On Dec. 11, 2012, U3 Philosophy student Eli Freedman filed a complaint with the McGill Senate Committee on Student Grievances against the draft of a permanent McGill protocol on demonstrations, assemblies, and protests. The grievance calls for the draft protocol to be nullified immediately, and for Vice Principal (Administration and Finance) Michael Di Grappa and Provost Anthony C. Masi to issue a formal, public apology to the McGill community.

The draft protocol is an evolution of a provisional protocol implemented on Feb. 12, 2012, following a five-day student occupation of the sixth floor of the James Administration Building. The draft protocol, which was released to the McGill community on Nov. 30, outlines permanent parameters for how protests and similar activities may occur on University premises, and under what circumstances they would or would not be condoned.

Critics of the draft protocol, including Freedman, have condemned the document as vague, open to interpretation, and for stepping on the rights of McGill community members to express political dissent. Freedman argues that it potentially violates “students’ human rights covered under international and provincial law.”

“It clearly follows from … the Charter of Students’ Rights that there exists a special fiduciary responsibility between the University and students to ensure that students’ rights are not infringed upon through administrative decisions,” Freedman wrote in the document submitted to the Committee on Student Grievances.

“It is an unacceptable breach of trust on behalf of the respondents to restrict the fundamental freedoms of all students in response to the actions of a small number of students,” he argued.

Freedman explained that his motivation for filing a complaint goes beyond the nullification of the draft protocol.

“The protocol really just makes [explicit] what was already implicit—[the McGill administration’s] lack of will to tolerate disruption,” he said. “The goal is to … get rid of what is explicit, [but also] to change what has [been] and still is implicit … to make it possible for protestors in the future to create [change].”

Freedman described his experience with compiling and filing a student grievance as “very frustrating.” Freedman met separately with McGill Ombudsperson Spencer Boudreau on Feb. 12, and former associate dean of arts (student affairs) Andre Costopoulos on Oct. 17, to discuss the provisional and draft protocols, respectively.

“[My meetings with them] were pretty fruitless,” Freedman said. “It’s quite ambiguous what the actual [draft] protocol means … [Costopoulos] told me that, in his capacity as Associate Dean, he would never even use the protocol, because it’s unclear what it means or what level of authority it has.”

Freedman is currently waiting for an official response to his complaint from the Senate Committee on Student Grievances.

In the meantime, Freedman has taken further action, and requested that Costopoulos—who is now Dean of Students—and Professor Paul Thomassin, chair of the Committee, ask that the Board of Governors (BoG) delay their vote on the adoption of the protocol, which is scheduled for Jan. 29.

“There’s no rush to make the Protocol permanent,” Freedman said. “[The Board] shouldn’t vote on a [protocol] that [does not] meet McGill’s requirements now that it’s been challenged.”

As he has not yet recevied an official response from the Committee, Freedman does not believe Di Grappa and Masi have read his grievance.

Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) President Josh Redel said he and SSMU Vice-President University Affairs Haley Dinel—who both sit as student senators on McGill Senate—are working on their reaction to the draft protocol’s presentation to Senate on
Jan. 23.

“We are working on ways of figuring out what more students think before saying [our position],” he said. “I am confused as to the need to have a protocol such as this, especially one that attempts to define ‘peacefulness.’ I think trying to define ‘peacefulness’ in such a dynamic environment … is an exercise in futility.”

Freedman said he believes student senators will form a strong opposition to the protocol on Jan. 23, and he hopes that McGill professors will also stand up against the document.

According to Freedman, a protest against the protocol is planned for Jan. 23.

The McGill administration could not be reached for comment.

On Jan. 4, David Egilman, a clinical professor in the department of family medicine at Brown University, debated members of the McGill community on the topic of asbestos research at McGill. The presentation, which  Egilman called a “counter-conference,” meant to address a talk given by McGill Epidemiology Professor Bruce Case earlier that day.

According to Egilman, the purpose of the counter-conference was to “present critical information to the public regarding McGill’s ongoing refusal to address damning evidence of asbestos research improprieties, and improper conduct by former Chair of McGill’s Epidemiology Department, Dr. [John] Corbett McDonald.”

Egilman focused primarily on discounting the body of research done by McDonald and his team of researchers into Quebec asbestos mines from the 1960s to the late 1990s. In a paper published in 1998 that McDonald co-wrote, he indicates that, when taken at face value, the data he collected proves there is a protective effect of asbestos.

“That means asbestos protected against the effect they were studying, and the effect they were studying was lung cancer,” Egilman said.

According to Egilman, McDonald’s research is still used today by asbestos companies to advocate for the use of asbestos in countries like Brazil and India.

“This is a policy problem,” Egilman said. “This is not some esoteric academic issue. Asbestos is being sold, and mined, and dumped in developing countries.”

Egilman expressed his belief that the only way to prevent this research from being used by asbestos companies is for McGill to withdraw the 1998 paper.

McGill professors who attended Egilman’s talk debated with Egilman on this point, arguing that Egilman is targeting the wrong place to get the paper withdrawn.

“Your job now is no longer with McGill University,” Eduardo Franco, McGill’s interim chair of oncology, said. “If this is truly an important job at hand for the advocacy you propose, which I think is misdirected, I would work in a different direction with advocacy groups and with professional sciences … [your job] is with the journals.”

Franco also expressed the belief that the university should not withdraw the paper because it can provide insights into research flaws that could be helpful for the future.

Egilman alleged that certain data linking asbestos to cancer was disregarded in the study, which he said altered the results significantly.

“When the data started to show asbestos caused lung cancer rather than protected against lung cancer, [McDonald’s team] stopped,” Egilman said. “If they couldn’t delete the data that didn’t make sense, they just threw it away … This is not arbitrary. This is done with a purpose.”

According to the CBC, McDonald received nearly one million dollars from asbestos companies as funding for his research. CBC released a documentary in February 2012 that argued that asbestos companies influenced McDonald’s results.

Last year, McGill conducted an internal investigation into McDonald’s research. The investigation was led by McGill’s Research Integrity Officer Abraham Fuks, who concluded that no research misconduct had occurred. Some McGill professors defended McDonald’s research when Egilman argued that the results of the research in question may have been manipulated.

“McGill has already investigated itself, and has come up with the final conclusion that there was no evidence of wrong-doing,” Franco said. “This was based on the reality of how you [conducted] research back at that time.”

Wayne Wood, an occupational health lecturer at McGill, also expressed concerns with Egilman’s accusations. He accused Egilman of twisting the words of McDonald’s conclusions.

“I think the presentation is flawed,” Wood said. “I didn’t react with the same amount of outrage as [Egilman] simply because I do not over-interpret the statements as [saying] something that they were not intended to say.”

Wood pointed to Egilman’s accusation that McDonald had said there was a “protection factor” with asbestos exposure.

“[McDonald] didn’t say there is a protection factor,” Wood said. “He said ‘taken at face value’—in other words, if you didn’t know better and you just looked at the data, it might suggest there is a protection factor. But he didn’t say there was a protection factor. You did.”

Egilman said he was pleased with the debates that occurred during his presentation following the talk. He also said it has been difficult getting his message through to members of the McGill community.

“I think it’s hard to call the emperor out,” Egilman said, in reference to McDonald. “I’m not going after McDonald. I am trying to get the truth out about a study in a way that … will make sense.”

Egilman paid for a room in the Faculty Club himself in order to speak. Six scientists from both the United States and Canada sent a letter to Joseph Cox, the coordinator the Epidemiology Seminar Series, requesting that Egilman be given time to present alongside Case. The request was not granted.

Students, faculty, administrators, and other members of the educational community within, and outside of McGill debated diverse aspects of the role of post-secondary education in Quebec, and at McGill, in early December. The two-day education summit was organized by the Post-Graduate Students’ Society of McGill University (PGSS), and the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU).

According to PGSS Secretary General Jonathan Mooney, the summit was intended to promote discussion on topics that will be under scrutiny at the upcoming Quebec summit on higher education, which the Parti Québécois has said will be held in February.

“We felt that in the aftermath of last year’s conflicts and in anticipation of the Quebec summit, it was important to have a nuanced discussion about important topics regarding higher education in Quebec,” Mooney said. “It’s valuable to hear different perspectives on these topics because it offers stakeholders a chance to explore these complexities, and try to think of creative solutions.”

PGSS Vice-President External Errol Salamon said the PGSS originally intended to create a document based on discussion at the summit, but have changed their plans due to low attendence and the cancellation of several guests, such as  representative from ASSÉ.

“That said, we are reviewing some of our policies (and hoping to create policies) about key issues, including tuition and ancillary fees, which we hope to pass in Council this semester,” he said. “The summit will certainly inform our positions.”

In one panel, Mooney moderated a discussion that focused on the question of who “should” finance universities. Panellists included McGill Principal Heather Munroe-Blum, SSMU Vice-President External Robin Reid-Fraser, former PGSS Vice-President External Mariève Isabel, and Professor John Galaty, the former president of the McGill Association of University Teachers (MAUT).

Much of the discussion focused on how tuition costs affect students’ ability to attend university. Reid-Fraser argued that increasing tuition prices decrease accessibility, and pointed to higher tuition as a barrier for the social mobility of those from lower income families.

“Even if you have financial aid, there is … the fear of accumulating debt, particularly in a position where the economic picture is not very stable; and it’s not guaranteed that students coming out of university with an undergraduate or graduate degree are going to be able to move quickly into the workplace and pay off that debt,” she said.

Galaty, however, argued that free or low tuition is “inequitable” in certain ways.

“What the present tuition system represents is a massive benefit to those families that are more wealthy, because essentially, they are able to achieve a level of tuition payment, which is equivalent to those who have true financial need,” he said. “If you have a very low, stable tuition fee, what you’ve done is provide tuition relief to all those who don’t need it.”

As a way to potentially minimize this problem, Galaty pointed to American university applications, where students must submit a form that allows the university to identify those who are in need of financial assistance. He said another option is to give tax credits for tuition on a graduated scale that refunds money to those of lower income backgrounds.

According to Isabel, society as a whole benefits greatly from the education of students. She cited a study by the Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec (FEUQ), which states that every dollar the Quebec government invests in a graduate student returns $5.30.

Munroe-Blum expressed agreement that certain groups of students should receive financial support, including research, masters, and PhD students, as well as “qualified students” who can’t afford to pay otherwise. She said students should pay “to the best of their ability,” but also emphasized the diverse factors that affect a student’s ability to go to university.

“The social milieu has a far greater impact on who goes to university than tuition,” Munroe-Blum said. “Frankly, I am very concerned about the results of the educational system, and I think something we really need to focus on is actually looking at who graduates. Do those who are the first in their family to go to university graduate?”

Reid-Fraser concluded by drawing attention to the complex nature of barriers to secondary education, and the need to extend the discussion of accessibility beyond tuition.

“Financial barriers are a very important thing to continue to talk about, but another long-term project is to re-envision how we make the information … available [here] to people who maybe can’t sit through lectures every day or learn from a book as easily,” she said. “I know a lot of friends who did not go to university, simply because their learning style is not suited to being in a classroom, and yet, there is so much valuable information that we get when we’re in a classroom or at a university.”

Teacher strike cancelled in Ontario

On Jan. 9, Ontario Education Minister Lauren Broten imposed a two-year contract on teachers and support staff under Bill 115, a controversial anti-strike bill. Ontario teachers’ unions argue that the legislation is unconstitutional, and have declared their intention to contend it in court.

Elementary school teachers initially announced that they would stage a one-day “political protest” against the decision last Friday, but the plans were discontinued after the Ontario Labour Relations Board ruled that the protest would be illegal. Under Ontario labour laws, engaging in illegal strike actions can result in a penalty of up to $2,000 per person and up to $25,000 for a trade union.

The timing of the ruling, which came at 4 a.m. on the day of the planned protest, caused confusion among parents and school boards, since several schools had declared closure in anticipation of the protest. As a result of the ruling, many boards decided to open schools, with only eight of 72 Ontario school boards opting not to hold classes on Friday.

Harper meets with Assembly of First Nations

Last Friday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper met with members of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) following nationwide protests as part of the Idle No More movement.

Attending First Nations leaders included Attawapiskat First Nation Chief Theresa Spence, whose hunger strike has been raising awareness of Indigenous issues and support for the Idle No More movement since it began in December 2012.

After the meeting, AFN National Chief Shawn Atleo expressed optimism about their progress, saying that “for the first time, [Harper] provided a clear mandate for high-level talks on treaty implementation.”

However, some Chiefs have criticized the government for failing to meet their demand for a joint meeting with both Harper and Governor General David Johnston.

During the meeting, demonstrations continued across Canada in support of the Idle No More movement. Leaders have said there will continue to be protests in the coming weeks, and Spence will continue her hunger strike until her original demand for a joint meeting is granted.

Applebaum fights corruption

In the next few weeks, Montreal will have a new anti-corruption unit designed to investigate city affairs, according to an announcement made by Mayor Michael Applebaum on Jan. 11. The group, which will be the first of its kind in Canada, will consist of 20 members. Although most employees will be Montreal police officers, the unit will exist and act independently from the city.

The new unit is called Escouade de protection de l’intégrité municiaple (EPIM, or the Squad to Protect Municipal Integrity). Estimated costs for its first year of operation are $3 million, including costs for paying staff and establishing EPIM’s headquarters.

With this move, Applebaum said he seeks to send a warning to “profiteers and schemers,” who attempt to manipulate construction contracts to their benefit. Although some members of the official opposition party Vision Montreal have asked if this step comes too late given the history of corruption in Montreal, many members have praised Applebaum for creating an additional barrier to the spread of corruption in the city.

Government bureaucrats caught cheating

According to documents uncovered last week, Ottawa officials reprimanded almost 60 federal bureaucrats for allegedly plagiarising on an exam in a 2010 job application for a government position in the information technology sector.

Instances of plagiarism are normally kept confidential due to privacy concerns. However, one applicant decided to challenge the accusation in federal court, causing the records to be released.

The exam was distributed over the Internet to more than 2,000 applicants. Although applicants were allowed to use the Internet during the test, they were prohibited from copying and pasting text into their exams. Those who marked the test alleged that almost one in every twenty people who filled out the test had plagiarised in this manner.

The bureaucrats were not fired for their actions; however, they received reprimands, and were halted in any potential job advances. In addition, the government informed the applicants’ superiors of their plagiarism on the exam. Critics point to this incident as an indication that plagiarism in government is a greater problem than acknowledged.

Military planes may have defects

Questions arose last week regarding the threat posed by counterfeit Chinese parts in the cockpits of some of the Hercules planes recently bought by the Canadian military.

CBC News alleges that the counterfeit electronic chips could cause the instrument panels of the aircraft to turn blank during flight. If these parts become defective, Canadian military pilots risk flying blindly into combat zones without important information such as altitude, speed, location, or fuel supply.

The CBC says it has received documents, indicating that the military became aware of the counterfeit parts as early as July 2012; but the military has not disclosed the information, despite a CBC News investigation. The Department of National Defence denies that the parts pose a threat, but notes they will replace the parts as necessary.

Neither the manufacturer nor the electronics company that made the system has provided comments on the allegations.