At the General Meeting, PGSS members heard announcements, as well as reports from each of the executives. They also discussed ways to increase engagement at PGSS Council meetings in the future. Quorum was lost roughly half way through the GM, and as a result, new business was tabled until the next meeting.

Motion to block LICM referendum

From March 20 to 26, the LICM is hosting a referendum which asks graduate students, “Do you agree to increase the non-opt-outable Legal Information Clinic at McGill association fee paid by all graduate students on the downtown campus, excluding post-docs, from $2.00 per student per semester (excluding summer) to $4.50 per student per semester (excluding summer), starting in Fall 2017?”

During the Council meeting, a motion was brought from the floor by PGSS Chief Returning Officer (CRO) Manmeet Rai. The motion initially sought to block the LICM referendum, but according to PGSS Council bylaws, this would have been illegal. In view of this, it became a motion to endorse a letter to McGill requesting that the referendum be blocked, regardless of the result.

The motion brought by Rai stated that the LICM presented the referendum question before PGSS Council at its January 2017 meeting, and it passed. However, “the next day certain discrepancies were found in the information provided by the LICM representatives at the Council.”

It further alleged that the LICM lacks financial transparency and has adopted “skewed” procedures in running the referendum, and called for a PGSS representative to be placed on the LICM’s board to report on the organization’s workings and suggest improvements.

It further alleged that the LICM lacks financial transparency and has adopted “skewed” procedures in running the referendum.

At one point, a student from the Computer Science Graduate Society asked for more details regarding the procedural discrepancies. In response, Rai said that the LICM had provided a provision for a preamble to be added before the voting period begins.

According to Rai, the LICM claimed the preamble would only add factual information, but “what is happening with this factual information in technicality, [is] if a ‘No’ Committee goes out and garners a lot of support, and you add new information which is going to show up on the ballot, it takes away that element of all your campaigning that you’ve done.”

“This is something which is absolutely rigged and should not be allowed, and this is not how referendums take place,” Rai said.

Moreover, Rai said the LICM has allowed anyone to join the ‘Yes’ committee, but students who would like to be part of the ‘No’ committee would have to go through a nomination process. He added that this process is unclear.

Rai also claimed that on a ballot, LICM is allowed to provide a link to the statement of the ‘Yes’ Committee or the ‘No’ Committee. However, Rai claimed that the link LICM provided leads directly to LICM’s website.

The motion also noted a number of financial concerns with regards to LICM, and questioned whether a fee raise from $2.00 to $4.50 was necessary.

“This is something which is absolutely rigged and should not be allowed, and this is not how referendums take place.”

One student, Matthew, asked the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of LICM to address the concerns brought up by Rai.
Colby Briggs, CEO of LICM, claimed that there is no preamble on the ballot, as LICM is using an omni-box system which provides a link to a version of a candidate system, something which is typically done in PGSS elections.

In addressing the claim that a nominations process is required only for students wishing to join the ‘No’ Committee, Briggs said that “LICM obviously wants the fee levy to pass, so it’s not really logical to have a distinct nomination process, but if they did have a nomination process, it would be a matter of ‘Hey, CRO, I would like to be on the ‘Yes’ committee.’”

The nomination process for the ‘No’ committee would be the same. Briggs added that no student emailed him saying they would like to form a ‘No’ Committee.

In response, Rai said “I don’t see any statement out there which says that if you are applying [to be part of] a ‘No’ Committee, it will only be, ‘Hey, CRO, put me on the ‘No’ committee.’”

He added that, according to the LICM’s procedures, the LICM Yes Referendum Committee will be exempt from nomination procedure.

“In practice, I’m not sure it really matters if there is a nomination process or not,” Briggs responded. “The Yes Committee is automatically the Legal Information Clinic because the Legal Information Clinic is holding a referendum to increase the fee.”

“LICM obviously wants the fee levy to pass, so it’s not really logical to have a distinct nomination process, but if they did have a nomination process, it would be a matter of ‘Hey, CRO, I would like to be on the ‘Yes’ committee.’”

Mina Anadolu, PGSS Internal Affairs Officer, also pointed out that in an email sent out by Elections LICM on February 27, LICM called for the formation of yes or no committees.

However, the motion was then tabled, as the Council meeting had reached its time limit.

Increasing engagement

At the end of the General Meeting, PGSS Secretary-General Victor Frankel asked PGSS members how they thought engagement could be improved.

In response, Andrew Dixon, PGSS Health Commissioner, suggested that awards for PGSAs could increase engagement at Council. Jacob Lavigne, PGSS External Affairs Officer, said that people might feel disengaged because they may have a lack of understanding of many of the issues discussed at Council, and thus suggested further training at the beginning of the year.

In response to these suggestions, Anadolu announced that awards for PGSAs are in the works, as is an increase in orientation sessions and training.

Finally, a student named Matthew from the Graduate Students’ Association for Neuroscience said, “One of the things that I’ve noticed this year on Council is that there’s really not a lot of motions to discuss. When we get to Council we’re really just hearing reports, there’s no actual discussion going on. I don’t know if that’s because nobody knows how to actually write a motion [but] I think a workshop at the start of the year on how to write a motion, how to present it to Council, and how to actually make a difference here would be very interesting.”

The post PGSS Council discusses fee increase referendum appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Asked “what do you see as advocacy priorities for SSMU in terms of improving McGill’s governance and how will you pursue those as president?,” Ogundeji replied that in her view, the central obstacle to better governance is insufficient student representation on the Board of Governors (BoG). Shannon agreed, adding that SSMU should try and forge alliances with faculty members in order to further its interests. Tojiboeva, meanwhile, stressed the importance of demonstrating that the President can collaborate with the administration. She added that her advocacy priority would be mental health.

A student asked the candidates how they would increase representation and engagement for racialized students, and what their qualifications were for doing so. Ogundeji, who is currently on the executive of the Black Students’ Network, replied that she planned to create a platform within Mental Health and Counselling to specifically address the issues unique to racialized students. She also noted that she has been working to create specific seats for racialized students on SSMU Council, “given the colonial and slave-holding history of the founder of McGill.”

Tojiboeva responded that she would be working closely with the SSMU Equity Commissioners, and that by increasing the independence of the Judicial Board she hopes to give racialized students a better platform to air their concerns. Shannon also said that racialized students should have better platforms to speak out about their experiences, but failed to suggest any concrete ideas to solve this. He added that, any time SSMU might be about to take a position on a contentious political issue, any communities involved should be given space to air their views.

VP External

“What do you see as the role of SSMU in the Montreal community and in the Quebec student movement?” Century answered that SSMU should be representing McGill students, and “participating more in developing any project that could help improve the life of students” both at McGill and across the province; he did not, however, point to any specific issues that should be prioritized. Spencer, for her part, agreed with Century that SSMU should represent McGill students through AVEQ, and said that the Society should particularly get involved in initiatives to fight the precarity experienced by students.

VP University Affairs

Asked to name “the greatest barriers to accessibility to the student experience,” Oke responded that the issue of overhead fees has been a significant obstacle for students with low socioeconomic status to succeed on campus. Dow focused his response on physical accessibility.

If elected, asked the current VP University Affairs, how would the candidates advocate for improvements to mental health on campus? Dow mentioned the Library Improvement Fund, and said that a priority would be to make study spaces more conducive to mental wellbeing. Oke, meanwhile, said that McGill’s Mental Health and Counselling Services need a better understanding of the issues which impact students’ mental health, adding that more accessible teaching practices in McGill classrooms would reduce stress, thereby reducing the burden on these services.

VP Internal

Asked how she would “improve health and wellbeing in frosh and orientation events,” Koparkar replied that she would be working with departmental associations on this, but that this could include providing a wider range of food options, and/or instituting a yoga period.

VP Finance

Asked how, if elected, she will manage money better than the current VP finance, Khan said that she would be looking at other student associations across Canada to see how they fund overheads and services. She will also prioritize making SSMU more financially sustainable.

VP Operations

Asked how she plans to improve the financial viability of Sadie’s, the student-run cafeteria in the Shatner building, Mallik replied that in addition to continuing current the VP Operations’ efforts with regard to branding and advertizing, she would also work with the staff to improve and better utilize institutional memory.

VP Student Life

Asked how he would provide emotional support, and manage conflict within the executive team, Earle explained that, particularly as a floorfellow, he has had significant experience in these areas, and feels confident in his ability to be a supportive member of the team.

The post Highlights from the SSMU candidates’ debate appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Opening remarks

In her opening address, Principal Suzanne Fortier mentioned her meeting with other heads of Quebec universities and the Ministers of Finance and Education in December, largely to discuss what is needed for the government to better support its universities.

Fortier noted that the Quebec government had instituted austerity measures which hurt universities, but said, “now that we’ve passed this period, we made the case to the Minister of Finance that it is time now to reinvest in universities.”

The Principal further noted that the ministers seemed to understand this request.

In her opening address, Principal Suzanne Fortier mentioned her meeting with other heads of Quebec universities and the Ministers of Finance and Education in December, largely to discuss what is needed for the government to better support its universities.

Following Fortier’s remarks, one senator asked what the University has done and will do for refugees, in light of the recent executive order from U.S. President Donald Trump, which banned refugees, and immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries.
In response, Provost and VP Academic Christopher Manfredi said that “some of the measures we put in place for students affected by the executive order were already in place for refugees.”

Kathleen Massey, university registrar and executive director of enrolment services, added that “refugees often encounter some unique problems […]. There are often challenges related to just ensuring official documentation which may have been destroyed through war or other serious matters. So we practice a level of flexibility around documentation for example.”

Massey noted that these measures were already in place prior to the executive order. She further added that for those students who may have dire financial difficulties, the University either waives or refunds their application fee.

Manfredi also added that the University “recently entered into a partnership with the Al Ghurair Foundation based in the United Arab Emirates. That foundation has a mission […] to provide educational opportunities for students from the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] region mostly, from underprivileged backgrounds as well as from refugee areas, provide them access to high quality secondary as well as post-secondary education.”

There are often challenges related to just ensuring official documentation which may have been destroyed through war or other serious matters. So we practice a level of flexibility around documentation for example.”

Manfredi elaborated that following Trump’s executive order, the University reached out to the foundation to see if “they needed [McGill’s] assistance either to place students from those seven countries or to place students from other countries in the region who might find it difficult going to the United States, whether because of their country of origin or refugee status.”

Graduate students teaching

Post-Graduate Students’ Society (PGSS) Academic Affairs Officer Nicholas Dunn brought a question to Senate asking what the University is doing to ensure a better distribution of courses that graduate students can teach, and if the University is willing to guarantee at least one teaching opportunity for all incoming PhD students.

The question largely concerned the Collective Agreement between McGill and the Course Lecturers and Instructors Union (MCLIU), which allows the University to reserve up to fifteen per cent of courses not allocated to ranked academic staff for graduate students. However, there is a widespread belief that graduate students still lack teaching opportunities, according to Dunn.

Manfredi had provided a written answer to the question prior to the Senate meeting.

Post-Graduate Students’ Society (PGSS) Academic Affairs Officer Nicholas Dunn brought a question to Senate asking what the University is doing to ensure a better distribution of courses that graduate students can teach.

Dunn referred to this answer initially: “I take your point insofar as there’s a technical point to be made which is that these [positions] can be reserved for a range of individuals, of which graduate students are a part. But I hope that you can understand the spirit of the question, which is that many people are concerned about the way in which the allocation of course exclusions will affect their graduate programs.”

“You say that grad students are free to apply to the courses that are posted, and this is of course true,” Dunn continued, “however, if they arrived after the collective agreement, they have zero points and so there’s no way for them to [enter] into the system, and even those who were here before but don’t have as many points as those who have been course lecturers for longer will never get any courses.”

In response, Manfredi said “the annual distribution of [teaching positions for graduate students is] recalibrated on an annual basis, and it’s recalibrated first of all on the basis of consultation with faculties to determine their needs, and I think we’re in a learning process.”

“I think the faculties are getting better at determining their needs […] so I think that’s part of the learning process, and at the provostial level, we’re in a learning process and getting better at how we do those allocations,” Manfredi continued.

Referencing the reserve clause in the collective agreement, Manfredi added that “to negotiate an agreement like this, there are many different faculties, with many different types of teaching needs and teaching program delivery styles, and you have to have a clause that accommodates all those different needs.”

“I hope that you can understand the spirit of the question, which is that many people are concerned about the way in which the allocation of course exclusions will affect their graduate programs.”

Senator Tetyana Krupiy, a postdoctoral scholar, then asked if it would be possible to receive the distribution of these positions by faculty and explanation for the distribution.

She further referenced Fortier’s discussion about the Business Higher Education round table, where the University discussed with local businesses how to further increase engagement and work opportunities for students.

“This is a real example of how [the University’s] not doing that, and where we can, we should. I speak as a graduate program director of a department that has 120 doctoral students but only five positions, so I urge you to reconsider these kinds of opportunities and make them available to our doctoral students,” Krupiy said.

Another senator asked if there was room in negotiations to recognize the different structure of faculties, as “some faculties clearly have permanent lecturers who require job protection and in whose interest the union exists, and other faculties may have an overarching need to give training to their students, and it seems to me the problem is that it’s not capturing that diversity.”

“I think the faculties are getting better at determining their needs […] so I think that’s part of the learning process, and at the provostial level, we’re in a learning process and getting better at how we do those allocations,” Manfredi continued.

Manfredi noted that the University will honor the agreement it signed with MCLIU, but when the agreement comes up for renegotiations “those are things we can take into account.”

Black History Month motion

Arts Senator Charles Keita brought a motion to Senate that asked “that McGill officially celebrates Black History Month,” in his words.

“Until this year there was no official body on the campus that celebrated it. This year that mantle was taken up by [the Social Equity and Diversity Education Office] and I have to say that they did a great job for the events that I’ve gone to and the community definitely seems to have enjoyed them. To keep it going, I propose this motion so that it is followed through that we do this every year and it doesn’t become a rare occurrence that McGill celebrates Black History Month,” Keita elaborated.
The motion passed unanimously.

The post Graduate students’ issues addressed at Senate appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The post Winter 2017 SSMU GA appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The Board heard Principal Suzanne Fortier’s remarks, a presentation from the Director of Campus Public Safety, brief reports from various committees. The BoG also saw a report (and response) regarding the open forums on sustainability held earlier in the year, which dealt with recommendations of the Committee to Advise on Matters of Social Responsibility (CAMSR) Report on Divestment.

At the end of the meeting, the Board held its first community session, in which they responded to follow-up questions from students and members of the McGill community who had previously submitted a written question to the Board.

Response to the open forums on sustainability

McGill law professor Frédéric Bachand spoke to the Board about the report and response regarding the Open Forum on the recommendations of 2016 CAMSR report regarding divestment.

At the end of the meeting, the Board held its first community session, in which they responded to follow-up questions from students and members of the McGill community who had previously submitted a written question to the Board.

In October 2016, the University held three open forum meetings to “[create] a ‘comprehensive climate action plan’ in order to reduce McGill‘s own carbon footprint while expanding initiatives in sustainability research and education” and “[develop] concrete measures to ensure our investments comply with recognized Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles.”

These meetings were in response to CAMSR’s March 2016 report in which they dismissed Divest McGill’s request that the University divest from the fossil fuel industry.

Bachand had been mandated by the Provost and Vice Principal Academic Christopher Manfredi to organize the open forum, gather feedback, and report on it.

He briefly spoke about the open forum meetings: “As you can imagine, many of the questions that were discussed were sensitive, were difficult, were controversial in some ways, but I was amazed at the turnout by our community members who participated extensively.”

These meetings were in response to CAMSR’s March 2016 report in which they dismissed Divest McGill’s request that the University divest from the fossil fuel industry.

Bachand and Manfredi each spoke briefly about the contents of the report, but focused more on questions or comments from Board members.  

Member-at-large and one of the chairmen of the Board Ram Panda said:“I don’t think we’re debating the essence of the problem, but I guess how we approach it is where we have some dissention, and perhaps the speed with which people should move is also on discussion. I’m a little pained to see a frequent occurrence that some of the community members feel this is a weak response or disappointment in terms of trust factors.”

“I guess that’s something we have to work towards because I believe we’re aligned in the same direction,” Panda continued. “Solutions may not always be what we’d like to have. But I guess now looking at the south [at the U.S.], probably our approaches and reactions will […] look more advanced.”

Stuart “Kip” Cobbett, chair of the Board, agreed with Panda, claiming that “we may well be doing more than many students are aware of [and this is] a common situation at McGill.”

“As you can imagine, many of the questions that were discussed were sensitive, were difficult, were controversial in some ways, but I was amazed at the turnout by our community members who participated extensively.”

“We’ve got to come up with […] a better way to communicate,” he continued. “Sustainability is now […] very much part of this board’s responsibility and stewardship. This is a continuous process [and] we will come back to it and we’ll have a report at least once a year on what we are doing […] to reduce our carbon footprint.”

However, Victor Frankel, President of the Post-graduate Student Society of McGill (PGSS), noted that he thought that “a lot of the trouble that came out of the decision that was adopted from the CAMSR report was the issues with accepting the decision that said essentially fossil fuels do not cause grave social injury.”

“My question to you, Professor [Bachand],” asked Frankel, “is do you think that the campus community would like to see this issue revisited by the Board of Governors, [or] do you think they would like to see the CAMSR report rescinded and reconsidered once more?”

“I guess that’s something we have to work towards because I believe we’re aligned in the same direction,” Panda continued. “Solutions may not always be what we’d like to have. But I guess now looking at the south [at the U.S.], probably our approaches and reactions will […] look more advanced.”

Bachand responded that “there were some policy discussions for this Board and other units of McGill to see what could be done based on that feedback, but there’s nothing much more that I can add in terms of the report.”

A first at McGill: a BoG community session

The Board had received three questions in writing from students or members of the McGill community, the responses to which were posted online. Only two questions were discussed further at the community session, as one person who submitted a question was not at the meeting.

Chloe, a student, asked one of the questions: “Given the divisive state of politics at the moment, to what extent can McGill remain a politically neutral institution? How does McGill define political neutrality?”

The Board provided a written response to this question: “The University acknowledges the right to political association of all members of its community and the respect for the exchange of views in responsible open discourse. The University reserves stating its position on particular matters when they are directly related to its mission and principles. In such cases, the University’s position is aligned with its mission and based on the principles of academic freedom, integrity, responsibility, equity and inclusiveness.”

“Given the divisive state of politics at the moment, to what extent can McGill remain a politically neutral institution? How does McGill define political neutrality?”

However, when asked if she had any follow-up questions, Chloe responded, “I know that part of McGill’s mission statement is ‘includes the creation and dissemination of knowledge by offering the best possible education […] Is it the best possible education if we’re passing up opportunities to be proactive in informing public policy?”

Fortier responded: “It’s a good question but it depends on which public policy we’re talking about. Of course public policy that [is] directly related to our mission, we express our view, and we are consulted for our views all the time. Other areas of public policy might be further away.”

As an example, Fortier cited the issue of legalizing marijuana in Canada. As an institution, she said, McGill would not provide a view, but the University is invited to send the names of experts on the topic in the McGill community who could participate in a discussion on public policy.

“The University reserves stating its position on particular matters when they are directly related to its mission and principles. In such cases, the University’s position is aligned with its mission and based on the principles of academic freedom, integrity, responsibility, equity and inclusiveness.”

As an example of an issue that specifically concerns McGill’s principles and values, Fortier cited the Charter of Values, which went against McGill’s “commitment to diversity and inclusiveness.”

“Social injury” vs. “Grave social injury”

The second question discussed during the community session was asked by Jed Lenetsky, a member of Divest McGill. Lenetsky asked in writing, “In the 2016 CAMSR Report on Divestment, CAMSR argued that fossil fuel companies cause social injury, but not grave social injury. Additionally, when members of CAMSR met with Divest McGill in May 2016, the Chair of the Board discussed how the degree social injury that an industry can commit exists on a threshold. What is the threshold at which social injury becomes grave social injury? What evidence needs to be given to prove that an industry causes grave social injury?”

The Board’s written response was:

“Social injury is defined in the CAMSR terms of reference as follows: ‘social injury means the grave injurious impact which the activities of a company is found to have on consumers, employees, or other persons, or on the natural environment. Such activities include those which violate, or frustrate the enforcement of rules of domestic or international law intended to protect individuals against deprivation of health, safety, or basic freedoms, or to protect the natural environment. However, a company shall not be deemed to cause “social injury” simply because it does business with other companies which are themselves engaged in socially injurious activities.’”

“Pursuant to this definition,” the response continues, “the determination on the threshold and evidence needed to prove grave social injury would depend on the facts of each case and would include an assessment of the degree and extent of injury that would result from industry activities that would warrant a finding of grave injurious impact.”

When asked if the written response adequately answered his question, Lenetsky said, “to my knowledge it seems as though you haven’t answered my question as to what constitutes the threshold at which social injury becomes grave social injury […] what is the objective evidence based threshold, either broadly or using […] a specific context?”

“Pursuant to this definition,” the response continues, “the determination on the threshold and evidence needed to prove grave social injury would depend on the facts of each case and would include an assessment of the degree and extent of injury that would result from industry activities that would warrant a finding of grave injurious impact.”

“That’s a question, Jed, you won’t be surprised to hear that I have wrestled with,” Cobbett responded. “The short answer is ‘there’s no answer.’ I cannot give you an answer, not because I’m trying to be evasive, but because it is utterly fact-based.”

“The definition of grave social injury is a new definition for us, previously it was social injury. I can give you an example; CAMSR a few years ago decided that tobacco companies caused social injury. Would we have decided that it caused grave social injury? Probably. But to come up with an empirical definition of what causes grave social injury, I cannot do it.”

Lenetsky responded that Divest McGill had submitted a 150-page research brief along with its petition when it asked McGill to divest from fossil fuels, and thus asked what “additional evidence needs to be presented to CAMSR to adequately demonstrate that fossil fuel companies are engaging in grave social injury as defined by CAMSR’s mandate.”

“That’s a question, Jed, you won’t be surprised to hear that I have wrestled with,” Cobbett responded. “The short answer is ‘there’s no answer.’ I cannot give you an answer, not because I’m trying to be evasive, but because it is utterly fact-based.”

“I’m not going to reopen the discussion on CAMSR’s decision,” Cobbett responded.

“But there is a problem if you can’t tell me the evidence that was used or the criteria that was used to make that decision,” Lenetsky argued.

Cobbett responded that the evidence is in the report, and Lenetsky again argued he did not see it there.

“I’m not going to reopen the discussion on CAMSR’s decision,” Cobbett responded.

Cobbett responded “You may not see it there but it’s there. […] If you have any specific questions on the decision I’m happy to go through it.”

Lenetsky said he welcomed the opportunity, and the community session then ended.

The post Board of Governors hosts first community session with members of the McGill community appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The motion comes following the University’s decision to veto an agreement with AMUSE’s bargaining team regarding Floor Fellows in late January. The agreement had been reached through an independent arbitrator in December 2016. Among other aspects, the agreement had stipulated salaries for Floor Fellows.

A motion several years in the making

In an interview with The Daily, AMUSE President Claire Michela said that AMUSE and Floor Fellows decided to take the issue to court because “it’s been several years that we’ve been trying to negotiate for a collective agreement and the injunction’s purpose is to make things, specifically the payment of Floor Fellows, happen immediately.”

The motion comes following the University’s decision to veto an agreement with AMUSE’s bargaining team regarding Floor Fellows in late January.

“It’s been long enough, they’ve waited long enough,” Michela continued. “It’s time for justice for them.”

Isabelle Oke, AMUSE VP Floor Fellows, told The Daily in an email that “the action was about accountability, keeping McGill accountable for the time they wasted in bargaining by not providing [the administration’s] team with a clear mandate, and backing out of an agreement in a way that broke negotiation conventions.”

AMUSE President Claire Michela said that AMUSE and Floor Fellows decided to take the issue to court because “it’s been several years that we’ve been trying to negotiate for a collective agreement and the injunction’s purpose is to make things, specifically the payment of Floor Fellows, happen immediately.”

The motion itself is an individual recourse, which means that it has not been filed as a collective representing all Floor Fellows. Instead, individual Floor Fellows have signed onto a declaration agreeing to be part of the injunction.

Michela noted that 35 out of seventy total Floor Fellows have signed onto the motion, “which makes it quite strong.”

Oke added that she thinks the proportion of Floor Fellows supporting the motion “shows how fiercely determined we are to make McGill move towards equitable labour practices and acknowledge the role Floor Fellows play in residence.”

“The action was about accountability, keeping McGill accountable for the time they wasted in bargaining by not providing [the administration’s] team with a clear mandate, and backing out of an agreement in a way that broke negotiation conventions.”

When asked about the Floor Fellows’ reaction to the legal action, Oke said that “reactions were a mix of enthusiasm, anticipation, and nervous apprehension because of the big steps we’re taking and the multiple outcomes it could lead to.”

Another Floor Fellow, Helen Ogundeji, told The Daily via email that “it’s great to know that the union reps are continuing to pursue Floor Fellows’ interests. As someone who is not part of the active mobilizing on [AMUSE’s] end, it is comforting to know that there are people who are consistently on our side and ready to figure out the next steps in this ongoing battle.”

Other unions, particularly McGill University Non-Academic Certified Association (MUNACA), have supported AMUSE’s legal actions.

The motion itself is an individual recourse, which means that it has not been filed as a collective representing all Floor Fellows. Instead, individual Floor Fellows have signed onto a declaration agreeing to be part of the injunction.

According to Michela, MUNACA will publish AMUSE’s letter to the Human Resources committee of the Board of Governors on its website. MUNACA has also published a Journal de Montreal article discussing AMUSE’s legal action.

“I spoke out at a couple of stewards meetings that they had about it, so they’re really showing solidarity with us and they’re flabbergasted that this [the University reneging on the agreement] would happen,” Michela said. “I can’t imagine it happening to any other group.”

The injunction hearing

On Thursday February 9, the injunction hearing took place.

In an email to The Daily, Michela said, “The judge did not accept that it was an emergency, because we could have filed an injunction at any point between May 2014, when Floor Fellows were accredited (and not getting paid), to now.”

“I spoke out at a couple of stewards meetings that they had about it, so they’re really showing solidarity with us and they’re flabbergasted that this [the University reneging on the agreement] would happen.”

“However, the judge decided that there should be an interlocutory hearing, which should take place in short order, with more information from both sides,” Michela added.

She added that dates have been set to gather more information and there will be another hearing on May 5, where “a decision should be rendered as to whether Floor Fellows should be paid before the collective agreement is finalized in arbitration.”

According to Michela, this is a short time frame for a court to make a decision.

“I can’t imagine it happening to any other group.”

When asked whether AMUSE chose to take legal action because lines of communication with the administration had broken down, Michela said that lines of communication remain open.

“There was an official meeting between the arbitrator, the University, and our representative this Monday, February 6, so those lines of communication are still open,” she explained, “but the University doesn’t see our side, our point of view, at all.”

Michela noted that there are dates set up for arbitration hearings, but “we have shown that we are unhappy with what’s happened in the recent past.”

With the injunction declared a non-emergency, AMUSE is planning mobilization efforts.

“The mobilization is hopefully going to be really visible and we’re going to try to get a lot of student support,” Michela said.

“There was an official meeting between the arbitrator, the University, and our representative this Monday, February 6, so those lines of communication are still open,” she explained, “but the University doesn’t see our side, our point of view, at all.”

“I think to Floor Fellows the most important thing is justice. It’s not necessarily getting paid per se, they do what they do because they’re amazing people. But I think we have decided to proceed this way because it’s the strongest course of legal action we can take right now,” she concluded.

When asked to comment, McGill’s Director of Internal Communications Doug Sweet told The Daily that “the University never comments on matters before the courts or on labour negotiations that are in progress.”

The post AMUSE files injunction against McGill appeared first on The McGill Daily.

A variety of speakers addressed the crowd, both in English and French. Many had come with signs and candles, and a large group of people gathered on top of a small snow hill stood with a sign that said “Make Racists Afraid Again.” Others walked around with their own signs, such as one that said “I’m Muslim, I’m Quebecoise, I’m Human Too #UnitedForPeace.”

Vigil speeches touched primarily on inclusivity. One speaker, who did not provide their name, began by saying, “I truly did not expect this. I thought half this crowd would be Muslim […] but that’s not the case.”
They then highlighted the need for unity and solidarity, a common theme throughout the night.

“We are one people, and when one of us are hurt in society, all of us get hurt. And that’s why we are coming together today, all of us together, […] to say that an attack against one of us is an attack against all of us,” they said. This was met with loud cheers from the crowd.

They emphasized that everyone has a part to play in fighting against racism and Islamophobia, and highlighted the need to make Muslims and other marginalized groups feel included, in the face of events that threaten their communities.

“We are one people, and when one of us are hurt in society, all of us get hurt.”

“We must call for the positive contributions of Muslims and minorities in our society to be celebrated and recognized, and it is only then that we will have positive discourse and that we will move away from the types of problems we are seeing today,” they said.

One speaker, Abdul, took the time to recognize everyone in the crowd.

“To those who lost someone dear to them, Assalamu Alaikum,” he began in French. “To those who this day are between life and death, Assalamu Alaikum. To those Muslims present here today despite the cold and the fear, Assalamu Alaikum. To all our fellow citizens, who took time out of their days to gather with us, Assalamu Alaikum. To those elected officials of Quebec present here, Assalamu Alaikum.”

“We must call for the positive contributions of Muslims and minorities in our society to be celebrated and recognized.”

“Dear brothers, sisters, friends, and comrades, we are gathered here today during difficult times, and our message is clear,” he said in French. “We are gathered to remind terrorists that you will never divide us […] to remind those who would profit from our fears, from our worries, those who would condone violence against Muslims, in our places of worship, you will never divide us.”

“Dear brothers, sisters, friends, and comrades, Quebecers have congregated today to show that they are united against adversity,” he continued. “They’ve come together in Chicoutimi, Sherbrooke, Trois-Rivieres, to make clear we condemn violence and hate. Quebecers here in Montreal have come out to remind us that our battle is one to co-exist. […] Despite our differences, the ideology that will unite us, the doctrine that we live by without hesitation will be one of peace, justice, equality, and liberty.”

Similarly, another speaker, who identified herself as a “an anti-racist, feminist, queer, South-Asian Muslim woman,” highlighted the importance of Muslim and other marginalized communities’ voices.

“I acknowledge […] the greed and injustice that this land experiences and witnesses on a daily basis, including ongoing systemic oppression against Indigenous and black nations, against migrant or racialized communities, including Muslim communities, and again, queer, trans, women identifying people who are part of these communities.”

I want to say that this injustice stops here and now,” she continued. “That systems based on oppression, power and privilege, leading to the tragedy that we are trying to grapple with today must end now, it must.”

“I also know that so many of us have been saying this for far too long, including protesting state sanctioned white supremacy and xenophobia, like the racist and misogynist unreasonable Accommodation Commission and the so-called Charter of Values,” she went on to say, again receiving loud cheers from the audience.

The speaker then invited everyone to “take a moment to reflect on our humanity and to keep holding each other in all of our complexities, lived realities and our identities, to keep holding each other as community, to keep holding each other in space, in words, in art, in conversation, in breath, with deep love, care, and compassion.”

“To my family, to my friends, to communities who are living in fear and sadness, let us breathe in resilience and let us breathe out resilience. We will make it through, even through the haze of our tears, in solidarity in our fight for social justice and liberation,” she concluded.

This particular speaker seemed to resonate deeply with the crowd. In an interview with The Daily, one attendee, Kasha, noted that this speech was most memorable for her.

“I also know that so many of us have been saying this for far too long, including protesting state sanctioned white supremacy and xenophobia, like the racist and misogynist unreasonable Accommodation Commission and the so-called Charter of Values.”

What stood out about her speech simply was that I think she touched upon all marginalized populations and all marginalized communities and […] set a message and a precedence of inclusiveness. So I think that whoever you are, wherever you’re coming from, if you’re here, you felt that you were part of this communal energy,” she said.”

Other attendees also highlighted the sense of solidarity at the vigil.

When asked how she felt about the event, one attendee, Manaima, said, “I think it’s really sad […] not just for us [Muslims]. It’s not just for Muslim people because everybody’s going to be sad and everybody’s going to be affected by it. I don’t know how to explain it but it’s very sad for me.”

After the speeches ended, several hundred attendees remained in the square chanting slogans such as “Musulmans, bienvenue [Muslims welcome]!” for at least another half hour.

The post Montrealers gather in solidarity appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Motion regarding the amendment of internal regulations

The notice of motion regarding the amendment of the internal regulations of governance was read by Igor Sadikov, Arts Representative and a former Daily editor.

The motion, according to Sadikov, “primarily consists of […] a set of suggested internal regulations for [SSMU’s] Board of Directors.”

The proposed internal regulations focus on procedures and clarifying the relationship between the Council and the Board.

“Currently, the process is that the Board ratifies all Council decisions,” Sadikov continued, “so this would retain that process, however, Council decisions would basically come into effect immediately, and then the Board would have a choice of ratifying or overturning them, and if it’s overturned, it would come back to the Legislative Council, and basically the internal regulations would recommend that the Board only exercise this power very sparingly.”

The motion provides further clarification on the Board’s power, including its ability to recommend a referendum question to the Council. This power, Sadikov explained, is outlined in SSMU’s Constitution, but the process for recommending a referendum question is unclear, and thus this motion aims to clarify it.

“Some of the more substantive things are in terms of dealing with [Judicial Board] decisions,” he added. “The two main changes are that the Board has the option to refer an opinion of the [Judicial Board] to Legislative Council, and the other change is that overturning the opinion of the [Judicial Board] no longer requires a four-fifths majority, and this is because ratifying a [Judicial Board] opinion requires a simple majority, so if you don’t have a majority to ratify […] it doesn’t have effect, so I guess this is just a way to make that explicit and not have this limbo state where it is neither ratified nor overturned.”

Engineering Representative Richard (Tre) Mansdoerfer voiced some concerns regarding the removal of the supermajority in regards to overturning a Judicial Board opinion.

“I feel like [Judicial Board] decisions should be held to a higher standard and that they shouldn’t be that easily overturnable,” he said. “[The Judicial Board] makes decisions on things such as […] SSMU elections, and for the Board of Directors to be able to overturn a [Judicial Board] decision on that, such as when candidates maybe do violate protocol, I don’t feel comfortable.”

Mansdoerfer added that he would like to see a supermajority added to the Legislative Council portion in terms of its ability to overturn Judicial Board opinions.

Clubs Representative Adam Templer questioned Appendix A, article 1.3.1, of the motion, which states: “The Board of Directors should only exercise its power to overturn resolutions of the Legislative Council to protect the legal, financial, or operational well-being of the Society.”

“I think that there are a number of different situations in which the Board of Directors might […] consider itself in a position where it needs to exercise power to overturn resolutions of Council beyond just the legal, financial, or operational well-being of the Society,” he said.

He added that “given that the Board of Directors is supposed to be sort of the ultimate governing body,” he felt that this article also had weak wording, and suggested the word ‘should’ be changed.

Sadikov responded that the word should is used for the possibility that the Board might find other reasons to overturn a Council decision.

“The reason I think it’s still worth it to include it is to give guidance to the Board of Directors as to what it should be thinking about when considering overturning the resolutions of the Council,” he said.

AVEQ affiliation?

Following the notice of motion, committee reports, and a few councilor reports, the SSMU executives (apart from VP Operations Sacha Magder who was unable to attend) presented their reports.

As part of his report, VP External David Aird explained that he, and VP University Affairs Erin Sobat recently attended the Association for the Voice of Education in Quebec’s (AVEQ) members assembly, but said that he would provide a full report at the next Council meeting.

However, Sadikov asked if Aird could provide a few more details about what was discussed at the assembly, for those councilors who were interested.

Aird agreed and continued on: “We talked about some internal policies of the federation and also in terms of social political affairs, there’s a consultation coming up by the provincial government on sexual violence policies in universities.”

“The idea behind that is to mobilize support and get student input on […] what, if anything, a law […] that would mandate universities to have their own policies [would look like],” he explained.

He also shared that he attended the mobilization and association development commission at the assembly, where they discussed ongoing association campaigns.

At the Winter 2016 General Assembly, a question went to referendum asking students whether they would like to affiliate with AVEQ. While students voted against affiliation, Aird expressed that “it does look like we would like to re-ask the question this year during the referendum to McGill students.”

“The feeling is that seeing as there were so many abstentions last year that people just aren’t really aware of what a federation is,” he explained. He plans to try to increase students’ understanding of student federations by tabling.

BoG reform

At its December 1, 2016 meeting, the Board of Governors [BoG] passed a motion whereby members of the McGill community will be allowed to submit written questions and attend a twenty minute question-and-answer period twice a year at BoG meetings. This aimed to facilitate greater interaction between the McGill community and BoG, and was sparked by SSMU executives’ efforts to increase the BoG’s accountability to students.

In his report, Sobat noted that at the Senate meeting on January 18, “the President [Ben Ger] and I asked a question about university governance best practices, kind of to determine the best way forward in pushing for reform to the McGill Board of Governors.”

“We’ve […] settled on an ad hoc committee at the Board as an option,” he continued, “assuming we could get some sort of parity of both governors and non-governors.”

“As it stands, the Board effectively regulates itself when it comes to everything, including succession planning, outreach to and nomination of external members at large, best practices and evaluation of their success. So [we are] trying to see some more accountability and oversight of that body,” he said.

Sobat also shared that the University Affairs office is planning to submit a case to the Advisory Council on the Charter of Student Rights regarding academic accommodations, “identifying issues with […] McGill accommodation policies across the Universities and with some recommendations for improvement.”

“Fun fact, the new Senior Director of Student Services told us that she’s surprised there haven’t been more human rights complaints because our office for students with disabilities is so understaffed,” he added.

The post SSMU Council on internal reform appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Councilors heard an announcement regarding the Anthropology Graduate Student Association (AGSA)’s resolution to support the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, concerns regarding transparency, a motion to bring a question regarding a fee increase for the Legal Information Clinic at McGill (LICM) to referendum, and a motion regarding a fee waiver which was tabled.

Transparency issues

Alex Magdzinski, president of the Nursing Graduate Student Association (NGSA), questioned the fees charged for room bookings in the Thompson House, and the lack of transparency surrounding said fees.

According to Magdzinski, it is not clear how fees for room bookings in the Thompson House are calculated. Magdzinski looked into previous documents of contracts to calculate the cost of room bookings in previous years, and alleged that the NGSA is being overcharged for certain room bookings.

“I know there was one thing taken out in the budget last year,” Magdzinski explained. “[When] we used to book rooms in the Thompson House, if you bought drinks or food or what not, your booking fee was reduced.”

“Maybe it’s $100 more, $60 more for an event, but for PGSAs [Post-Graduate Student Associations] that don’t have a huge budget, it’s money that we’re taking away from […] student initiatives,” he elaborated. “Generally just […] the quality of our services that we provide is impacted, and I’m just trying to see bigger term how much the PGSS is actually spending to keep Thompson House in the black.”

PGSS Internal Affairs Officer Mina Anadolu offered some context regarding the increased fees for room bookings. She noted that when groups book certain rooms, they pay for staffing the space and the cleanup.

“Maybe it’s $100 more, $60 more for an event, but for PGSAs [Post-Graduate Student Associations] that don’t have a huge budget, it’s money that we’re taking away from […] student initiatives.”

But Anadolu added that she “understand[s] the argument that it’s kind of counterproductive to charge PGSAs or ourselves room booking fees.”

She suggested that Magdzinski contact the Board of Directors regarding this issue, as the Board made decisions regarding fees last year based on the results of a survey on Thompson House sent to PGSS members. This included the removal of the cost recovery program, where if groups bought drinks and foods, the room booking fee was reduced.

“All of those executive decisions were made by the Board and based on the survey, so they may be able to give you more clear rationale as to why those changes occurred and about the minimum charges that we need to upkeep the place,” she said.

PGSS Health Commissioner Andrew Dixon brought up the issue of transparency: “I think what’s really required here is that we sit down with the business [Thompson House] and we just hash out the details of how much it’s going to cost and why. Once we have that list we can start to negotiate whether it’s an appropriate fee.”

“All of those executive decisions were made by the Board and based on the survey, so they may be able to give you more clear rationale as to why those changes occurred and about the minimum charges that we need to upkeep the place.”

LICM referendum question

Councilors also voted on a motion regarding sending a question to referendum that dealt with the Legal Information Clinic at McGill.

The referendum question asks to increase the non-opt-outable fee for the LICM from $2.00 to $4.50 per student per semester, excluding summer terms, starting in Fall 2017.

Sunny Yang, Director of Communications at LICM, and Sean Pierce, LICM’s Director of Student Advocacy and University Affairs, spoke to Council about the motion.

The LICM, Yang explained, “started in 1973 and since then we’ve always been here for students; it’s always been a student-run service that offers free and bilingual legal information as well as advice.” More specifically, the LICM serves both McGill students and members of the community.

Mathew, a student in the Neuroscience Graduate program noted, “There’s 40,000 students at McGill, you guys get fees from undergraduate and graduate students. […] That means about 40,000 people are giving you $180,000 in fees. Could you explain where that money’s going and why you think you need that much?”

Yang explained that the LICM incurs costs from renting offices in the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) building, and pays directors to work at the LICM in the summer.

“We have more volunteers that want to volunteer at the Legal Information Clinic than we have the space for, and that means […] we have resources at our disposal that could help us reduce wait times that we’re not able to leverage,” Pierce added.

“Could you explain where that money’s going and why you think you need that much?”

These wait times are substantial. “We try to provide about a one week turnaround time between then they call in and when they receive their answer,” Yang explained. “The problem is questions grow stale. So at some point, if we have too many questions and not enough students ready to answer those questions, we have to do what’s called ‘closing the lines’.”

“We tell students that at this point, by the time we get to their question, resolve their issue, it might actually be too late for them. […] That’s not ideal,” he added.

The increased fee would allow the LICM to rent more office space, and thus have more volunteers and reduce their wait time, they argued.
The motion was passed, with two opposed.

“We tell students that at this point, by the time we get to their question, resolve their issue, it might actually be too late for them. […] That’s not ideal.”

Councilors also heard a motion regarding the Legal Information Clinic at McGill’s request to waive the $200 fee applied to all external groups who want to conduct their referendum through PGSS. This motion was tabled, however, because it had not yet gone to a second reading, as required by PGSS bylaws.

The post PGSS Council talks transparency appeared first on The McGill Daily.

She denounced the University’s decision to renege on an agreement with AMUSE’s bargaining team regarding Floor Fellow negotiations: the agreement had been reached through the use of an independent arbiter last December. Among other features, it stipulated salaries for Floor Fellows in McGill residences.

In an email to The Daily, Michela confirmed that the University rescinded the agreement, adding that “the University’s decision to renege on a previous agreement is something that’s never happened before. It is considered extremely serious in labour law to go back on a previous agreement, big or small.”

“The fact that the University backed out was delivered to us as information that the article on salaries had been rejected, unfortunately without justification,” she elaborated.

Robert Comeau, McGill’s Director of Labour and Employee Relations, told The Daily in an email that an agreement was reached in the last meeting with the arbitrator, “conditional on McGill’s ratification.”

“The arbitrator asked that McGill review the tentative agreement and come back with their decision before she would render her own decision,” he continued.

As the University vetoed the agreement, Comeau said both the University and AMUSE will begin new negotiations through the arbitrator.

According to Michela, AMUSE’s parent union, the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) has hired legal counsel since the subcommittee’s decision to veto the agreement.

Despite the setback, communication between AMUSE and the University is taking place through “several lines of communication,” in Michela’s words.

“Some have been through [PSAC] to the University directly,” she elaborated. “We are also working on getting arbitration dates as soon as possible with the arbitrator.”

According to Comeau, the arbitrator has scheduled hearings for February 6; however, “it is too early to say when [a collective agreement] will occur.”

When asked whether AMUSE will bring any charges against the University, Michela responded that “we are evaluating all options in addition to arbitration.”

Floor Fellows’ reactions

Many Floor Fellows are disappointed with the University’s decision to veto the agreement.

Michela said that she has heard from both past and current Floor Fellows, who “feel frustrated about what has happened, but [feel] supported by what AMUSE is doing in response.”

In a statement to The Daily, Isabelle Oke, Floor Fellows Vice President and representative for AMUSE, added that “the reactions I’ve gotten have been a lot of disappointment but not overwhelming surprise; this latest move by McGill is inconsiderate of the time and work we put into this job, but it also isn’t uncharacteristic behaviour.”

The post Floor Fellows “frustrated” with University appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The course is part of the Faculty’s response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (TRC) report, released in 2015. (The TRC was organized to investigate the abuse inflicted on Indigenous peoples through the Indian residential school system.) Professor Kirsten Anker told The Daily in a phone interview that the Commission recommended that all Canadian law students take a course on Indigenous issues.

Anker, who taught a session as part of the intensive course, lectures about property, and Aboriginal peoples and the law at McGill. In creating the course, the Faculty of Law built upon the elective courses on Indigenous issues she herself developed.

“The door was open to Indigenous traditions but nothing really robust had been done to build them into the transsystemic program,” Anker said. The transsystemic program is the Faculty of Law’s unique undergraduate law degree that integrates both common and civil law into a single program.

“Instead of just teaching what’s called Aboriginal law […] we started bringing Indigenous law and traditions into the picture and kind of trying to have a […] dialogue about law between traditions, which is kind of the gist of what transsystemic law or legal education means,” she continued. “So it’s kind of taken that model, that idea, and brought it into a week for the whole first year [class].”

In an email to The Daily, professor Hoi Kong, one of the creators of the course, explained that the course was also inspired by “discussions, students, faculty, and other stakeholders had over the past few years about how to renew the curriculum.”

“The door was open to Indigenous traditions but nothing really robust had been done to build them into the transsystemic program.”

“The specific content of the course emerged in part from conversations that Professor Napoleon (from the University of Victoria) and Professor Friedland (from the University of Alberta), and I have had over the years, during their visits here and mine at the University of Victoria, and from a course that Professor Napoleon and I co-taught, and another that Professor Friedland taught here,” he elaborated.

The content used specific examples from Cree law, and included the “historical context, theories, and sources of Indigenous laws, as well as modes of interpreting and applying those sources,” he added.

Reactions to the course

When asked about the response from faculty and students, Anker said her impression was that “students were really engaged and they found it really interesting.”

“It was working really well in the way that it’s been set up to kind of mirror the integration week they did in first semester: looking at common and civil law about […] the question of safe injection spaces for [Intravenous] drug users,” she continued. “I think that worked […] really well […] because one of the challenges of learning Indigenous law is that it’s often in the abstract; someone can talk about it, but you don’t really get a sense of how it works as law until you try to do something with it.”

Anker added that other faculty members are also excited about giving more space to Indigenous issues in the curriculum.

Kong shared Anker’s sentiments, adding that he has been “really moved by the sincerity of the expressions of support.”

“I think that worked […] really well […] because one of the challenges of learning Indigenous law is that it’s often in the abstract; someone can talk about it, but you don’t really get a sense of how it works as law until you try to do something with it.”

In a phone interview with The Daily, Allan Vicaire, First People’s House and Social Equity and Diversity Education (SEDE) Office’s Indigenous Education Advisor, shared his excitement about the initiative.

“I think it’s about time that the University is pushing to include Indigenous perspectives in the classroom,” he said.

“I think sometimes we forget, especially at McGill, there are some great professors out there that are ready to push for Indigenous perspectives, and [ensure] that curriculum is inclusive,” he continued.

Vicaire noted that this initiative differs from others because the faculty is “ensuring that every student […] is being exposed to Indigenous issues.” He believes the next step is for other faculties to begin thinking of how they can implement that.

“I think it’s about time that the University is pushing to include Indigenous perspectives in the classroom.”

However, at least one first-year law student, Isabelle*, found that the course was problematic, particularly because of a lack of Indigenous voices.

“The instructors told us that was due to several reasons: that we should gain a background knowledge on Indigenous culture and legal systems before engaging with Indigenous peoples as a symbol of respect, and that there is a significant strain on Indigenous academics right now,” she said in an email to The Daily.

“I completely understand and respect these decisions, as well as the importance of putting in the work ourselves, however, it often felt as if we were learning from the wrong people,” she continued.

Isabelle further noted that the course content felt introductory, which is useful for students who had not previously been exposed to Indigenous issues, but left others wanting more.

She went on to say that “this week seemed to fit very well with a colonial legal education. It seemed to emphasize voices and analyses of academics who sought to engage with colonial legal systems and who took a reconciliationist approach. It often felt as if many more radical, or even separationist perspectives were missing, those that are often missing in internal legal conversations in law school.”

Future development

When asked what more needs to be done in teaching students about Indigenous issues, Anker highlighted the importance of transforming colonial power dynamics.

“This week seemed to fit very well with a colonial legal education.”

“It’s not just about giving people information, although that’s a really important part. It’s also about establishing that pedagogy and that learning environment has to come out of a relationship with communities,” she added.

She further highlighted the importance of developing “relationships in which we’re building a connection with communities and we’re implicated in them and they’re implicated in us.”

In terms of the course’s future development, Kong noted that a faculty committee is working to determine the next steps, such as the possibility of making this type of mandatory course longer.

Both Anker and Isabelle shared their belief that Indigenous law should be integrated into all of the courses offered by the Faculty of Law.

“It’s not just about giving people information, although that’s a really important part. It’s also about establishing that pedagogy and that learning environment has to come out of a relationship with communities.”

“Engaging with Indigeneity and colonialism means going beyond the classroom and working towards decolonization in every sense of the word,” Isabelle said. “It means challenging the culture of our classrooms and the Faculty in general; challenging its whiteness, its colonial history (and present), its heteropatriarchy. We need to think about and challenge what a legal education actually means within a settler-colonial context.”

*Name has been changed.

The post Indigenous law course launches appeared first on The McGill Daily.

After checking in with the executives periodically throughout the Fall semester, The Daily has compiled mid-year reviews of their performances.

President Ben Ger

As SSMU President, Ger is required to supervise the other executives’ portfolios to a certain degree, as well as represent the undergraduate community on McGill’s Board of Governors (BoG). So far, Ger has made the most of his position on the BoG, releasing a report entitled “A Seat at the Table,” which analysed problems of representation, consultation, and communication that have left McGill students feeling frustrated and alienated from the Board. The report also made a series of recommendations regarding how to address these issues.

Moreover, at the last Board meeting of the Fall semester, Ger attempted to initiate an official review of the BoG’s best practices by the Nominating, Governance, and Ethics (NGE) Committee. His resolution was tabled, but given the administration’s general reluctance to implement significant student-led reform, it is to Ger’s credit that the proposal was raised at all.

By contrast, the Fall 2016 General Assembly (GA), for which Ger was largely responsible, was incredibly underwhelming. Falling well below quorum, the GA clearly failed to represent the collective will of the undergraduate student body, and to engage people in the democratic process. Part of the reason seems to have been a distinct lack of publicity.

In an interview following the GA, Ger partly attributed this to restrictions on printing, yet a problem with print advertising would not have precluded a social media campaign. This aspect of organizing the GA is explicitly the President’s responsibility; The Daily expects better for the Winter GA.

VP Operations Sacha Magder

When Magder ran for the position, his campaign focused heavily on consultation, but included few concrete proposals. In the new position of VP Operations, Magder is responsible for operations in the SSMU building, such as Gerts and the Student Run Cafe (SRC), as well as sustainability initiatives.

In the Fall semester, both Gerts and SRC have seen increased sales, which is a valuable first step in addressing SSMU’s deficits as the SRC has been the single largest contributor. In late November, the SRC was posting half the deficit it posted last year around the same time. Magder pointed to attempts to reduce food waste and increased catering as reasons for this improvement.

This is particularly noteworthy, given that SSMU’s Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) forbids the SRC from advertising anywhere outside the Shatner building. Madger further told The Daily that he is in early talks with Deputy Provost Ollivier Dyens (Student Life and Learning) and other administrators to make the MoA more favorable to SSMU operations.

Construction around McGill’s downtown campus has caused major accessibility problems. Magder’s efforts to improve the situation seem largely to have been stymied by the City’s lack of accountability and failure to respond proactively to student needs.

With regard to sustainability initiatives, Magder told The Daily that he has spoken with Associate VP (University Services) Robert Couvrette about McGill’s waste management provider, which deals with both regular garbage and recycling. This is a serious potential conflict of interests, considering that landfills get paid by the square meter, meaning McGill could be getting fewer rebates for recycling initiatives. Madger has also spoken with McGill administrators about putting more composting bins in the Shatner building. Both initiatives have yet to be seen on campus, but both were conceived in the Fall semester.

However, the VP Operations office did secure a $10,000 grant to build a garden behind the Shatner building, which could contribute towards the SRC’s operations, but as of yet, little has been seen of concrete sustainability initiatives.

Magder’s campaign promise to institute a “Crash Pad” in the Shatner Building has for the most part not seen great progress outside of Frosh, with sustainability and operations taking up a majority of his time.

VP Student Life Elaine Patterson

As VP Student Life, Patterson has a mandate to carry out mental health initiatives, as well as oversee clubs and services. In the Fall semester, she extended Activities Night to three nights rather than two, allowing for a more pleasant atmosphere, with more clubs and students allowed to participate, despite some accessibility issues due to the construction on McTavish. That being said, some might criticize her choice (in coordination with SSMU’s Sponsorship Coordinator, Security Manager, and Communications and Publications Coordinator) not to subject the company Tangerine, which brought an excessively large tent to the event, to repercussions for their breach of contract, which contributed to crowding at the event.

With the current club moratorium in place, which prevents the creation of new clubs under SSMU, Patterson has been limited in her Clubs and Services mandate. Nonetheless, Patterson has contributed towards giving certain SSMU services, like the Peer Support Centre, more permanent spaces in the Shatner building.

As one of the movers behind the newly adopted free Menstrual Hygiene Products Policy, a commendable effort on Patterson’s part, students will have to see how she executes the policy and assure that funding is used effectively toward the policy’s objectives.
Back in August, Patterson told The Daily that she was working with SSMU President Ben Ger to implement a gender discrimination policy in the Fall semester that will go beyond current provisions. Part of the policy included what is now the free Menstrual Hygiene Products Policy, but little has been heard of this overarching initiative in the months since.

With regards to mental health initiatives, Patterson has worked towards implementing “Mental Health 101” training sessions for new faculty and staff, and hosted “mental health roundtable” discussions amongst the University’s Mental Health Services. But despite her wishes to harmonize said services, restructuring of McGill’s Counselling and Mental Health Services (CMHS) and changes to the medical notes policy (done without consulting SSMU) has left many on campus disappointed.

VP Finance Niall Carolan

Carolan came into his position exceptionally qualified with regard to financial experience. His electoral platform called for reorganizing club funding and better balancing of SSMU’s budget; so far, he seems to have been largely successful in both areas.

With regards to club funding, he has removed mandatory second installment reports, to make the funding process “as easy as possible for student clubs,” in his words. Previously when clubs applied for funding, half would be given up front, and the rest would be given after a report was submitted; this process was inconvenient for both clubs and SSMU administrators, he said.

Moreover, Carolan has worked with the Student Run Café (SRC) to cut its deficit in half in comparison to last year. Specifically, “whereas last year the deficit was around $44,000 by August 31, this year it was only $20 [thousand].” He further told The Daily that SSMU’s expenditures as a whole have been reduced as well.

Carolan has also been working towards the implementation of a Socially Responsible Investment Fund (SRIF), working with Vadim di Pietro, Chief Investment Officer at Desautels Capital Management and a team of Desautels students in the Honours Investment Program. This is a commendable initiative as, in his words, “if we can invest our money in a place that both provides financial returns and a positive social impact, that’s an amazing opportunity.”

However, Carolan has faced criticism for what many have perceived as being an increased corporatization of SSMU. In response to the criticism, he said he would like to arrange student consultation through the Financial Ethics Review Committee, and that he would like to see active participation from students in decision-making. He further noted that the decision to seek sponsorships was made by the previous VP Finance and Operations, although during his campaign he did in fact speak of a desire to seek corporate sponsorship.

VP Internal Daniel Lawrie

When Lawrie ran unopposed last year, his platform focused on three main tenets: communication, organization, and trust. With regard to the first objective, Lawrie worked on improving communication between his office and the student body this past semester. More specifically, he focused on redesigning the listerv, an initiative that seems to have been largely successful. He told The Daily that as a result, 44 per cent of students now read the listserv.

During his campaign, he also proposed using the official McGill and MyMartlet apps to further disseminate the listserv and sell tickets to SSMU events. Unfortunately, this proposal has so far not come to fruition, as Lawrie claims the company that runs the apps, Ooh La La, has been largely unresponsive. Lawrie said he will continue to reach out to the company in the next semester.

More concretely, Lawrie took the initiative to begin planning for 4Floors earlier than previous VP Internals, and saw this work pay off with the sale of close to 900 tickets, which generated a small profit. In comparison, last year’s 4Floors ran a deficit.

While this is commendable, Lawrie acknowledged that “one of the things I’ve been most frustrated with is my time management,” as he prioritized 4Floors and thereby neglected other aspects of his portfolio. Now that 4Floors is over, he says he will focus on other initiatives, such as the rebranding of McGill Red and White, now known as Life After Your Degree (LifeAYD).

Additionally, Lawrie has restructured the First-year Undergraduate Network (FUN), unifying it with First Year Council (FYC). Most recently, he has helped FYC create their first draft of a new constitution.

While Lawrie told The Daily at the beginning of the 2016-2017 academic year that he planned to diversify the events portfolio and focus more on non-drinking events, The Daily has not yet seen much progress in this regard.

VP External David Aird

The position of VP External requires Aird to support student-led campaigns on campus, to observe meetings of the Association pour la Voix Étudiante au Québec (AVEQ), and to oversee francophone affairs at McGill.

During his campaign Aird placed significant emphasis on this last point, promising to strengthen relations between McGill students and the Milton-Parc community. Aird told The Daily of plans to reinstate French conversation circles between students and the neighbourhood’s permanent residents, and even to organize student lectures for the community. These ideas have not materialized. Aird said that he will focus more on these objectives in the Winter semester.

A supporter of last year’s unsuccessful campaign to have SSMU join AVEQ, Aird has been attending AVEQ meetings in an observational capacity. He has also participated in a number of AVEQ subcommittees, and says he has been working to ensure that the federation aligns with SSMU’s values and priorities. Aird has reported on his work with AVEQ to SSMU’s Legislative Council, but disavows any intention of mounting another campaign to affiliate SSMU with AVEQ. While his involvement with AVEQ is important, he needs to more actively promote AVEQ’s activities on campus, and keep the McGill community abreast of his work.

The VP External portfolio is also mandated to student initiatives and campaigns. In this respect, Aird’s performance has been uneven. Throughout the Fall semester he remained involved in McGill Against Austerity, consulted with Divest McGill, and collaborated with VP University Affairs Erin Sobat in hiring a researcher to support Demilitarize McGill. He helped organize a small demonstration against tuition hikes on November 2, as well as McGill contingents to one or two other anti-austerity actions. However, Aird did not organize a contingent to the massive demonstration against rape culture which occurred in Montreal a few days earlier, nor did his office promote the event. This is emblematic of a broader problem with Aird’s performance: his work with McGill Against Austerity is commendable, but he must engage McGill students in a wider variety of movements in the community.

VP University Affairs Erin Sobat

The VP University Affairs must act as a liaison between McGill’s administration and its undergraduate student body, advocating for student priorities whenever possible. As such, the position can be a frustrating one; indeed, Sobat’s attempts to improve accommodations procedures – particularly where mental health issues are concerned – have to some extent been stymied by lack of consultation and general disorganization on the part of McGill Counselling and Mental Health Services (CMHS). Despite this, he and VP Student Life Elaine Patterson seem to have been working with the heads of these services to the best of their ability to ensure that no student is left behind by the new ‘stepped care’ model.

Sobat also organized a campaign early in the year to collect testimony from students regarding their experiences seeking accommodations from McGill. He also spearheaded a “Know Your Student Rights” campaign which ran at the start of both the Fall and Winter semesters, and included a website and robust social media presence.

During the Fall semester, in consultation with the McGill community, Sobat devoted much of his time to improving the Sexual Violence Policy (SVP). While far from perfect, the policy is a crucial first step toward combatting sexual violence at McGill, and supporting those who have experienced it. Thanks in part to Sobat’s valuable work, the policy was fully approved by the administration toward the end of the Fall semester, and implementation is now underway.

The post SSMU Midterm Reviews appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Former Director of McGill Mental Health Services Norman Hoffman told The Daily in an e-mail that he has “been told directly by various McGill Mental Health staff that Dr. Nancy Low has been suspended, apparently for insubordination,” in relation to the newly implemented stepped care model.

Stepped Care

At the beginning of the 2016/2017 academic year, McGill’s Mental Health Services and Counselling Services consolidated to become CMHS.

In a panel discussion regarding the state of mental health services at McGill, hosted by the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) Mental Health Commissioners last October, Associate Director of CMHS Giuseppe Alfonsi explained to students that the McGill Health Clinic has seen “a thirty per cent increase in users over the last five years.”

In response to this increasing demand for CMHS’ services, a new approach was taken: the ‘stepped-care model.’

This model uses a “two doors, one service,” system, wherein students can enter CMHS through counselling or mental health, but are processed by a single, combined system. Students are given a variety of treatment options which act as ‘steps’ to one-on-one psychotherapy, the treatment students previously received.

CMHS now also offers different types of treatment, such as online therapy, group therapy, and referrals to other organizations such as the Peer Support Centre, in order to reduce the strain on CMHS.

Growing concerns

However, many students have voiced concerns despite a reorganization of McGill’s counselling and mental health services. For example, trans students continue to face barriers in mental health treatment, with many such students reporting being uncomfortable discussing queerness, transness, and racialization.

Students’ concerns only grew when the process through which students obtain medical notes suddenly changed in October 2016.

Students now only receive same-day notes if they are in imminent danger of harming themselves or others, or they have already been assigned a Client Care Clinician (CCC).

On October 28, 2016, in a statement emailed to campus media, VP University Affairs Erin Sobat said that this new medical notes policy “disregards the need to provide services and accommodation for incidental cases of mental health issues that may not qualify as an immediate safety concern, in a system where there is not currently sufficient access to care to ensure that students are already being seen by a McGill or external clinician.”

He further noted that as the current wait time for seeing a CCC is two weeks, students who do not meet the above mentioned criteria must wait two weeks before receiving a medical note if they are sick and thereby have to miss class. This poses many difficulties for students as McGill professors cannot accept medical notes that justify past absences.

Interim Senior Director of Services for Students, Cara Piperni, told The Daily at the time that the change in medical notes was a “residual impact” of the move to a stepped care model.

“[This medical notes policy] disregards the need to provide services and accommodation for incidental cases of mental health issues that may not qualify as an immediate safety concern, in a system where there is not currently sufficient access to care to ensure that students are already being seen by a McGill or external clinician.”

In an email to The Daily late December, Sobat noted that “until now, there has been little room for serious input from students or Student Services staff [with regards to the stepped care model], and we’re concerned that if people do not feel included in the decision-making process then ultimately the changes will be less successful (this is particularly true for the clinicians who are responsible for actually providing this care to students).”

“We’re actively trying to improve the situation from our side (particularly in pushing for actual communication and consultation plans going forward),” Sobat continued, “but unfortunately, I think that negative internal management styles or HR [Human Resources] struggles will only hurt students in the end.”

Low’s Suspension

Hoffman told The Daily that he has “been told directly from Mental Health and Counselling staff that the stepped care system is not working well.”

“I’ve been told directly from staff that they were told that they are not allowed to object to the stepped care system,” he added.

“We’re actively trying to improve the situation from our side (particularly in pushing for actual communication and consultation plans going forward), but unfortunately, I think that negative internal management styles or HR [Human Resources] struggles will only hurt students in the end.”

With regards to the stepped care model, Hoffman said: “It is my opinion that a stepped care system for a Mental Health Service makes no clinical sense.”

“Firstly, it is not possible to make an accurate assessment of a student’s needs in a one time triage session, especially if the student has little reason to trust that their concerns will be properly heard,” he elaborated. “Secondly, the type of modalities, apart from one-to-one therapy, that are being offered to students, may have some value as adjuncts to proper treatment, but are unlikely to be highly valuable on their own.”

“I’ve been told directly from staff that they were told that they are not allowed to object to the stepped care system.”

Sobat also voiced displeasure with regards to the stepped care model’s implementation, writing that the SSMU executive team is “disappointed that the transition to a stepped care model, which we support for many reasons, has been so rushed and poorly managed in its implementation.”

“It is my opinion that the McGill Mental Health Service has fundamentally been abolished,” Hoffman went on to say.

“In merging Mental Health with Counselling, and in relegating psychiatrists to primarily be prescribing medication, the University is fundamentally removing the role of Mental Health in being a leader in developing and implementing advanced, student oriented, psychotherapy models, and is promoting primarily symptom suppression modalities of treatment,” he concluded.

“It is my opinion that the McGill Mental Health Service has fundamentally been abolished.”

When asked for a comment regarding Low’s apparent suspension, Doug Sweet, McGill’s Director of Internal Communication, told The Daily via email that “the University cannot comment on the personnel dossiers or employment records of any of its staff members.”

The post Director of Counselling and Mental Health Services suspended appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The board also heard reports from Senate, the Finance Committee, and the Executive Committee, as well as a report from the Joint Board-Senate Meeting regarding McGill’s sustainability plans and initiatives.

At the end of the meeting, a resolution from Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) President Ben Ger, which asked the NGE committee to compile a report on the Board of Governors’ best practices, was tabled.

A small step in the right direction

Stuart Cobbett, chair of the BoG, presented the NGE Committee’s report, and proposed a resolution which aimed to facilitate a limited degree of interaction between members of the McGill community and the Board.

According to Cobbett, the resolution is a “mechanism […] whereby twice a year there would be a twenty minute community session” at the end of the BoG meeting.

During these sessions, questions asked in advance by community members would be answered and there would be a limited amount of time allotted for follow up questions.

According to Cobbett, the resolution is a “mechanism […] whereby twice a year there would be a twenty minute community session” at the end of the BoG meeting.

According to this policy, the chair of the BoG would have discretion in determining who answers the question and which questions are heard. Moreover, the policy stipulates that the chair could “decline a question if an individual or group has previously appeared before the Board regarding the same matter or if the matter has been previously addressed by the Board either at a previous Board meeting or following a question submitted to the Board by another individual or group.”

This, presumably, would allow the chair to decline to address a question from groups like Divest McGill, who have spoken and staged walk-ins at previous Board meetings to advocate for divestment from fossil fuels.

“This does represent a step ahead of where we have ever been,” Cobbett said. “There has never been a formal mechanism whereby the Board would receive submissions or questions in the meeting. […] This now regularizes that practice and provides a framework.”

Tina Hobday, a McGill Alumni Association representative to the Board, commented on the length of time allotted for the community sessions — twenty minutes — saying that in certain situations it may be too much time and in others it may not be enough.

Cobbett responded by saying the committee decided on twenty minutes based on the experience of other universities. He noted that “the intention is not to have an artificially short period, [but] on the other hand, the intention is not to have an extraordinarily long period.”

However, Post-Graduate Students’ Society (PGSS) Secretary-General Victor Frankel voiced some more concerns: “Twenty minutes twice a year does not seem like it’s enough, especially if you’re trying to frame it as [about five minutes per] person asking a question.”

“I was concerned that the discretion of the chair would allow for decisions to be made on who gets to address these questions to the Board and limitations on what subject matters could be addressed in these question periods,” he continued on to say. “That in itself would raise a lot of concern, because a lot of the things that happen at the Board are only communicated to the community after the fact and it doesn’t give the opportunity for input before decisions are made.”

This, presumably, would allow the chair to decline to address a question from groups like Divest McGill, who have spoken and staged walk-ins at previous Board meetings to advocate for divestment from fossil fuels.

He recommended that the policy go back to the committee for further review.

However, Principal Suzanne Fortier said she believed “it would be good actually to approve this today so that we could start implementing it right away, because if we send it back to the committee we might not be able to implement it this year.”

Cobbett suggested that the resolution be amended to mandate a review of the policy after one year.

The resolution passed.

Socially Responsible Investment Fund

The Chair of the Investment Committee reported on initiatives regarding meetings with the Committee to Advise on Matters of Social Responsibility (CAMSR).

On March 23 of this year, the BoG refused to divest from fossil fuel corporations based on a report from the Committee to Advise on Matters of Social Responsibility (CAMSR), which found that fossil fuels do not cause “grave social injury.” At the same meeting, the Board asked the Investment Committee to look into “establishing a socially responsible investment fund option for donors interested in such an option, […] developing ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) principles and guidelines for endowment investments, [and] “asking investment managers to report annually on ESG and UNPRI (United Nations Principles of Responsible Investing) implementation and compliance,” to be reported to the Board in December 2016.

Raby explained that the Investment Committee has proposed the creation of a Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) strategy to be funded with $5 million of McGill’s $1.4 billion endowment fund. Put another way, this fund would represent a mere 0.4 per cent of the University’s endowment.

The Chair explained that this will give donors the option to invest specifically along ‘ethical’ principles.

He further added that the Committee will look into hiring investment managers who have experience working with socially responsible investments and who follow these principles.

“We’re not simply going to pay lip service to [social responsibility],” he added, “we’re going to be proactive on it [and] we’re going to be keeping that as a focus in terms of our manager searches in the future.”

“Twenty minutes twice a year does not seem like it’s enough, especially if you’re trying to frame it as [about five minutes per] person asking a question.”

Academic Staff Representative Derek Nystrom noted that part of the SRI strategy’s objective is to “avoid the securities of companies engaged primarily in production or distribution of alcohol, tobacco, pornography, gaming, weapons,” according to the report.

“I’m wondering why we don’t have fossil fuels on that list, and I ask that because these CAMSR recommendations were made in response to Divest McGill’s petition to ask the University to divest from all of its holds in fossil fuels,” he said.

“This isn’t a very large part of the endowment, $5 million out of $1.4 billion is less than half of one per cent of the endowment,” he continued. “One of the downsides of our decisions not to divest is that we could lose some of our donors, we already did […] but if we had a fund that said we have a part […] committed to divesting […] why not include [to the list] those that are engaged in the extraction […] of fossil fuels?”

Raby responded that he believes CAMSR would be better suited to answer that question.

Frankel also spoke in favour of including fossil fuels in the list, saying that “we can afford to be more ambitious.”

He added that “in the report, it says that the ESG principles will be adopting a policy similar to that being used in the faculty pension plan, but I wanted to bring to the table the opinion and voices of people not at the table; many faculty members have told me that they don’t invest in the pension plan because it includes […] investments in Enbridge, Stone Corp.”

As a result of this discussion, Cobbett announced, “we’ll take [the report] back and think on it.”

Increasing accountability

On November 29, SSMU released a research report from the President’s office entitled “A Seat at the Table: An Analysis of the McGill University Board of Governors” to examine the Board’s current structure and administration.

Academic Staff Representative Derek Nystrom noted that part of the SRI strategy’s objective is to “avoid the securities of companies engaged primarily in production or distribution of alcohol, tobacco, pornography, gaming, weapons,” according to the report.

A press release announcing the report stated that the “current state of governance at McGill University has perpetuated an environment where community members feel disenfranchised and unheard by the Board of Governors.”

“Particular issues include a lack of diversity or community representation in Board membership; a privileged nomination process; unregulated confidential sessions; and insufficient consultation protocols for all decisions,” the release continued.

The report provides recommendations to address these issues, including expanding representation of the McGill community through Member-at-Large seats on the Board, public nominations of members-at-large, and a restructuring of the NGE Committee.

In relation to this report, Ger submitted a resolution to the Board, proposing that the NGE Committee compile a report on BoG best practices, which was discussed at the meeting.

“I’m not sure where this is heading,” Cobbett said, “because if the intention is scholarly review of board practices, frankly I’m not sure that’s an efficient use of our limited resources.”

“Speaking for myself and speaking for the chair of the [NGE] Committee, I’d be a whole lot more comfortable if there was a little more specificity to this,” he continued.

Ger explained, “What I would like to see out of a report like this is more of an examining of the roots, of those documents at the bottom, looking at the […] details that can change in order to need less structures at the top.”

“The intention of this was not to compile an academic study, but maybe just to see what sort of practices are out there for the Board’s general knowledge,” he added. “It would mainly look at the statutes as well as the terms of reference.”

Cobbett said that this “is a large part of what the [NGE] committee looked at over the course of the last month.”

“I’m just going to get to the heart of the issue,” Frankel said in response. “At McGill’s community council […] I think that what this is trying to do is to increase the level of accountability at the level of the Board, and the motion that was passed earlier today makes great strides toward that.”

When asked what he meant by accountability, Frankel explained that he was concerned with the fact that members-at-large are not nominated.

Fortier then explained that McGill, as a publicly funded university, is required to have Board members who represent the public, that are taxpayers, who are not internal to the University.

Ger maintained that “in terms of accountability, that’s an area in which the report can look into. It’s all tied into this wider concept of including community engagement.”

“The current state of governance at McGill University has perpetuated an environment where community members feel disenfranchised and unheard by the Board of Governors.”

“I don’t see a reason why more reporting and more information sharing at the Board level of best practices would be a problem,” he added.

However, Cobbett suggested that Ger meet with him, the Board Secretary-General, and other members to bring more focus to the resolution. Ger agreed to his suggestion, and the resolution was tabled.

In an email to The Daily, Ger said that he plans to either go back to the NGE Committee with a more specific report or submit parts of the SSMU report to the committee or Board.

When asked about his reasoning behind the motion, Ger acknowledged the restrictions imposed by the University’s public status, but he believes the current BoG model “contributes to an atmosphere where some Governors, though in some instances to no fault of their own, are detached from the community they govern.”

He added that “out of the many points that were brought up by the report that the SSMU released, I believe that Composition and Nomination are the two areas in most crucial need of reform.”

“Considering the decentralized nature of the McGill community,” he continued, “different members come with a unique and important ground level view on how micro-factions within the institution function, what their realities are like, and the ways in which the University can improve.”

Ger further advocated for reforming the Board so that there are fewer external seats and more elected representatives, as well as redefining what it means to be a member of the community.

He went on to say that the Board should be nominating “identity-based or neighbourhood specific representatives,” as “those who identify in particular ways and have varying experiences in different communities of people, rather than different types of businesses, would be better equipped to provide opinions that are generally not available within the [university’s] walls.”

The post Board of Governors allows for limited student input twice a year appeared first on The McGill Daily.

As opposed to having regular part-time schedules, casuals will now only be scheduled during peak periods, drastically reducing their hours.

On the same day, president of the Association of McGill University Support Employees (AMUSE), Claire Michela, informed The Daily via email that AMUSE has reached an agreement “in principle” with the University. Michela said they cannot discuss what was agreed upon until AMUSE members vote on the agreement.

Le James employees’ grievances

Several Le James employees reached out to The Daily to voice their grievances regarding the change.

“AMUSE has demanded that part-time workers who have worked 26 consecutive weeks should be considered ‘full-time employees.’ This would mean that the bookstore [has] to increase the student wage and supply benefits to workers who do not even actually work full-time,” a group of employees wrote in a statement to The Daily.

“The McGill bookstore has been forced into negotiating with the union over this, and the outcome has been that all ‘casuals’ (part-time workers) will now only be called in for ‘peak periods,’” the statement continues.

Such peak periods “would include periods such as back to school rush, homecoming, and orientation/special event days, which we estimate would amount to maybe four-five weeks a year. This is a huge drop from the three-five shifts [per] week that many of us work currently.”

Several employees also shared how these changes will impact them.

“The McGill bookstore has been forced into negotiating with the union over this, and the outcome has been that all ‘casuals’ (part-time workers) will now only be called in for ‘peak periods.’”

In an email to The Daily, Leila*, a Le James employee, wrote that “as a student worker, I depend on my job at the McGill Bookstore for a steady bi-weekly income throughout the semester. How am I supposed to support myself by working four weeks a year?”

Another employee, Alex,* wrote, “Shouldn’t on-campus employment protect the interests of student workers? I can’t help but feel that my coworkers and I are being overlooked as part-time employees.”

Katie*, a bookstore employee for two years, told The Daily that “because being a student is my top priority, I depend on the flexibility of being a casual worker to work around my hectic school schedule. Working consecutively for over 26 weeks should not categorize me as a full-time employee.”

“How am I supposed to support myself by working four weeks a year?”

Union leadership responds

However, when The Daily reached out to AMUSE, Michela wrote in an email that the change in employment “has [nothing] to do with negotiations and everything to do with a MUNACA [McGill University Non-Academic Certified Association] grievance. It is not MUNACA’s fault though.”

“This** is not true at all and we are working with MUNACA and bookstore managers to clarify the situation,” she concluded.

In an email to The Daily, MUNACA President Thomas Chalmers wrote, “At this point all we at MUNACA are prepared to say is that this situation seems fraught with rumour and innuendo.”

“Shouldn’t on-campus employment protect the interests of student workers? I can’t help but feel that my coworkers and I are being overlooked as part-time employees.”

While he acknowledged the way casuals are scheduled will change, he added that “we are also very much aware that whenever possible management takes the opportunity to blame unions for the unpopular decisions they take and it would not come as a surprise to us that MUNACA is blamed for the termination of student casuals.”

“This is not true at all and we are working with MUNACA and bookstore managers to clarify the situation.”

Confusion reigns

Le James employees belong to AMUSE, but managers who supervise different sections of the store fall are under MUNACA.

Confusion over AMUSE’s role in the reduction of hours for casuals at Le James seems to stem from MUNACA and AMUSE having entered a political merger in 2014. The two unions agreed to merge their structure and bylaws, but conserve their pre-existing collective agreements for their separate units.

In a statement to both AMUSE and MUNACA memberships in 2014, union leaderships wrote “that the next round of bargaining would be done side by side, but AMUSE and MUNACA members would vote separately for their respective contracts.”

Moving forward

Leila shared an email Michela wrote to her, in which Michela reiterated that the change in hours concerns a MUNACA grievance, and outlined the steps she has taken to resolve the issue.

Michela has “spoken directly with the MUNACA president who said that his intention is not to get casual employees fired and he is working with us already to solve the issue.” She has also approached bookstore management to ensure she is receiving updates, and arranged a meeting for the employees with human resources and MUNACA.

“Rest assured that we are doing everything we can to keep you from losing your job,” Michela concluded.

According to Leila, Michela has arranged a meeting between the employees, MUNACA, and McGill Human Resources on Friday, December 2, to discuss the employees’ concerns. Chalmers added that AMUSE and MUNACA “have requested a meeting with the Human Relations department for this week, in order to clarify what management’s plans are for the casuals in the Bookstore.”

“Rest assured that we are doing everything we can to keep you from losing your job.”

*Names have been changed.

** Michela is referring to the idea that AMUSE’s agreement with the University led to the change in how casuals are scheduled at Le James. 

A previous version of this article stated, “The two unions merged their structure and bylaws, but conserved their pre-existing collective agreements for their separate units.” In fact, the two unions have agreed to this, but have not yet completed the merger: there will be a General Assembly in January to merge the by-laws. The Daily regrets the error. 

The post Bookstore employees voice concerns appeared first on The McGill Daily.