Last Friday, about 200 students, activists, and other Montreal citizens braved the snow to gather in Victoria Square to protest against the Quebec government’s Plan Nord, a project intended to develop the mining, tourism, and lumber industries in northern Quebec.

Protestors marched to the Palais des Congrès, where a job fair on employment in the natural resources industry was taking place in the convention centre. The Service de police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM) immediately declared the protest illegal for violating Law 12, which states that the organizers of a protest must file a street plan with the police in advance.

Riot police officers told protestors to disperse after several protesters sprayed graffiti on police cars and buildings, and set off small fireworks. According to The Montreal Gazette, protestors also broke a window of the Palais des Congrès.

Étienne Brossard, a student at Montreal’s L’École de technologie supérieure who attended the protest, said most of his criticism against Plan Nord relates to the mining companies and the project’s ramifications for the environment.

“The environmental consequences are so bad, that when the world looks at Canada and Quebec, they will say that this country does not care about the environment,” he said.

According to the Parti Québécois (PQ), Plan Nord is intended to be the world’s largest economic development plan in recent generations.  Launched in 2011 by the former Liberal government, the project is estimated to bring in over $80 billion in investment, as well as creating or consolidating over 20,000 jobs annually over a 25-year implementation.

While the government promises that environmental protection is a primary goal in their decision-making, many have criticized the project for encouraging industrial development at the expense of the environment. Critics have also spoken out against the project for showing a lack of respect for Indigenous land rights.

One protestor, who asked to remain anonymous, carried a green and black flag that he said represented “ecological anarchism.” He encouraged people to be more aware of the effects of Plan Nord.

“It doesn’t have to directly affect me—the problem is that everyone is just waiting for these things to affect us,” he said. “It will directly affect all of us soon enough when they choke up the rivers, [and] when we have more ecological disasters.”

Benedict Boyle, a Montreal citizen who attended the protest, argued that the public has not been properly informed of everything
involved in Plan Nord.

“There was a lack of consultation with the people,” he said. “[The project] is very nearsighted, [intented] just to make capital gain.”

Boyle said he also believes that the decision-making involved in the plan was “biased,” and not made with adequate attention to the younger generation.

“When people are involved in it for the money, and not for the future, it will affect everyone,” Boyle said.

Robin Reid-Fraser, vice-president external of the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU), said up to several hundred McGill students planned to attend Friday’s protest. She said McGill students often have conflicting views towards Plan Nord, due to the many details involved in the plan.

“A lot of students have concerns with Plan Nord, mostly for environmental reasons, or what it’s going to mean for Indigenous sovereignty around the land,” Reid-Fraser said. “Others might think it is a [beneficial] opportunity for resource expansion and economic development.”

Another protest against Plan Nord was held on Saturday morning outside the Palais des Congrès, where Friday’s forum was continuing. Saturday’s protest was also deemed illegal by the Montreal police because the route was not previously disclosed. Riot police dispersed the crowd of several hundred protestors, and arrested at least 30 people, according to CTV.

Motion regarding creation of the SSMU Equity Fund referendum question

The beginning of Thursday evening’s Council meeting involved discussion on how the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) addresses equity. SSMU Equity Commissioners Justin Koh and Shaina Agbayani reported on the work of the Student Equity Committee this past academic year, and guest speakers Sara Houshmand and Gauthamie Poolokasingham from the McGill Diversity and Equity Research Lab presented on the lack of quantitative and qualitative research showing the effects of racism on campus.

These presentations provided councillors with information relevant to the first motion discussed that evening. When the motion came up for debate, councillors voted to approve a referendum question about creating a SSMU Equity Fund, consisting of an opt-outable $0.50 fee per semester for all SSMU members. The fee would go towards creating and pursuing initiatives that support equity at McGill.

Several councillors expressed optimism that the creation of this fund would have positive effects on equity on campus, such as showing that SSMU not only supports equity, but is also committed to a position of leadership on the topic.

Following discussion, Council passed the motion. McGill students will be able to vote on this question in the Winter referendum period, which runs March 15 -22.

Motion regarding a greener McGill  

One contentious motion called for SSMU to present the university with a letter expressing its support for the university’s “divestment from companies in the tar sands, fossil fuels, and the financial institutions supporting those companies.” The motion further asked SSMU to “firmly lay out the Society’s position on divestment from companies that do business on the traditional territories of Canada’s First Nation and Inuit peoples without democratic community consent and the financial institutions supporting those companies.”

SSMU Vice-President Finance and Operations Jean Paul Briggs asked about at what point  SSMU would have to oppose the university’s engagement in shareholder action with companies involved in the Oil Sands and fossil fuels production. Chris Bangs, a spokesperson of Divest McGill who presented the motion, explained that it would only encourage engagements that result in more drastic improvements, as needed for the current stage of climate change.

Councillors also questioned the role of student groups—most notably Divest McGill—in the ongoing campaign for divestment. Science Representative David Chaim expressed concern about the execution of the campaign led by Divest McGill, saying that it does not have a proper corporate structure with mandates, and suggested that SSMU become the official leader of the campaign instead. Other councillors pointed out that Divest McGill has no authority to mandate SSMU actions.

Councillors voted to table the motion for the following Council meeting to allow for more extensive amendments.

Motion regarding increasing the diversity of student representation of the McGill Senate  

A third motion passed by Council called for SSMU to amend its by-laws to prioritize the reallocation of vacant senator seats to students in minority programs at McGill in the event that seats are left unoccupied following the nomination period for the McGill Senate.

Student positions on Senate are typically filled by election, with each faculty holding a specific number of seats. Now, any vacant seats after the nomination period will be “reallocated first to programs … including the Schools of Physical/Occupational Theory, Nursing, and Social Work, and the Interfaculty of Arts and Science, in descending order according from the program with the most students enrolled to the program with the least.”

According to SSMU President Josh Redel, this means that if no one runs in the Faculty of Religious Studies, for example, then someone from a smaller faculty will then have the chance to run, rather than giving the new seat first to someone from the science or engineering faculties.

Before it passed, Arts and Science Representative Victor Lam, who was among the movers of this motion, also amended the motion. The amendment limits these faculty senators, when collecting signatures for their nomination, to only soliciting students from their own faculty.

On Feb. 11, Provost Anthony Masi hosted three Town Hall meetings to provide the McGill community with information about the university’s current financial situation, and to receive feedback about how to deal with cuts of $19.1 million to McGill’s 2012-2013 operating budget. The Quebec government announced these cuts last December, and Quebec universities maintain that they were given no prior warning.

McGill’s deficit could rise to approximately $38 million in the 2013-2014 fiscal year unless the university reduces its spending. Masi emphasized that, while no decisions have been made at this point, all units of the university will likely be affected by the cuts.

“We’re looking at every possible way of reducing our expenditures,” he said. “We’re going to look at every single aspect of this university’s finances, and when we have better information we will bring it forward to the [McGill] community.”

Masi said McGill received additional information from the provincial government last Friday that suggested the budget cuts may not last longer than two years, but will definitely continue into 2014. According to Masi, the government has threatened to withhold the last instalment of McGill’s funding from the government for the 2014 fiscal year if the university is not able to meet at least 50 per cent of the cuts by that time.

The majority of people who attended the meetings were faculty and staff members. Participants offered many suggestions for how the administration could cut down on McGill’s expenses, including reducing the length of the academic term to 12 weeks from 13 weeks, allowing staff members to take voluntary unpaid vacation time, and making cuts to services that are unrelated to the university’s academic mission, such as food services and residences.

Pointing to the fact that the Parti Québécois (PQ) have a minority government that could face an election as early as this year, PGSS Secretary-General Jonathan Mooney asked the administration to take more of a “long-term perspective” when making cuts this year.

“We need to be very measured and very cautious in our approach, because we don’t know how long this government is going to be in power … and the proposed reinvestments aren’t totally clear right now—what effect they’re going to have, what time frame they’re going to have,” he said.

However, Masi emphasized that the government’s unpredictable decisions and the lack of clarity in their communication make it difficult for McGill to know what to expect from government funding in the coming years. Since McGill’s budget was approved last spring, the university experienced tuition increases, the revocation of these tuition increases, and, most recently, the imposition of $19.1 million budget cuts, although the PQ government has pledged to reinvest in the university system in the future.

“We cannot treat these cuts as if they are temporary, because … four times in a single year, the government has changed its mind about the way in which it plans to fund universities,” Masi said. “Promising that they are going to reinvest again in 2016 is not something on which we can bank, so we need to do something today to make sure that we don’t aggravate an already tenuous situation for McGill’s finances.”

Masi suggested the cuts are a political move by a provincial government.

“If we find $19.1 [million] in cuts, then [the government will say] we had excess in our budgets all along and we’re not underfunded,” he said. “If we don’t find those cuts … [they’ll say] we’re simply unable to manage universities appropriately. Whatever the outcome, politically the government will appear to be winners, but they’re really threatening the entire university system.”

Some participants expressed concern with the way Masi referred to the PQ, including his description of the cuts as an “arbitrary” and “callous” decision.

“The Parti Québécois is a democratically elected government,” Nancy Crowe, a library assistant at McLennan Library, said. “I feel … a little bit like they’re being demonized.”

The majority of speakers, however, expressed frustration with the PQ for imposing these cuts on Quebec universities. Associate Librarian Marc Richard said the university could make a political statement through the way they choose to implement the cuts.

“There is probably some political advantage to choose things that will cause high visibility damage,” Richard said. “If [we] say we’ll decrease the contributions to the pension plan, that’s an actual thing .… [But] let’s say we were to close the medical school, and this caused a 20 per cent decrease in the number of doctors being produced in Quebec—it’s absurd, but the point is that certain types of damage can have [a] political advantage.”

Masi emphasized that the university has to avoid making a political statement at the expense of students and employees. He encouraged the community to express their comments on “the Red Blog,” email [email protected], or talk to their chair, dean, or unit head.

“We know what our priorities are and we have to try to protect them in order to ensure that the university will come out of this not weakened to the point of having to collapse,” he said. “We have to come out of this crisis stronger than we went in.”

Jason Opal, a history professor who attended one of the meetings, said he thought they did a good job of presenting McGill’s position on the cuts.

“I think the Town Halls will be very useful for understanding the financial predicament McGill now faces,” he said. “I just don’t know how useful or influential they will be in terms of coming up with possible solutions. That remains to be seen.”

—Additional reporting by Bea Britneff.