Dean of Law Daniel Jutras’ report on the events of Nov. 10 was made public on Dec. 15. The 60-page investigation, originally commissioned by Principal Heather Munroe-Blum in the days following the incident, sought to establish a record for what transpired that evening, and determine what led to the presence of riot police on McGill’s campus.
Over the course of the investigation, Jutras received over 150 written factual accounts and took as testimony over 45 hours of interviews from primary actors in the event. Some, but not all, of the 14 individuals who attempted to occupy the James Administration Building came forward and spoke with Jutras.
Among other recommendations, the report called for a revision of how McGill Security Services operates in situations of demonstrations and protests, and for clear guidelines stipulating how university authorities determine who has the power to call for police assistance.
The portfolio of University Safety (and Security Services) falls under the jurisdiction of Jim Nicell, VP University Services.
“I think that Dean Jutras’ report is an excellent account of the events of Nov. 10,” Nicell told the Tribune via email. “It is consistent with my own personal experience in the square on that evening. Also, in terms of the recommendations that Dean Jutras made, I think that they are very sound and I certainly welcome them.”
In the weeks following Jutras’ appointment by Munroe-Blum to carry out the investigation, many on campus were apprehensive about having a member of McGill’s faculty carry out the investigation due to the potential bias. A group of students undertook their own investigation in parallel to Jutras’, calling themselves the Independent Student Inquiry.
In his report, Jutras acknowledged the work of the Independent Student Inquiry. Over the course of his own research, Jutras took account of the submissions and interviews that the student investigation had posted online.
Jutras’ report could not compel testimony or assign blame to individuals.
“The report was really limited by its terms of reference, which especially shows in its recommendations, (which some members of our team think could go more deeply into the issues involved),” Chris Bangs, a member of the Independent Student Inquiry, said via email.
“We think one very important and frustrating thing he did not mention in his report is that many students felt uncomfortable speaking with him and planned to boycott his investigation,” he said. “Some students only felt comfortable making their testimonies public after his investigation has finished.”
Maggie Knight, President of SSMU, shared her views on the report with the Tribune. SSMU reacted quickly in providing support to students in the aftermath of the riot police presence.
“The recommendations for greater communication are helpful, specifically in laying out key areas where communication must be improved,” she said. “However, I don’t know that the human impact on many students and other members of the McGill community was sufficiently conveyed … it doesn’t thoroughly address the level of damage done to the McGill community.”
Knight felt that the report could have better addressed the administration’s follow-up response to hurt, pepper-sprayed, and disturbed students, including bystanders caught up in the dispersion of the crowd by the police.
“Dean Jutras’ report says only that ‘the University should assess its own response to the events of Nov. 10 in terms of providing counselling and care to faculty, staff, and students in the days that followed,'” Knight said. “This does not provide guidance as to who should undertake such an assessment by what methodology, nor does it speak to what core values are at stake—namely, compassion for any member of our community who has been hurt.”
Jutras sees his report as merely the first step on the way to further discussion among groups on campus, namely the administration, students, and the community.
“I think the next step for the university is for people to read the report carefully, and to come up with their own sense of the events and to participate in the conversation that focuses on moving forward,” Jutras told the Tribune. “I think it’s fair to say that the factual account really is an effort to come up with facts and everybody here in the university setting will understand that there is some subjective perception, but I made as much of an effort as possible to come up with an objective statement of facts … reconciling different perspectives of what took place.”
“The factual account … forms a shared basis—I hope—for further deliberations. The recommendations are mine—I have to be conscious of the fact that there may be a wide range of different recommendations coming from all constituencies within the university that flow from the facts. If the community doesn’t think [my recommendations] aren’t the ones that need to be followed to learn from the events of Nov. 10, then the conversation should take place. We should really be talking about what we make of these facts and … now is the time to hear different voices.”
