The Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) has halted plans for the creation of a student-run café due to concerns about the financial feasibility of the project. SSMU executives say they are currently looking into alternate plans for a unique student space in the SSMU building.

The student-run café project was first proposed in 2011 as a response to the closing of the Architecture Café in Sept. 2010, and was set to open in the fall of 2013. The original leader of the project, former SSMU Vice-President Finance and Operations Shyam Patel, said that  SSMU conceived the café concept with the intention of creating more student space and jobs on campus.

“I personally liked the idea of a café space because it bridges the gap between the classroom experience and practical experience for many students,” said Patel, who has not been involved in recent decisions. “A student-run café would encourage the participation of students at a managerial level, and would provide much needed practical experience regardless of a student’s program.”

According to current SSMU Vice-President Finance and Operations Jean Paul Briggs, however, the plans to create a student-run café are complicated by an existing eight-year contract with La Prep, which states that no other food service in the building is permitted to sell specialty coffees and teas.

“[This] is problematic because it limits the offerings of the [student-run] café,” Briggs said. “In addition, there are already seven food services in the SSMU building … it would be very hard for the [student-run] café to compete and differentiate itself [with respect to] price, quality, or variety.”

In addition, the building is already at full occupancy, meaning that SSMU would have to evict a current tenant to create space for the new café. According to Briggs, this means the new café would have to make up for the lost revenue from that tenant—as well as the financial demands of renovating the space and buying the necessary equipment—in order to remain financially sustainable as an operation.

While SSMU could potentially locate the café outside of the SSMU building, Briggs was not optimistic about the practicality of such a project, based on previous student ventures like Haven Books.

“They don’t work because they are [constantly] changing management [and] employees year-to-year,” he said. “There’s very little continuity and institutional memory, and that leaves it as a very risky and troublesome opportunity for us to pursue.”

Despite these challenges, Briggs said he will pursue the project’s original goal to create a unique student space in the SSMU building, with the assistance of the students involved in last March’s sustainability case competition—an event in which teams presented their design for the café to a panel of judges.

“We want to use the creative and dedicated people who put so much time and effort into the case competition to develop an idea for a new, unique student space that meets the ideals that were set forth,” Briggs said. “I think there are many ways within that framework that we could satisfy those needs, and do something really useful without jeopardizing our operational feasibility.”

Patel expressed some concern over the stalled plans. He said that the Operations Management Committee explored these financial concerns last year, and that the limitations cited by Briggs would extend to any attempt to create student space in the building. However, he explained that there is still value in pursuing the development of a space for students.

“Any form of student space is beneficial … however, there needs to be an emphasis on student-run space rather than space for students,” Patel said. “There are many spaces that can be used and accessed by students on campus, however, students do not necessarily have the opportunity to be a part of the decision-making process in regards to how the space should be managed, used, and developed.”

These changes in plans will have the most immediate impact on the members of Fireside Café—the team that won the SSMU sustainability case competition last year, and whose design was supposed to be adopted for the student-run café. Rebecca Rosenthal said she and her team are looking forward to discussing the feasibility of the project with those involved in the decision.

“Throughout our experiences during the competition, we witnessed students, faculty, [and] administration [as they] worked harmoniously towards a common goal, and how this collaboration can lead to mutually beneficial gains,” Rosenthal said. “We hope to continue working with SSMU and many others to ensure that decisions with far-reaching impacts on student lives are made in the best and most inclusive way possible.”

Last Wednesday, in Chancellor Day Hall, Linguistic Rights McGill held their inaugural panel discussion on Canadian senate reform and its impact on linguistic minorities. The panel consisted of Stéphane Dion, former leader of the Liberal Party of Canada; Céline Hervieux-Payette, former Leader of the Opposition in the Canadian Senate; and Louis Massicotte, professor of political science at Université Laval.

“With this event, we sought to create a forum where academics, legislators and students could … share knowledge, experience, and possible solutions and outcomes in regards to the issue of reforming our chamber of sober second thought,”  Andrea Suurland, president of Linguistic Rights McGill, said.

Currently, the Governor General of Canada appoints members of the Senate on the advice of the Prime Minister. Senators can keep their positions until they reach the age of 75, and each province and territory is entitled to a specific number of seats, as determined in the Canadian Constitution.

Proposed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2011, Bill C-7 would amend the constitution to make the senate a democratically elected body. The Bill proposes that senators should be elected by each province, and be limited to a nine-year term.

According to Dion, one of the major problems with Bill C-7 is it would make both the Senate and the House of Commons essentially equal powers.

“What Steven Harper is trying to do does not exist in any place in the world,” Dion said. “I think it is very dangerous to have two elected chambers able to stop each other.”

Dion also suggested that having a powerful, elected Senate would  be a disadvantage to provinces such as British Columbia, which,  for historical reasons, have fewer representatives in the Senate.

In his opening address, Massicotte addressed the importance of the Senate to linguistic minorities, as a larger percentage of people from minorities are found in the Senate than in the House of Commons.

“From 1963 to 2006, 17 per cent of the 253 senators came from a minority language community,” Massicotte said in French. “Language minorities are almost two times better represented in the Senate than in the House of Commons.”

Massicotte explained that using province-wide elections to select senators would likely lead to fewer minority language senators, since language minority populations are often concentrated in small areas.

“We shouldn’t exaggerate, however, in presenting the Senate as the defender of linguistic minorities,” Massicotte continued. “The first line of defense for official language minorities is very clearly the Charter of Rights and [Freedoms].”

Hervieux-Payette, a sitting senator for the senatorial division of Bedford, Québec, said that the senators selected under the existing system are dedicated and experienced.

“The [high] level of education amongst Senate members is for the good of the community,” Hervieux-Payette said in French.

The panelists also gave their opinions on whether or not the Senate would ever be abolished.

“I don’t think [abolishing the Senate is] a Canadian priority,” Dion said in French. “[The Senate] isn’t a problem, even though it isn’t optimal. It’s useful.”

Massicotte agreed that abolishing the Senate is not feasible.

“You would have to go around the Constitution to abolish the Senate,” Massicotte said.

He also pointed out that the Senate could not be abolished without a referendum question, and that both the House of Commons and the Senate must approve all referendum questions.

Overall, this panel was an opportunity for students in the McGill community to learn about their country’s politics from a Quebec perspective.

“I thought [the panel] was informative,” law student Annie O’Dell said. “I don’t have an opinion on Senate reform yet, so it was nice to hear [experts] talk about it.”

Students, professors, staff, and other members of the McGill community gathered in James Square for a barbecue hosted by senior members of McGill’s administration on Sept. 13. Serving free burgers, veggie burgers, and hot dogs to approximately 3,500 people, the barbecue is the latest effort on the part of the administration to connect with students and the McGill community at large.

Susan Aberman, chief of staff for the Office of the Principal, was part of the team that helped plan the barbecue. She said her team chose to host a barbecue because of past successful lunch events.

“[A barbecue is] a nice social event for people to get together,” she said. “We did it at the end of last year … here in James Square. All the faculty came out. It was so successful [that] we thought, ‘let’s do it again.’”

This time, Julie Timmins, manager of events and stewardship for the Office of the Principal, ordered over 3,500 burgers. There were four grilling stations, each with a separate grill for veggie burgers.

Principal Heather Munroe-Blum informed students of the event by email on Sept. 6, formally inviting all members of the McGill community to join. On the day of the event, Munroe-Blum mingled with students and staff alike.

“It’s the beginning of the year [and] it’s my last year [as McGill’s principal],” Munroe-Blum told the Tribune. “[This barbecue is] a good way to start the year … just to have a community-building experience. And that’s something people have asked for—to have opportunities to just come together.”

Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson, who also greeted students at Activities Night the previous evening, explained at the barbecue that part of his job is to reach out to students and attend community events. He also touched upon the challenges that affected student-administration relationships last year, and how he hopes this year will be different.

“I’m very optimistic about this year,” he said. “It’s gotten off to a great start. I think what you see here is a reflection of people’s [attitudes] about the year.”

While many students were appreciative of the administration’s gesture, some still had reservations about the future.

“[Overcoming past challenges]  is not going to be an issue of giving out free food,” Jaime Sanderson, U4 civil engineering, said. “[It will have to involve] communicating about the issues and actually making changes that are important. However, I can appreciate [the gesture].”

Jessica Si, U3 arts and science, echoed Sanderson’s sentiments.

“As students, I think we always want … to see more of our administration,” she said. “If you think of this as a stepping-stone, it’s a great way forward. If you were to ask if this is enough, then no, of course not. I think there needs to be better relations with the students.”

Other students were just happy for a free meal. Alex Sawaya, U2 engineering, spent the hour hanging out with friends and enjoying his burger.

“It’s very nice of [the administration] to do [this],” he said. “I think they really do care about us.”

According to Doug Sweet, director of media relations for McGill, the administration has planned other student-centred events for this year,  including a pancake breakfast in a first-year residence hall, the annual skating party at McConnell Arena, and a continuation of last year’s community webcasts.