Students, union members, and administrators came together to discuss the Quebec government’s announced budget cuts at a student-led Faculty of Arts forum last Thursday. Topics covered during the forum included teaching assistants’ (TA) concerns with regards to the budget cuts, and the removal of 101 arts courses for the 2013-2014 academic year.

The forum, which took place in the Madeleine Parent Room in the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) Building, featured several speakers, including Dean of Students Andre Costopoulos, Jaime MacLean, president of the Association of McGill University Support Employees (AMUSE), and Justin Marleau, chair of AGSEM—McGill’s teaching union which represents TAs employed at the university.

Marleau presented first, and explained to the 30 attendees that TAs have been facing financial difficulties since 2007. Marleau said that while the university’s operating budget increased by approximately $200 million between 2007 and 2012, TAs have actually seen a 0.04 per cent decline in the revenue allocated to them. He claimed the TA funding should have increased by two million dollars.

Marleau explained that this underfunding, coupled with increased undergraduate enrollment, has resulted in a decline in the number of hours that the average TA can offer to undergraduates. He expressed concern that the Parti Québécois’ budget cuts will only worsen TAs’ financial reality.

“What we’ve heard from the administration already [is] that they’re seeking across-the-board salary freezes,” Marleau said. “A teaching assistant with a full teaching load in one semester makes about $4500 for that course. That’s not a lot of money, especially when you have to pay tuition.”

MacLean also expressed concern that, as a result of the budget cuts, the McGill administration might ask AMUSE to delay pay increases promised in collective agreements, or that AMUSE members—many of whom are students working part-time—might be at a greater risk of losing their jobs with little notice, in comparison to other McGill employees.

Marleau offered several alternative ways in which the budget cuts could be made in the next few years without hurting TAs and other unionized employees, such as cutting the salaries of senior administrators, which Marleau believes would not directly impact the quality of education and research at the university.

Following Marleau’s presentation, Costopoulos pointed to the cuts to arts courses piloted by Dean of Arts Christopher Manfredi—undertaken to get rid of low-enrollment courses—which are hoped to address the ongoing pressures felt by TAs.

“[Having] fewer very small classes … [and reducing] the size of the largest classes by distributing the students more evenly in the classes … in a sense, results in more classes for which a TA is needed,” Costopoulos explained.

Associate Dean of Arts (Academic Administration and Oversight) Gillian Lane-Mercier, who was in the audience, reinforced Costopoulos’s statement, and confirmed that TAs will receive increased funding by September.

“[Dean Manfredi] … is very adamant about wanting to increase the TA budget by this process,” she said. “We now … have the actual statistics. There will be exactly 101 less courses on the 2013-2014 offerings, and the TA budget has been upped by 16 per cent.”

Mercedes Sharpe, vice-president internal of the Anthropology Students’ Association (ASA) and co-organizer of Thursday’s forum, asked Costopoulos whether student input would be considered in the re-organization of arts courses.

“[The] Curriculum Committee, [the] Committee on Student Affairs, [and] various working groups set up by [Dean Manfredi] … are [all] part of this planning exercise,” Costopoulos responded. “Students are represented on all those bodies.”

Costopoulos encouraged participants to use their voices in university and faculty governance, and to ensure that student seats on important committees are filled.

Following the  forum’s conclusion, several student participants said they were pleased by what was discussed at the event, and by what they learned from the afternoon’s discussions.

“I think it was good … to talk about how these cuts will affect labour on campus,” Sheehan Moore, vice-president publications of the ASA and co-organizer of the forum, said. “I think there is a tendency to talk about, ‘What is the student quality of life going to be?’ and … a tendency to forget that McGill employs thousands of people and that they are also [affected by the budget cuts].”

“Being able to understand the parallels between the uncertainties felt by upper administration, felt by the labourers, felt by students … to see how that’s impacting everyone, and being able to have very consistent dialogue about it, I think was very helpful,” Sharpe said.

Looking at the big picture, however, Moore said he believes there needs to be an overarching change in how consultation occurs at McGill.

“[Dean Costopoulos commented] about how … when people do talk, they are listened to. And I don’t think it’s that simple,” Moore said. “I think [that] if you have that many people saying that they don’t feel heard, then there is a culture of people—of employees and students and faculty—not being heard. And so … I would really like to see McGill making concerted efforts to change that, and not just say, ‘Look, we made a committee’ [to discuss the situation].”

Joyce Murray has been considered a “dark horse” in the Liberal Party of Canada leadership race since the start of the campaign period on Nov. 14, 2012. She recently received a celebrity boost as a result of endorsements from Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki, and several advocacy groups, such as Avaaz and Leadnow.ca. 

One week before the final leadership debate, the Tribune spoke to Murray, a former Cabinet minister in the B.C. government, about her vision of a sustainable society, electoral cooperation, and what young Canadians want from their political representatives today.

McGill Tribune: In your platform, you propose that the Liberals form a one-time agreement with the NDP and the Green Party in order to defeat the Conservatives in the 2015 federal elections. Why do you think none of the other Liberal leadership candidates have proposed electoral cooperation?

Joyce Murray: I want to just connect the dots between that strategy and the purpose behind it, which is electoral reform. I strongly believe that our current first-past-the-post system is not only non-representative … [but it] is contributing to the polarized, divisive tone of working in Ottawa, which is counter-productive to addressing the conflicts [and] policy challenges of today. So, I believe we need … a more proportional representation-style system, but in order to do that, we have got to defeat Stephen Harper.… That’s what the one-time electoral cooperation is all about—it’s to avoid the vote splitting. And I was surprised that none of the other candidates support that. The majority of Liberals support that, according to a forum research poll on Feb. 6 … the majority of NDP supports it, and the majority of Greens support it.

MT: Justin Trudeau has been described as a candidate who appeals to younger voters. What are the defining parts of your platform that target youth and students, and that distinguish you from Trudeau?

JM: Many of the people that have signed up to support me are young Canadians, and they’ve signed up to support me for three separate reasons, I would conjecture. One is because young people have no patience for this divisive and negative posturing that goes on in Ottawa.… It turns them off and makes them apathetic, and they’re hungry for a change in our system, where [Members of Parliament] and parties work more collaboratively together. So … the whole cooperation strategy and electoral reform strategy has attracted tens of thousands of young people to my campaign. Secondly, is … my vision of a sustainable society. I think young people … become apathetic when they see representatives make short-term decisions … that don’t contribute to the long-term well being of our society and our country. So, I think they’re looking for a more integrated vision with policies that would move us forward in that direction of a sustainable society.… Some [young people] will of course gravitate towards Justin Trudeau. I’m not going to pretend that he doesn’t have a celebrity status—that’s very appealing. At the same time … people want to make sure that whoever becomes the leader of the party actually has a track record of delivering on leadership. And I have that. People know that [I have] a track record of tough decisions, of strategic decisions, of facing difficult situations and solving them successfully—both in the private sector and in government. So … my experience demonstrates that I’m the right person to lead the [Liberal Party].

MT: What is your reaction to Mark Garneau’s recent withdrawal from the leadership race? How does this change the nature of the race?

JM: Well, first I was surprised, and then disappointed. Because, we’re in a race to win, but we’re also in the race to bring forward ideas, to invigorate the Liberal Party through reaching out to Liberals and supporters, and I think … there was a lot that Marc could contribute over the coming months, even though he had reached a conclusion that there was no pathway to success for him. How will that change the race? I think a lot of the people that were supporting Marc were people that were looking for experience, leadership and substantive policy, and that’s exactly what I’m offering. So, I’m optimistic that many of them will take a look at me and put their support behind me.

MT: Your platform focuses heavily on sustainability, ranging from climate change policy, to food security, to digital access. Why do you think there’s been resistance to “sustainable” policy-making in the past? Do you see this changing in the next decade?

JM: Perhaps Canadians were not as aware of some of the risks of inaction [around environmental issues], and some of the economic costs of inaction. And … from a climate change perspective, [it] certainly has become more and more clear to … the public that there’s major costs and risks [to] human well being … The other side of it is that the opportunities of stimulating innovation and solutions to reducing our footprint will be lost if green investment passes Canada by … and there’s uncertainty, because we have a federal government that hasn’t made [environmental policy] a priority. So, I do see it changing. I think that Canadians are … starting to see the whole picture together: a focus on long-term, environmental sustainability is crucial for our economic and social sustainability as well.

—This interview was edited and condensed by Bea Britneff

On Mar. 14, a dozen McGill students and recent graduates gathered outside the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) Building to participate in the Military Research Walking Tour.

The walking tour was organized by Demilitarize McGill, a student-run group aimed at ending military research at the university. Kevin Paul, a first year law student and member of Demilitarize McGill, led the hour-long tour which covered three locations on campus, including the Institute of Air and Space Law, the Macdonald Engineering Building, and the seventh floor of  the 688 Sherbrooke building.

According to Paul, the purpose of the event was to spread awareness about McGill’s academic and financial participation in military research.

“[We want to] share information on what connections McGill has to weapons development in a way that addresses the lack of transparency the university has shown,” Paul said.

The tour’s first stop was the Institute of Air and Space Law, where Cadence O’Neal, U0 women’s studies, spoke about a collection of law school graduates’ theses which thank the U.S. Air Force for funding their education at McGill.

“We do know some things for sure,” O’Neal said. “These military organizations are paying for their members to come study here and produce academia that they can use to further their own interests. It is unacceptable to me, and to Demilitarize McGill, that our university is instrumental in the production of these laws that serve these institutions.”

Isaac Stethem, who graduated from McGill with an arts degree earlier this year, discussed the denied ATI requests made by students—including some Demilitarize McGill members—to the university on various subjects.

“It’s not just that those 14 people—or anyone they can be associated with—who can’t file any more [ATI] requests, but also the McGill Daily and The Link,” Stethem said.

SSMU Vice-President External Robin Reid-Fraser is one of the 14 students who filed an ATI request. She said she is not satisfied with some of McGill’s reasons for denying her ATI request, which concerns military research at the university.

“Part of the excuse [McGill is] making is that answering all these [ATI] requests requires a large amount of resources, and basically, it’s impossible for them to function because they have all this extra work due to these requests,” Reid Fraser said.

After visiting the Institute of Air and Space Law, the tour walked to a basement lab in the Macdonald Engineering Building, where the topic of discussion was the Faculty of Engineering’s history in military research dating back to the 1960s, as well as their alleged lack of transparency about weapons development. Today, the Shock Wave Physics Group and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Lab are two McGill groups which still engage in aircraft engineering and the study of detonation phenomena.

A statement on the CFD Lab website does not mention involvement or funding from the military.

“The primary objective of the McGill CFD Lab is to develop advanced numerical technologies in multidisciplinary aerodynamics in order to allow for an integrated aircraft design approach through concurrent engineering,” the website states. “Research funding is primarily contributed by the federal as well as the provincial governments through the following agencies: NSERC, CFI, FQRNT; and industries such as Bombardier, Pratt & Whitney, Bell Helicopter, and a large number of private companies.”

Demilitarize McGill claims that much of their research benefits military endeavours.

“At this moment, McGill is developing the technologies that the U.S. military will use to kill more efficiently, at the same time as profiting from various military interventions which mean new research opportunities for the CFD Lab and the Shock Wave Physics Group,” said Paul.

The tour ended at 688 Sherbrooke, where discussion turned to drone research.

“Through the industry-sponsored CFD Lab, McGill is involved in the development of technology for lethal attack drones, which are being deployed by the United States in an increasingly borderless war with no end in sight,” said Paul.

Paul emphasized Demilitarize McGill’s mandate, which is to end weapons research at McGill.

“Allowing military research at McGill to continue means allowing the university to remain complicit in war. We don’t need a policy review or a consultation forum, we don’t need more bureaucracy, we need to end military research at McGill,” said Paul.

Students and activists assembled under the rain in downtown Montreal to protest the tuition indexation announced by the Parti Québécois (PQ) at the two-day Summit on Higher Education held in late February.

In comparison to the protests of thousands that occurred more immediately after the Summit—which ended in violence and multiple arrests—last Tuesday’s demonstration featured fewer protestors and was peaceful through its entirety.

Protestors assembled at Place Émilie Gamelin at 8:00 p.m. before starting their march west along Sherbrooke. The protest then turned down Aylmer, and east on President Kennedy, before dispersing at the intersection of de Maisonneuve and St. Denis.

The planned demonstration was closely regulated by a large police force that shepherded the protestors away from side streets. The Service de Police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM) outnumbered the protestors along the route, and accompanied the march on horseback, on bikes, and in riot gear, while closely containing the crowd.

This protest was the second of what is planned to be a program of weekly marches against tuition increases, or what some are calling the “Printemps Érable 2.0.”

Students who took part in the protest expressed concern for the impact of the proposed indexation, and the prohibitive cost of education.

“Let’s say if I didn’t have the money to attend college and buy books and such, as some people won’t if the indexation goes… society will dumb down and I’m definitely against that,” Andery Kolesov, a second-year fine arts student at Dawson College, said. “I think we’re supposed to progress and go towards new horizons.”

Other students, like Meloée Prud’homme, who is completing a Master in Biology at the Université de Montréal, fears that the financial impact the indexation could have on their daily lives.

“I have two kids, I’m alone, I have to [do] my master’s degree, and I have difficulties making ends meet, so [indexing tuition is] not a solution,” she said.

A feeling of disappointment with the PQ pervaded the march.

Prud’homme said she predicts that the PQ will now begin to act like the former Liberal government in their responses to protests last year.

“[The PQ is] going to pass us off as villains while we’re here marching passively,” she said.

Revision of Tuition and Student Fees

Certain charges to students’ fees are to be reviewed by the Students’ Society of McGill Unviersity (SSMU) and faculty members.

A motion presented at the SSMU Winter General Assembly (GA) on Feb. 27 called upon SSMU to “conduct a thorough review of all tuition and fees charged in all faculties or schools to which its members belong.” The motion was passed as a consultative forum—as the GA did not meet quorum—and was brought to Council for debate.

SSMU Political Campaigns Coordinator Christopher Bangs, who moved the motion at the GA, spoke to Council on Thursday evening, explaining that his recent experience with unclarified fees in one of his classes motivated him to bring forward the motion. Bangs clarified that he drafted and presented the motion as a regular McGill student, and not as the Political Campaigns Coordinator.

Science Representative David Chaim asked for clarification on who would enact the review, which led to an amendment of the motion. The following clause was added: “Be it resolved that the SSMU Vice-President (VP) University Affairs office undertake the aforementioned review on behalf of the student association SSMU.”

The motion originally passed with seven in favour, five opposed, and 12 abstentions, but it was later brought back to the table after Inter-Residence Council Representative Sarah Southey motioned to reconsider the document on the grounds that the high number of people abstaining indicated the need for further discussion.

Councillors went on to discuss the role of faculties in reviewing tuition and fees. Senate Caucus Representative Moe Nasr pointed out that since faculty associations have more direct ties with the course fees in question, they should be the actors involved in the review.

Other councillors supported a joint project between SSMU and the faculty associations.

“It has to be done by [faculties] … but it should be done as a joint project between SSMU and the faculty associations,” SSMU VP University Affairs Haley Dinel said.

SSMU VP Clubs and Services Allison Cooper proposed an amendment for SSMU to act in accordance with faculty associations, which was added to the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 21 in favour, zero opposed, and two abstentions. SSMU VP External Robin Reid-Fraser later commended the members of Council on actively resolving the motion’s unaddressed problems.

The Fate of SARC

Dinel presented a report on the Student Advisory Resource Committee (SARC) to councillors. SARC’s purpose is to help students navigate the McGill bureaucracy so that they can have their voices heard to a greater extent  within SSMU and the administration.
SSMU Council allowed SARC a trial run over the 2012-2013 academic year to see if it would be an effective committee. The trial run ended on Mar. 15.

In her report, Dinel advised that SARC be kept as a committee, but that, in the interest of stabilization and institutionalization, it should be merged with the SSMU Policy Committee.

David Benrimoh, who is in his second year in the Faculty of Medicine, and Raphael Uribe Arango, U2 arts, are representatives of SARC. They gave a report on the Committee’s progress over the course of the academic year.

“SARC’s been bringing together students to make policies that affect all of us, that benefit all students, that also help individual students have a voice and have an impact on campus, which a lot of students didn’t feel they could because they didn’t know how to go about writing proposals, or working with SSMU,” Benrimoh said.

Following the presentations, Council adopted Dinel’s report.

Funds’ and Services’ Fees Up for Renewal

Councillors also approved three questions that will be voted upon during the special SSMU referendum period, which lasts from
Apr. 5 to Apr. 13. The Charity Fee of $0.50, the Sustainability Projects Fund fee of $0.50, and the SSMU Environment Fee of $1.25 are all up for renewal from the period of Fall 2013 to Winter 2018.

Conflict Minerals Screened as Negative Investment

Council discussed a motion that called for SSMU’s Financial Ethics Research Committee (FERC) to be “mandated to include conflict minerals as a ‘Negative Screen,’” which would then allow for SSMU to consider conflict mineral-free investments. FERC is a committee that aims to establish sustainable and ethical policies and practices for SSMU.

The motion passed with 22 in favour, zero opposed, and two abstentions.