Daily.

On November 6, Americans participated in midterm elections, voting in senators, house representatives, and governors. Early estimates say that over 113 million people voted in the midterms, with an incredible surge of young people and women. This election is believed to be a referendum on President Trump and how the public feels about his government. After two years of Republican rule, Democrats gained control of the House, winning 31 additional seats to secure a majority (some races are still undetermined).

The 2018 midterms saw many historical victories across the country. More than 100 women were elected: 95 in the House of Representatives and 12 in the Senate, among them were a record 42 women of colour. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Abby Finkenauer (D-IA) both became the youngest women ever to be elected to Congress at the age of 29. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), became the first Muslim women to serve in Congress, as well as becoming the first Somali-American congresswoman and Palestinian-American congresswoman, respectively. Breaking ground for Native Americans, Sharice Davids (D-KS) and Deb Haaland (DNM) became the first Native American women elected to Congress, 56 years after Native Americans were granted the right to vote. Additionally, more than 100 LGBTQ candidates won races at the federal, state, and local levels. Jared Polis, Chris Pappas, Tammy Baldwin, Jennifer Web, and the aforementioned Sharice Davids are all the first openly LGBTQ identifying candidates to be elected in their respective states.

Suicide Crisis in Nunavik
Content warning: suicide

So far in 2018, 15 youths have taken their own lives in Nunavik, the subarctic region of Quebec. This suicide crisis is affecting an area with a population of 12,000, 90 per cent of whom are Inuit. In October alone, two people took their lives in Kuujjuaq, a town of 3,000. In response, Kativik Ilisarniliriniq (Nunavik’s school board) organized an emergency meeting from October 30-31 to “plot out a course of action.” Seventy people from various Nunavik organizations attended, as did a delegation from the Quebec government.

Robert Watt, president of the Kativik council of school commissioners, addressed the crisis in a letter to government officials: “over the past four weeks, our communities have dealt with youth suicides that directly affected students, families and staff in Nunavik.” Watt also wrote, “one of the victims was as young as 11 years old. We feel the situation requires urgent collective action at the regional level.”

Tunu Napartuk, the mayor of Kuujjuaq, opened the meeting calling for immediate action: “we are talking about the same thing from ten years ago, we keep passing the buck. We need to break this wall, during today and tomorrow, how can we start breaking the wall?”

In a press release, Quebec’s new government stated that they are “concerned about this situation, and wishes to support Indigenous communities.” It is also stated that “the ministries concerned will […] be advised of the measures to be taken.” While the Quebec government sent a delegation to the emergency meeting and has announced a Public Inquiry Commission on relations between “Indigenous Peoples and certain public services in Quebec,” they have not yet announced any concrete actions or policy. Due to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, health care services are under provincial jurisdiction. Mary Simon, Kuujjuaq native and former ambassador to Denmark, lost her 22 year-old niece to suicide this year. In a public post on Facebook, she wrote, “we desperately need ongoing mental health support and services in every Inuit community.” She and others have emphasized the lack of physical and mental health services for Inuit communities. Simon pointed out that she had made a previous plea for government aid in the crisis two years ago in a report, yet did not receive the support requested. “I am making this plea again and others should do likewise,” she said.

This phenomenon is not limited to Nunavik. Statistics show that First Nations youths are five to six times more likely to commit suicide than non-Indigenous youths. In the case of Inuit youth, the rates are eleven times the national average. The suicide crisis in Nunavik is also reminiscent of the 2015- 2016 crises in First Nations in Manitoba and Northern Ontario.

Mass Emigration in Venezuela

According to a United Nations report published on November 1, three million people have fled Venezuela since 2015, one in 12 people of the country’s population. The increase of people leaving Venezuela is a result of political and economic crises, including an increase in violence, hyperinflation, and lack of food and medicine. The crisis has been ongoing since 2015; however, conditions have worsened in the last six months, forcing elevated more people to flee. In August 2018, the United Nations declared it one of the largest mass migrations in Latin American history.

2.4 million migrants have relocated to, or sought refuge in, other Latin American countries or other parts of the world. Over one million migrants have fled to Colombia, which shares a border with Venezuela, with 3,000 new migrants arriving every day. Peru has received over half a million Venezuelans thus far, with Ecuador, Argentina, Chile, and Brazil also taking in a substantial number of migrants.

Under the current president, Nicolás Maduro, economic and political conditions have worsened after oil prices started falling in 2014. Previous to the price drop, Venezuela earned 96 per cent of its revenue from oil. Maduro has called the migration crisis “fake news” created to justify interference on an international scale.

The World Bank warns that other Latin American countries should expect more migrants in the near future, as political change in the country cannot be expected soon. While neighbouring countries have taken in large numbers of migrants, the situation warrants “a more robust and immediate response from the international community,” according to Edward Stein, the Joint Special Representative for Refugees and Migrants from Venezuela for the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and International Organization for Migration (UNHCR-IOM).

The post Outside The Bubble appeared first on The McGill Daily.

On November 4, family and friends of Nicholas Gibbs, as well as members of the public, gathered in Trenholme Park to honour his life. Approximately 150 people attended the vigil. The Notre-Dame-de-Grâce (NDG) park was a block away from where Gibbs was fatally shot by the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM) on August 21.

On August 21, the SPVM were called to “break up a fight” on Montclair Avenue and Maisonneuve Boulevard. The police allege that Gibbs had a knife, that lethal force was necessary in the altercation, and that they acted in self-defence. In a video released by the Gibbs family, taken by a witness from a nearby apartment building, police are heard saying that Gibbs has a knife, but the knife is not visible in the video. The video shows that the SPVM made no visible attempt to de-escalate the situation. It also shows the SPVM shooting Gibbs five times, including once in the back.

The family of Nicholas Gibbs is now suing the city for his death. In court documents, they say police used “excessive and disproportionate force.” They are seeking $1,035,000 in moral damages and $100,000 in punitive damages, as well as interest and legal costs.

The November 4 vigil began at Trenholme Park, where tea and coffee were provided by organizers Head & Hands and Rest to Resist. Joseph Aniataraken, a Mohawk Elder from Kahnawake, opened the gathering by giving thanks to land and nature, Anna Aude from the Black Indigenous Harm Reduction Alliance gave a land acknowledgement, and Marlihan Lopez from Black Lives Matter Montreal spoke about police violence in Montreal’s impact on those at the intersection of race, mental illness, and class.

Participants then marched north on Park Row East to Sherbrooke, east on Sherbrooke to Montclair, south down Montclair to Maisonneuve. The SPVM closed off all relevant streets and guided the march, but kept their distance as marchers chanted “Black Lives Matter” and “No Justice, No Peace. Fuck the Police.”

At the site of Gibbs’ death, members of Gibbs’ family spoke: his nephew Jeremy, his sisters Tricia and Tamesha, and his mother Erma. Jeremy Gibbs thanked everyone for coming, and said that “seeing everyone here made [him] realize that people cared.” He expressed grief at his uncle’s death, saying “half of me is gone.” Erma Gibbs said “the police had no right to kill my son.”

The procession then walked along Maisonneuve  back towards Park Row East. An open mic was established: participants performed poetry, read their work, expressed solidarity with the family, and encouraged people to donate to the Gibbs family’s GoFundMe.

In an interview with the Daily, Marlihan Lopez from Black Lives Matter Montreal reiterated a sentiment expressed by many of Gibbs’ family members: “police should not be first responders to mental health crises. This has to stop. They’re not equipped to address these crises. We know that racial bias contributes; it intersects with ableism.” Many family members talked about Gibbs’ history of struggling with mental health problems, but focused on the SPVM’s inability to address the situation.

All speakers emphasized that the SPVM has proved that they are not competent first responders. Erma Gibbs said that police need to be better trained, especially since they wield weapons. As it stands, she said, “the police cannot be trusted.”

The post Nicholas Gibbs Vigil: “The Police Cannot Be Trusted” appeared first on The McGill Daily.

On October 28, despite the sleet, about two hundred people gathered in front of Montreal’s Holocaust Museum to commemorate the lives of those killed in the Pittsburg synagogue shooting. The vigil was organized by Independent Jewish Voices (IJV) Montreal, IJV McGill, am McGill, and If Not Now McGill.

Speakers, including Niall Ricardo, Sam Hersh, Hani Abramson, and Rachel Kronick reaffirmed their Jewish identity and emphasized anti-Semitism as part of broader racist violence. Niall Ricardo told The McGill Daily that “anti-Semitism doesn’t exist in a void; it’s tied to all kinds of racism and discrimination linked to the global rise of fascism.” Samer Majzoub, the President of the Canadian Muslim Forum, and Shaheen Junaid, the President of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, spoke as well. Both offered their sympathies and emphasized the importance of solidarity in the face of violence and racism.

Two other vigils have been organized in Montreal since then. One, organized by Federation CJA and CIJA-Quebec, took place Monday at 7:30pm at the Beth Israel Beth Aaron Congregation. The Congregation was at its maximum capacity; estimates range between several hundred and over a thousand attendees. Both David Ouellette, Director of Research and Public Affairs at CIJA-Quebec, and Lesli Green, Chief Communications Officer of Federation CJA, emphasized the importance of this vigil for Montreal’s Jewish community.
Another vigil, organized by McGill, Concordia, and UdeM organizations such as Israel on Campus at McGill, IJV McGill, McGill Jewish Studies Students’ Association, Ghetto Shul, CIJA-Québec, Hillel Montreal, and others, took place at Concordia and McGill at 5:00p.m. on Tuesday, October 30. The Y intersection was full; approximately three hundred people attended. Jazlyn Hellman, President of Am McGill, told The McGill Daily that this vigil was important for campus Jewish communities to come and grieve together, both at McGill and Concordia.

Niall Ricardo, of IJV Montreal, told The McGill Daily that various organizations such as Federation CJA and Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) were invited to the vigil on Sunday, but they declined. Ricardo implied that this had to do with the differing positions of the organizations in terms of Israel: one of IJV’s key tenets is Palestinian solidarity, which is not an opinion shared by Federation CJA and CIJA. Ouellette, of CIJA-Quebec, said that the Sunday vigil was announced very shortly after the shooting, and that his organization was busy preparing for Monday’s vigil. Hellman, of Am McGill, said that because the shooting happened on Shabbat, during which some Jews do not work or use electricity, certain people were not aware of the vigil or could not attend.

Representatives from all three vigils emphasized that these events brought communities together. More specifically, it brought the Jewish community together in the face of rising anti-Semitism.

The post Mourning Pittsburgh appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Northward, the sky was grey. Southward, it was still clear and blue. Thunder echoed off of the concrete six-lane street, as did the neighbouring children’s half-scared, half-excited yells in response who to each celestial bellow.

I was a block and a half from Alejandra Zaga Mendez’s campaign office when it started to pour. Sheets of rain broke the air’s humid seal. I ran to the office, but I still arrived soaked. Alejandra and a member of her team, Ricardo, were trying to figure out if the power had gone out. It had. Alejandra and I sat down by the window in the dark office as the rain came splashing down onto the street.

Alejandra Zaga Mendez is a Québec Solidaire candidate for the riding of Bourassa-Sauvé, situated in Montréal-Nord. Montréal-Nord is situated at the Northern edge of the Island of Montreal. It is an immigrant-heavy borough; 42 per cent of residents were born somewhere other than Canada and 14 per cent of residents do not have Canadian citizenship. The borough is also one of the poorest parts of Montreal; 42 per cent of people earn less than $20,000 per year and low income households comprise 21.7 per cent of all households in the borough. Alejandra grew up in the riding, just a bit further east than the campaign office.

In our interview, Alejandra told me that she has been politically active since a young age. In August 2008, she was galvanized by the death of Fredy Villanueva. Villanueva was an 18-year-old Honduran immigrant who was killed by SVMP officers in Montréal-Nord’s Henri-Bourassa park (now known to locals as Fredy Villanueva park). Alejandra said that she and many other residents of Montréal-Nord felt connected to Villanueva’s death: “we felt that he could have been one of us, growing up here, coming from an immigrant background.” Villanueva’s death sparked protests in Montréal-Nord, and led to the birth of Montréal-Nord Républik and Hoodstock. Montréal-Nord Républik is a community organization that describes itself as “a popular movement born in the crossfires of revolt in Montréal-Nord in August 2008;” Hoodstock is a yearly conference run by Montréal-Nord Républik held on the anniversary of Fredy Villanueva’s death. Alejandra was involved with both.

In 2009, Alejandra moved to the West Island to study Agriculture and Environmental Sciences at McGill’s MacDonald campus. She recalls receiving her acceptance letter in her second year of CEGEP and thinking “I’m not going.” Without scholarships, her family would not have been able to afford to send her to McGill. McGill’s tuition is a substantial expense for families living on low-incomes. Alejandra had to move in order to study at MacDonald campus; the commute between Montreal-North and the West Island takes over two hours in each direction via public transportation. She felt something she describes as somewhat of a “cultural clash” at McGill, something she also noticed while studying the Arts and Science at Collège Bois-de-Boulogne. She noticed the difference between her public school education and the private school education of many of her peers in CEGEP and at McGill. She noticed the discrepancy between the cultural cues she had been exposed to and those of her peers. But, Alejandra does not see either as a barrier. Rather, she sees this “clash” as a challenge to overcome. Over time, Alejandra realized that she has “[another] knowledge:” a knowledge she shares with many kids who grew up in Montréal-Nord. This knowledge, she explains, is a strength that many of those growing up in Montréal-Nord build in response to their experiences. To her, this “other knowledge” is a treasure. Alejandra, half-jokingly, discussed how while other students were overwhelmed by midterms, she was able to keep academic stress in perspective. To her, midterms might mean pulling an all-nighter studying, but to her, that in itself was a privilege. And, while she felt a “clash” at McGill, her university experience gave her the opportunity to “learn about what was going on out there — what other people think.” During her time at McGill, she met people from around the world. She learned about issues elsewhere through peers who were open to learning about local issues in Montreal. “There’s a whole world out there,” she said. “We don’t all have the same background, and we can learn from our different experiences.”

Alejandra was also at McGill for the student protests of 2012, which opposed tuition hikes for Quebec students. Her and a few other students organized protests on MacDonald campus. To her, a major challenge during the protest movement was articulating what it meant to be a Quebec student to those who came from outside of the province. To Alejandra, being a Quebec student is not defined by not having a CSQ;* it’s defined by living and studying in the province. Alejandra argues that “international” students should be concerned with in local issues because they live and study at partially publicly-funded institution. Alejandra emphasized the importance of solidarity: “it wouldn’t advantage [international students] personally,” she said, but out-of-province students could have, and were allies to the protest movement during the spring of 2012. “There was a lot of explaining to do,” but Alejandra argues that the protests brought out-of-province students into contact with local movements.

After her completing her undergraduate degree, Alejandra did a Master’s of Science in Renewable Resources at McGill. She also attended the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 2012 and the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Lima in 2014. As she spoke with groups from across South America about poverty and ecological justice, she was reminded of the poverty she saw in Montréal-Nord. While acknowledging the different degree of poverty in Quebec and in Brazil, she noticed a pattern: both in Rio and in Montreal, those living in poor communities have little access to opportunities beyond the neighbourhood where they are born. Seeing how environmental policies directly exacerbate inequality in South America, it became clear to Alejandra that those who have the fewest opportunities are paying the highest price for a global lack of consideration for the environment. Nevertheless, she said it was inspiring to see Indigenous communities from Peru, Ecuador, and Chile articulate environmental issues not only as priorities, but as their rights. She recalled the words of an Indigenous elder from the conference in Lima: “we cannot negotiate life.” To her, this statement crystallized the ways in which the Global North, and the governing classes in the Global North, are exporting the impacts of their negligent environmental policies.

Today, Alejandra is a key member of Québec Solidaire. She is running to be the Member of National Assembly (MNA) for Bourassa-Sauvé. Despite the fact that she’s running as a candidate, Alejandra acknowledges that there is validity in certain forms of cynicism. “Over and over again,” she says, “we have given power to the same elites who are not working for us.” But, Alejandra found like-minded people in Québec Solidaire: people who had backgrounds in community organizing, people had worked from the ground up. As an example of Québec Solidaire listening to the grassroots, she cited her experience drafting policy for the party’s $15 per hour campaign promise. She, Manon Massé, and others, first met with activists lobbying for an increase in the province’s minimum wage, namely non-unionized workers and workers without status. Then, they met with unions and other proponents. After receiving the input of various proponents, Québec Solidaire drafted their bill. To Alejandra, this approach is important on two fronts. First, the party must respond to and reflect the wishes of activists and community organizers as informal representatives of their respective communities. Second, the party must also be held accountable by independent grassroots movements. While the party ought to draw inspiration from grassroots movements, Alejandra believes that it should not co-opt them; “we need people on the ground fighting for each issue so that we have a balance between the government and independent social movements,” she said.

Working at the provincial level is important to Alejandra because of its legislative jurisdiction. “All of my political involvement has been with provincial issues: economic justice, health, education, even the environment. They’re all under provincial jurisdiction.” Provincial-level politics are also important to Alejandra in terms of the project for sovereignty. Interestingly — to my anglophone ears, at least — she argued for sovereignty from a decolonial and ecological perspective. Alejandra finds it unacceptable that Canada continues to exist as a settler-colonial state. Sovereignty would force negotiations between the Quebec state and Indigenous people, on whose land we reside. While many see this as an insurmountable barrier to the project for independence, Alejandra has faith in cooperation between the Quebec state and Indigenous keepers of the land, citing Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador leader Ghislain Picard’s positive response to meetings with Manon Massé.

When I pressed Alejandra on how to disentangle ethno-nationalism from the separatist movement, Alejandra made it clear that if Québec Solidaire were interested in an ethno-nationalist conception of sovereignty, she would not be a part of the party. However, her answer focused on the positive, and perhaps theoretical, aspects of such a campaign, rather than on how to avoid entanglement with ethno-nationalist rhetoric. To Alejandra, the nationalist sovereignty views Quebec’s independence as an end in itself, whereas independence to Québec Solidaire is a means to a more progressive and empowered Quebec. She went on to discuss the process through which a referendum would happen under Québec Solidaire. The party would instate a constituents assembly, a body of elected non-partisan representatives from across the province, to draft a constitution. Then, the Quebec public would vote on a sovereign state as outlined by the constitution. This clear and democratic process, to Alejandra, is the key to building a progressive Québecois state.

The Québec Solidaire policies that are most important to Alejandra are those she sees impacting her community most directly: $15 per hour minimum wage, health care, and education. In Montréal-Nord, where over four in ten residents earn less than $20,000, the impacts of a raise in the minimum wage are clear: people will have more money to spend on things like rent, groceries, and school supplies. Furthermore, Alejandra argues that raising the minimum wage will boost the local economy. Merchants and local entrepreneurs want to open business in the area, but, Alejandra argues, “there is insufficient demand because people don’t have enough money. People are choosing between buying their groceries locally or at Costco.” To that end, Alejandra suggests that “raising the minimum wage up to $15 per hour will cause people to distribute their money locally,” which, in turn, helps lead to local job creation.

In terms of health, Alejandra says that the need for universal dental care is clear. “People on the street tell us — show us — that they don’t have teeth because they don’t have the money to pay for one dentist appointment per year.” Alejandra argues that lack of access to dental health replicates social inequality, so providing universal dental care is a key facet of alleviating inequality.

The third central policy priority of Alejandra’s campaign in Bourassa-Sauvé is public transportation. As STM passes can be a significant expense for low-income residents of the constituency, Alejandra sees an importance in halving public transportation fees, in accordance with Québec Solidaire’s campaign promise. But, she also sees the importance in increasing funding for public transportation, especially in order to improve access to areas like Montréal-Nord. “We’re really far from downtown,” Alejandra said. For reference, it took me nearly an hour to get to the campaign office — on the Western edge of the riding — from Mont-Royal metro station. “If you don’t have a car and you have a job downtown, you don’t have a good way to get downtown,” she continued. Like Québec Solidaire, Alejandra links higher access to public transportation with a decrease in the usage of cars. To her, therefore, investing in public transportation is important for the mobility of people in her community and for the environment.

Finally, Alejandra emphasizes Québec Solidaire’s policies on education when talking to people in her riding. The party proposes free education, as they put it, from CPE* to PhD. “You see so many families with three kids who don’t have the $21 per day [to send their kids to CPEs].” To her, this too is a matter of poverty reduction. And, while she had access to scholarships, she discussed the importance of making university more accessible.

Alejandra supports Québec Solidaire’s vision for the future of Québec. She supports the party’s plan for a drastic economic transition, which would reorient the economy around better environmental practices. To her, the government ought not be subservient to corporate interests, nor should it exclusively focus on balancing budgets and minimizing debt. Alejandra argues that after fifty years of governments that passively respond to crisis, Québec needs a government that is proactive ─ a government that engages in ‘nation-building’ projects, such as HydroQuébec or the CEGEP system. With its economic and environmental transition plan, its policies about universal education and dental care, and with its emphasis on expanding public transport infrastructure, Québec Solidaire is reviving this approach to governance in Quebec politics.

While Québec Solidaire only had three members in the National Assembly (MNA), Alejandra says the party is growing. She’s right; Québec Solidaire is rising in the polls, having reached an all-time high of 14.6%. Relative to the number of MNAs, Québec Solidaire has a disproportionate amount of members: 20,000, while the governing party, the Liberal Party of Québec, have 30,000. The party is set to retain their seats in Montreal, gain a few more on the island, and potentially expand to the riding of Taschereau in Québec city. At the very least, their campaign has made them far more visible than in previous years. Alejandra says that it’s up to “the people to decide,” but she suggested that Québec Solidaire does not have anywhere to go but up. While, inevitably, the Liberals, the Coalition Avenir Québec, or even the PQ will form government after October 1st, Québec Solidaire is building an alternative movement and is keeping leftist principles alive in the political sphere. To paraphrase the speech Amir Khadir gave at Alejandra’s campaign launch in early September, winning elections is about hard work and defying odds. But, even in the ridings that aren’t won, the groundwork for the next election, or the following, is being built.

In Bourassa-Sauvé, a Liberal stronghold, Alejandra thinks she has good chances. “People here don’t trust the Liberals,” she said in a speech at her campaign launch. “They feel forgotten.” She said that she had not crossed a single candidate while campaigning. Regardless of the outcome, she said that she was “ready to make this Liberal fortress tremble.”

It was no longer raining when I left the interview, but the power was still out. I stopped in a grocery store on the corner of Fleury and Boulevard Saint-Michel. People were walking around, using their phones as flashlights. It felt childishly fun to be pulled out of the ordinary — to be exploring a grocery store as though it were the site of a scavenger hunt.

I walked down Saint-Michel and waited for the bus. I watched kids play on a balcony above a strip mall. The bus didn’t come for some time. I was in no rush; it was summer, and soon I would be back in the Plateau, where I would have plenty of metro stations and frequent bus lines, and where I would be close enough to bike to most places I venture to in under thirty minutes. Others there, however, were getting increasingly impatient — pacing, tapping their feet, scrolling indefinitely on their phones. When the bus came, there were three in a row. We shuffled on and were shuttled to the metro.

I re-emerged, out from the underground, at Mont-Royal. The sky was clear. It felt like it hadn’t even rained.

*Quebec selection certificate: a certificate that allows students, permanent residents, or other immigrants, to reside in Quebec
** (Centre de la petit enfance; a public program for children under the age of five that falls somewhere between a daycare and a pre-school)

The post Alejandra Zaga Mendez: The Importance of Local Activism appeared first on The McGill Daily.

With the exception of a brief PQ government from 2012-2014, the PLQ has governed the province since 2003. As a result, the guiding principle in this election seems to be a desire for change. The CAQ, whose policies consist of lowering taxes and creating more room for “innovation” by creating tax breaks for businesses, while hoping to improve Quebec’s public education and health services, is leading in the polls: the CAQ is polling at 36.6%, the PLQ at 28.7%, the PQ at 18.4%, QS at 10.9%, and all smaller parties comprise 5.4% altogether. The PLQ’s position in the polls, and general public opinion of them, makes it seem increasingly unlikely that they will win in October. The PQ is trailing behind, and QS, the only remaining economically-left party, has yet to make substantial headway beyond Montreal.

A few students who spoke to the Daily about the upcoming election expressed support or appreciation for Québec Solidaire. U1 Arts Student, Rachel Schleifer, told the Daily in an interview: “I really admire the values of QS. Their platform is focused on issues such as environmentalism, social justice, and access to education. I also like that the party does not have a sole leader in the traditional sense and instead has two spokespeople, one female and one male […] I value their inclusion of candidates and willingness to work with various community activists in the province.” Another student, Mayaluna Zama Bierlich, U2 Arts, echoed these sentiments in a separate interview, saying, “I’m voting for Québec Solidaire because I believe that their policies most closely reflect my own political beliefs, and that they’re genuinely committed to adopting those policies.”

Schleifer also touched on a particularly prevalent issue in this election: separatism and independence. “Québec Solidaire shares this goal of separating Quebec from Canada, but I do think that separation is not as prevalent in these elections as it has in past years. And unlike many other Quebecois parties, QS does not use themes of racism or cultural prejudice to further their goals of provincial sovereignty”. Only one of the four parties evaluated here, the PLQ, is a federalist party, meaning that they support Canadian confederacy and Quebec’s role within it.
Chloe Wong-Mersereau, an U2 Arts student, has committed to voting, although she has yet to decide who she will vote for. “I will be voting on October 1st and it will be my first time voting in a provincial election,” she said, “I’m still doing my research on the different parties, their platforms, and the party members to make my decision.” Wong-Mersereau also spoke to the importance of youth voting: “I think it is very important for young people to take that initiative and properly compare the parties before making any major decisions. There are a lot of important questions on the table and it is best to have a holistic view of the situation.”

Below is a breakdown of the four prominent parties competing in this election with highlights from each of their platforms.

Quebec Liberal Party (PLQ)
Incumbent (first elected in 2014)
Leader: Philippe Couillard
Slogan: To make life easier for Quebecers
Education
Pledged a total of 2.8 billion in education spending over 5 years
Promised to increase the high school graduation rate from 68 per cent to 85 per cent by 2030.
Hired 1,500 new educational professionals, 600 of which were teachers.
Wants to add educational assistants to kindergarten and first grade to help with teaching, technical assistance, and the care of special needs students.
Immigration
Supported a plan that would have Quebec take in 49,000 to 53,00 immigrants this year.
Pledged $25 million over the next four years to programs which would provide French lessons and rural community integration to immigrants.
Secularism and Identity
Purporters of 2017’s Bill 62, a bill which forbid the wearing of religious symbols, including the hijab, while giving or receiving public services. The original bill was suspended by the Quebec superior court on grounds of discrimination. Couillard is now stating that local police forces should decide whether women on their force can wear garments such as the hijab.
Environment
Plans to spend $2.9 billion on sustainable transport initiatives by 2023, also in favour of the federal cap-and-trade program to reduce emissions nationally.
Sovereignty
The Liberals, and Couilliard, are federalist, and in favour of Quebec signing the constitution. Couillard has pushed for greater legislative power for Quebec within the confederation.

Coalition Avenir Québec
Leader: Francois Legault
Slogan: Maintenant
Education
The party hopes to cut education costs by eliminating school boards, and transferring their authority by and large to the schools themselves.
Would replace school boards with local service centres to provide the necessary administrative supports to schools.
Immigration
Wishes to reduce, at least temporarily, the number of immigrants Quebec intakes from 50,000 to 40,000.
Supports the implication of a “values test,” a test to make sure that all incoming immigrants hold “Quebecois” values before receiving a Quebec selection certificate.
Immigrants would have to prove that they are actively looking for employment, although critics have questioned the legality of this policy.
Secularism and Identity
Believes in creating a “Secularism Charter” which would regulate the religious accommodations provided to civil servants.
Opposes wearing religious symbols, especially by those who possess civil power, like police officers and school teachers.
Environment
Supports reducing greenhouse gasses through technological innovation.
Sovereignty
The CAQ is a “nationalist” party; they advocate for more power for Quebec within Canada. The CAQ would like to see Quebec have more sway in immigration and fiscal matters as well as a say in Supreme Court nominees. The CAQ has pledged to never hold a referendum while in power.

Parti Quebecois
Leader: Jean-Francois Lisee
Slogan: Sérieusement
Education
Pledged to slowly move towards both free CEGEP and free University education in the province, starting with low income students. This plan is estimated to cost $400 million.
Would also reduce funding for English language CEGEPS in an attempt to offer better English language instruction at French CEGEPS.
Immigration
Opposes the influx of 50,000 immigrants a year, and would like to receive a “more reasonable number” from the auditor general.
Immigrants Quebec does admit will need to have skills in French as well as an existing knowledge of “Quebec values” before arriving in the province. 25 per cent of those selected would also be made to settle in rural communities.
Secularism and Identity
Believes that anyone in public service, such as prison guards, judges, prosecutors, police officers, and school children, should not be allowed to wear religious symbols, including the hijab.
Environment
Would encourage Quebec’s pension fund, the Caisse de Dépôt, to divest from fossil fuel related companies and the province to ban all new fossil fuel projects.
Would explore incentives to carpool through creating an app. Passengers and drivers would be awarded $4 for their first year using the app, and $3 for any subsequent trip taken after that using the app.
Sovereignty
The PQ are a separatist party, and will continue to advocate for an independent Quebec, yet they will not hold a referendum in their first term in power. Under the PQ, the earliest referendum would be held in 2022.

Quebec Solidaire
Leader: QS has a non-hierarchical structure. Instead of a party leader, the party has two spokespeople: Manon Masse and Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois.
Slogan: Populaire
Education
Would supply free education to everyone in the province, from pre-school to university.
Immigration
Wants to create resource centres for immigrants which would provide French lessons, and access to employment information.
Secularism and Identity
Opposes those wielding state power, like police officers, wearing religious symbols like the hijab. However, QS does not oppose the wearing of religious symbols by those receiving public services.
Environment
Would ban all gasoline-powered cars from the province by 2050.
Promised that all cars sold in the province will be electric or hybrid by 2030.
Pledged to reduce carbon emissions by 95 per cent in the next 30 years.
Would ensure more sustainable waste management by introducing policies where the polluter pays.
Sovereignty
Advocates for a sovereign Quebec, and would like to hold a referendum, after a committee to outline the terms of an independent Quebec is formed and has run its course.

The post Quebec is voting, will you? appeared first on The McGill Daily.