The Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) called to order its second Legislative Council meeting of the academic year on Sept. 28. Most discussion items fell into one of two categories: Beginning-of-fall housekeeping and nominations to the Legislative Council’s various committees. 

The meeting commenced with Summer Reports from McGill’s Science Undergraduate Society (SUS) and Arts Undergraduate Society, followed by individual Summer Reports from each SSMU Executive. Vice President (VP) University Affairs Lalia Katchelewa discussed various Indigenous-support initiatives that she has been collaborating on with VP External Affairs Liam Gaither and Indigenous Affairs Commissioner Jocelyne Couture, particularly in light of McGill’s controversial New Vic Project. These include advocacy on behalf of the Mohawk Mothers to the McGill Administration and the “Critical Campus Tour,” which took place on Sept. 29 as part of the 5th annual Skátne Entewathahíta/We Will Walk Together Event.

“[It is] a tour of stories of McGill that have not been told in the past […] on Indigenous affairs or what was happening at McGill before McGill was there, on the land that belongs to the University,” Katchelewa explained.

After a brief presentation from McGill’s Sustainability Projects Fund (SPF), the meeting launched into a Question Period dominated by debate on whether opinions in SSMU Statements should be attributed to “SSMU” or “SSMU Executives.” The discussion analyzed the Executive Committee’s recent declaration of support, which included the line, “The SSMU strongly supports the work of queer and trans activists [against the 1 Million March 4 Children].” SUS Representative Joshua Gerstvolf raised a concern that the wording implies that the sentence reflects the views of all SSMU members, not just the Executives.

“There’s a lot of misinterpretation [of the line] among the students—when they read ‘SSMU,’ they’re including all members of SSMU,” Gerstvolf argued.

VP Student Life Nadia Dakdouki countered that the phrase falls under SSMU’s Positions Book, which stresses SSMU representatives’ obligation to support “marginalized persons.” However, Dakdouki also acknowledged the potential confusion over authorship.

“We’ll make sure that there is an actual signature saying ‘The SSMU Executive Committee’ [at the end of Statements] […] we’ll take that feedback and make that clarification,” Dakdouki resolved.

After a brief recess, the Council returned for the meeting’s business proper. The old business—the readoption of the meeting’s rules for the oncoming year—passed with minimal edits. The two pieces of new business composed the meeting’s final hour. 

First was the allocation of committees to Councillors, who all must sit on at least one. While the process initially progressed quickly, with Councillors nominating themselves for seats and some even facing competition, it soon decelerated to a repeated process of calling on those who had not self-nominated and asking them to choose a committee or be chosen for one. Eventually, each Councillor possessed at least one committee seat, though many seats were left unfilled as not all Councillors took on additional allocations.

The second piece, the nomination of Councillors to the Board of Directors, proved slower going. All Councillors hesitated to nominate themselves, despite alternating attempts by the Executives to spotlight the importance of the role and remind the members of their responsibility to take it. At Dakdouki’s recommendation, Deputy Speaker Sierra Fallis called upon each Council member individually to explain their refusal; most pointed to a lack of time for the position. Half an hour into the debate, only one of the four spots had been filled, by Law Representative Jacob Shannon. Fallis adjourned the meeting after other Councillors successfully passed motions to approve the piece of business as-is and return to the issue at the next meeting. 

Moment of the Meeting:

SUS Representative Sofie Fournier’s question on the use of “SSMU supports” in the Statement sparked a deeper discussion of SSMU’s advocational positions and voice.

Soundbite:

“In terms of democracy and being able to run SSMU properly, we need representation on the Board of Directors, and last year, Council did do a lock-in […] until people had been nominated to the Board of Directors. And so that is also an option [for this meeting].” – Dakdouki, following reluctance from Councillors to nominate themselves